ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

In modern economic society, organizations’ competitiveness relies heavily on their ability to leverage and manage knowledge rather than in physical assets, some authors refer even though the concepts of knowledge management (KM) are being well implemented in the industrial sector, the construction segment, however, appears to have some difficulties in adopting the practices and strategies offered by KM. It is known that the construction sector (CS) is experiencing a time of instability and recession, and one of the causes of this may involve the lack of adaptation to knowledge era. Therefore, this paper, based on literature review, gives an overview of inhibitor and the facilitator factors of knowledge sharing (KS) with the objective to answer two questions: which of the KS inhibitors and facilitators characterize the CS? has the CS its specifics KS inhibitors and facilitators? It’s presented a framework in order to verify the existence of exclusive factors of the sector. At this point it is possible to suggest that CS has mainly organizational factors as inhibitors and the facilitator’s factors are almost individual. The facilitating factors might be the consequence of an effective and successful KS strategy and can be seen as guidelines to improve the construction industry organizational performance.
Content may be subject to copyright.
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 998–1005
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information
Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social
Care Information Systems and Technologies.
10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.129
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information
Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social
Care Information Systems and Technologies.
10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.129
10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.129
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientic committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies.
1877-0509
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems /
ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems
and Technologies.
CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN -
International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health
and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies, CENTERIS / ProjMAN / HCist 2017, 8-10
November 2017, Barcelona, Spain
Knowledge sharing at the construction sector facilitators and
inhibitors
Carmem Leala, Sandra Cunhab,c
*
, Iolanda Coutob
aCentro de Estudos Transdisciplinares para o Desenvolvimento (CETRAD), University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portuga l
bUniversity of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
c C-MADE - Centre of Materials and Building Technologies, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
Abstract
In modern economic society, organizations’ competitiveness relies heavily on their ability to leverage and manage knowledge
rather than in physical assets, some authors refer even though the concepts of knowledge management (KM) are being well
implemented in the industrial sector, the construction segment, however, appears to have some difficulties in adopting the practices
and strategies offered by KM. It is known that the construction sector (CS) is experiencing a time of instability and recession, and
one of the causes of this may involve the lack of adaptation to knowledge era. Therefore, this paper, based on literature review,
gives an overview of inhibitor and the facilitator factors of knowledge sharing (KS) with the objective to answer two questions:
which of the KS inhibitors and facilitators characterize the CS? has the CS its specifics KS inhibitors and facilitators? It’s presented
a framework in order to verify the existence of exclusive factors of the sector. At this point it is possible to suggest that CS has
mainly organizational factors as inhibitors and the facilitator’s factors are almost individual. The facilitating factors might be the
consequence of an effective and successful KS strategy and can be seen as guidelines to improve the construction industry
organizational performance.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies.
Keywords: Knowledge Sharing; Inhibitor Factors; Facilitator Factors; Organizational Performance; Construction Industry.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: spereira@utad.pt
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems /
ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems
and Technologies.
CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN -
International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health
and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies, CENTERIS / ProjMAN / HCist 2017, 8-10
November 2017, Barcelona, Spain
Knowledge sharing at the construction sector facilitators and
inhibitors
Carmem Leala, Sandra Cunhab,c*, Iolanda Coutob
aCentro de Estudos Transdisciplinares para o Desenvolvimento (CETRAD), University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portuga l
bUniversity of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
c C-MADE - Centre of Materials and Building Technologies, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
Abstract
In modern economic society, organizations’ competitiveness relies heavily on their ability to leverage and manage knowledge
rather than in physical assets, some authors refer even though the concepts of knowledge management (KM) are being well
implemented in the industrial sector, the construction segment, however, appears to have some difficulties in adopting the practices
and strategies offered by KM. It is known that the construction sector (CS) is experiencing a time of instability and recession, and
one of the causes of this may involve the lack of adaptation to knowledge era. Therefore, this paper, based on literature review,
gives an overview of inhibitor and the facilitator factors of knowledge sharing (KS) with the objective to answer two questions:
which of the KS inhibitors and facilitators characterize the CS? has the CS its specifics KS inhibitors and facilitators? It’s presented
a framework in order to verify the existence of exclusive factors of the sector. At this point it is possible to suggest that CS has
mainly organizational factors as inhibitors and the facilitator’s factors are almost individual. The facilitating factors might be the
consequence of an effective and successful KS strategy and can be seen as guidelines to improve the construction industry
organizational performance.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies.
