Sharing knowledge at an individual level

8.4.1 Cincinnati

Cincinnati set up team briefs and brunches to allow learning to take place informally.

This was particularly done where there had been a health and safety incident to ensure that the individuals involved shared the experience with others. Furthermore, Cincinnati’s team leader actively introduced different individuals with different experiences to these brunches and encouraged them to discuss what they were doing and if their knowledge might be of benefit to another project. This approach aligned with Chua’s (2002) position of utilizing the social backdrop to allow knowledge exchange.

8.4.2 Tennessee

Tennessee ensured that learning was captured and shared between individuals working on the same customer account through having a ‘core team’ which managed the knowledge. This helped when customers required Tennessee to work from various locations throughout the country providing largely the same product. The core team helped to ensure that the project delivery teams: “…certainly [only make] one mistake and not fifty [identical] mistakes…”, said Tennessee’s MD.

Tennessee accepted that its employees related more easily to small groups of individuals than they do to the organization as a whole, a position supported by much research (Restubog et al, 2008; Sheard & Kakabadse, 2002). This tenuous relationship, the directors felt, was something alleviated through the use of an innovative organizational structure, with one director commenting:

…the strength of having local businesses that are actually focused on the local clientele and relate to the needs of the customers in that particular region. But, they all actually mirror each other in what they do, in that the processes are the same. And through an overlay, which we call ‘National Business’, we actually have a mechanism to make sure that people are actually all pulling on the same end of the rope and getting information across from A to B.

Therefore, Tennessee has encouraged the more small scale relationships to enable individuals to share more readily and then used business process to take the knowledge further around the organization. In addition, Tennessee actively encouraged particular individuals with key knowledge to share on a specific and targeted basis. An example of this was two healthcare experts in different parts of the country coming together to exchange best practice and thereby increase both experts’ knowledge.

8.4.3 Indianapolis

Indianapolis had struggled in getting people to engage with each other and exchange knowledge. It did appreciate that it had good people, but it had yet to motivate them to exchange ideas. It is questionable, however, as to whether individual knowledge exchanges should be ‘push’ motivated or whether the culture should be such that it enables it (Senge et al, 1990, 1994). The Indianapolis focus group noted that the organization had put in place a flat structure and tried to encourage the exchange of knowledge through embedding it within the culture. It may be that the lack of success was down to a lack of supporting processes. A member of the focus group commented:

“…I can't think of a formal process that we've got that we sit down and share things...but really it's more a case of, we do it in team meetings, we do it in project reviews…”

Informally, Indianapolis’ project managers continued to communicate ideas to each other throughout the year and the MD regularly attended sites to help with knowledge exchange. Such attendance allowed an informal channel for knowledge to flow from project site to project site despite the site teams themselves changing slightly for each new project. Indianapolis tried to keep a mixture of maintaining an existing team from one project for the next one whilst rotating some individuals to help employees gain varied experience.

8.4.4 Chicago

Most of Chicago’s exchange of knowledge outside of the Minnesota commission was carried out on an informal basis through business communication. The directors did try to facilitate this exchange by pointing individuals in the direction of people within the organization who may have knowledge that might be of use in a particular

situation. One director suggested that Chicago’s entirely open plan office assists with communication, stating:

“I know it's not perfect by any means but you know it's also part of being in an open plan office. I don't have an office. I think there's so much that you sort of latch onto just because you overhear someone talking about it.”

The open plan office as a facilitator or communication exchange appeared completely consistent with Ding (2008) who suggested that managers took this view although employees took the view that open plan offices were too noisy.

In addition, Chicago noted that the consistency of the team, particularly the Minnesota delivery team, was an advantage to easier knowledge exchange. The constant communication and the fact that individuals know each other and each other’s experience, skills and current workload were the enablers mentioned. It was interesting that Chicago’s focus group viewed a low team turnover as an advantage, with one member commenting:

“…it’s really helpful having that consistent team working on it and not constantly swapping people around….”

By contrast, its directors viewed it as a potential weakness to getting new knowledge into the business. It appeared that an ‘ideal’ turnover level was required to achieve both ends satisfactorily, as discussed by Siebert & Zubanov (2009).

8.4.5 Dallas

Dallas suggested individual knowledge exchange was so inherent in the business that it did not need to be actively encouraged, enabled or managed by the business itself.

It was suggested that the passion for the business, the customer and the customer’s stakeholders felt by Dallas’ employees meant that they were all willing to share knowledge and ideas. Furthermore, Dallas’ directors suggested that it did not want to impose a formal knowledge exchange structure upon what it viewed as being its creative people for fear of stifling the knowledge exchange which already takes place.

One director stated:

“…we don’t have, deliberately don’t have a huge amount of process. We are very nervous of process. We think it stifles personal ability.”

Although no evidence was offered as to why Dallas thought that to be the case, it was similar to a position held by Pech (2001).

In addition, Dallas brought in individual experts when necessary to replenish the business knowledge capacity where customer needs demanded it. Dallas’ team leader for the Washington commission confided:

“I know [name] at [Dallas subsidiary organization] is an expert on glazing and he knows us all, we all know each other and we trust each other.”

Dallas’ approach suggested a willingness to collaborate with related organizations in order to widen or deepen the service offering to the customer. In addition, Dallas had recently hired a modular construction expert to roll out this expertise to the rest of the business.

8.4.6 Kansas

Kansas was another organization with a very open culture where anyone could talk with anyone else, which aided knowledge exchange. The directors sometimes walked the site and asked individuals to: “…show us what they’ve done. Explain to us what they’re working on.” A ‘go and see’ approach (Womack & Jones, 2005) helped the directors understand where activities could be done better and reminded directors that managing the organization can not just be about sitting in the office watching the bottom line.