Keywords: Knowledge Sharing; Inhibitor Factors; Facilitator Factors; Organizational Performance; Construction Industry.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: spereira@utad.pt
2 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
Introduction
Knowledge is a term with different meanings in different contexts. For example, according to Webster’s dictionary,
knowledge is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity, something that has been acquired through
experience or association, as referred by Serna1. Others authors, like Davenport and Prusak2 define knowledge as a
mixture of experiences, values, contextual and specialized information, originating from and applied in each individual
in the knowledge, and which provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information.
There are numerous definitions of knowledge in literature that confirm that knowledge originates and resides in
people1. As suggested by Nonaka and Takeuchi3, knowledge can be classified as tacit/informal and explicit/formal.
Nonaka4 define knowledge as showed in Table 1.
Table 1 Explicit and Tacit Knowledge definition.
Explicit Knowledge
Tacit Knowledge
This is the type of knowledge that can be expressed in a formal and
systematic language, and be shared as data, specific formulas, details,
manuals or specialists.
Knowledge organisations perform knowledge processes, using their primary resources of intellectual capital, their
key input of information and their effectiveness in performing these processes depends on their knowledge
capabilities5. Egbu6 believes that, for leaders of construction projects and organisations, the processes by which
knowledge is created or acquired, communicated, applied and utilised must be effectively managed.
Alavi and Leidner7 remind that according to Davenport and Prusak2, most KM projects have one of three aims: (1)
to make knowledge visible and show the role of knowledge in an organization, mainly through maps, yellow pages,
and hypertext tools, (2) to develop a knowledge-intensive culture by encouraging and aggregating behaviours such as
KS and proactively seeking and offering knowledge; (3) to build a knowledge infrastructure-not only a technical
system, but a web of connections among people given space, time, tools, and encouragement to interact and
collaborate. This paper will focus on the KM second aim: the KS, because understanding the effectiveness of formal
and informal approaches to KS may assist organisations in taking full advantage of this practices and achieve better
performance levels8.
According to Robinson12 the CS represents one of the biggest resistant in terms of implementing KM strategies.
These authors defend that construction firms (CFs) are often reluctant to invest in new initiatives or innovative
approaches, citing low profit margins often militating against investment in research and development. Mohd Zin and
Egbu8 follow the same line of reasoning, highlighting a variety of factors, most notably the cultural practices.
Regarding this, the main purpose of this paper is to emphasize the facilitating and inhibiting factors of KS at the
construction industry firms and its impact on their performance.
To achieve more specific results, it will be separated individual KS from organizational KS factors, since its
intended with this paper the classification and improvement at the organizational level of the sector under analysis.
In this way, based on former literature, it will be developed a representative framework of a set of facilitators and
inhibitors to KS practices, distinguishing between individual and organisational factors. Throughout this literature
review it will be presented an overview of those who are specific connected to CFs.
Methodology
As previously stated this paper is based on literature review and according to Brereton15, a literature review has
three primary phases:
(1) Planning of the review;
(2) Conducting the review; and
(3) Documenting the results.
In this way, the paper will summarize all of these phases to answer the two research questions that were
formulated for this investigation:
(RSQ1) Which of the KS inhibitors and facilitators characterize the construction industry?
To get an overview of different types of KS challenges reported in literature and identify the challenges that are
most frequently reported in the context of this specific sector.
(RSQ2) Has the construction industry its specifics KS inhibitors and facilitators?
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 998–1005 999
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems /
ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems
and Technologies.
CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN -
International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health
and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies, CENTERIS / ProjMAN / HCist 2017, 8-10
November 2017, Barcelona, Spain
Knowledge sharing at the construction sector facilitators and
inhibitors
Carmem Leala, Sandra Cunhab,c*, Iolanda Coutob
aCentro de Estudos Transdisciplinares para o Desenvolvimento (CETRAD), University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portuga l
bUniversity of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
c C-MADE - Centre of Materials and Building Technologies, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
Abstract
In modern economic society, organizations’ competitiveness relies heavily on their ability to leverage and manage knowledge
rather than in physical assets, some authors refer even though the concepts of knowledge management (KM) are being well
implemented in the industrial sector, the construction segment, however, appears to have some difficulties in adopting the practices
and strategies offered by KM. It is known that the construction sector (CS) is experiencing a time of instability and recession, and
one of the causes of this may involve the lack of adaptation to knowledge era. Therefore, this paper, based on literature review,
gives an overview of inhibitor and the facilitator factors of knowledge sharing (KS) with the objective to answer two questions:
which of the KS inhibitors and facilitators characterize the CS? has the CS its specifics KS inhibitors and facilitators? It’s presented
a framework in order to verify the existence of exclusive factors of the sector. At this point it is possible to suggest that CS has
mainly organizational factors as inhibitors and the facilitator’s factors are almost individual. The facilitating factors might be the
consequence of an effective and successful KS strategy and can be seen as guidelines to improve the construction industry
organizational performance.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies.
Keywords: Knowledge Sharing; Inhibitor Factors; Facilitator Factors; Organizational Performance; Construction Industry.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: spereira@utad.pt
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems /
ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems
and Technologies.
CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN -
International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health
and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies, CENTERIS / ProjMAN / HCist 2017, 8-10
November 2017, Barcelona, Spain
Knowledge sharing at the construction sector facilitators and
inhibitors
Carmem Leala, Sandra Cunhab,c*, Iolanda Coutob
aCentro de Estudos Transdisciplinares para o Desenvolvimento (CETRAD), University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portuga l
bUniversity of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
c C-MADE - Centre of Materials and Building Technologies, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal
Abstract
In modern economic society, organizations’ competitiveness relies heavily on their ability to leverage and manage knowledge
rather than in physical assets, some authors refer even though the concepts of knowledge management (KM) are being well
implemented in the industrial sector, the construction segment, however, appears to have some difficulties in adopting the practices
and strategies offered by KM. It is known that the construction sector (CS) is experiencing a time of instability and recession, and
one of the causes of this may involve the lack of adaptation to knowledge era. Therefore, this paper, based on literature review,
gives an overview of inhibitor and the facilitator factors of knowledge sharing (KS) with the objective to answer two questions:
which of the KS inhibitors and facilitators characterize the CS? has the CS its specifics KS inhibitors and facilitators? It’s presented
a framework in order to verify the existence of exclusive factors of the sector. At this point it is possible to suggest that CS has
mainly organizational factors as inhibitors and the facilitator’s factors are almost individual. The facilitating factors might be the
consequence of an effective and successful KS strategy and can be seen as guidelines to improve the construction industry
organizational performance.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies.
Keywords: Knowledge Sharing; Inhibitor Factors; Facilitator Factors; Organizational Performance; Construction Industry.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: spereira@utad.pt
2 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
Introduction
Knowledge is a term with different meanings in different contexts. For example, according to Webster’s dictionary,
knowledge is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity, something that has been acquired through
experience or association, as referred by Serna1. Others authors, like Davenport and Prusak2 define knowledge as a
mixture of experiences, values, contextual and specialized information, originating from and applied in each individual
in the knowledge, and which provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information.
There are numerous definitions of knowledge in literature that confirm that knowledge originates and resides in
people1. As suggested by Nonaka and Takeuchi3, knowledge can be classified as tacit/informal and explicit/formal.
Nonaka4 define knowledge as showed in Table 1.
Table 1 Explicit and Tacit Knowledge definition.
Explicit Knowledge
Tacit Knowledge
This is the type of knowledge that can be expressed in a formal and
systematic language, and be shared as data, specific formulas, details,
manuals or specialists.
A more subjective knowledge, based on experience, it is invisible and
hardly expressed, communicated, perceived or measured.
Knowledge organisations perform knowledge processes, using their primary resources of intellectual capital, their
key input of information and their effectiveness in performing these processes depends on their knowledge
capabilities5. Egbu6 believes that, for leaders of construction projects and organisations, the processes by which
knowledge is created or acquired, communicated, applied and utilised must be effectively managed.
Alavi and Leidner7 remind that according to Davenport and Prusak2, most KM projects have one of three aims: (1)
to make knowledge visible and show the role of knowledge in an organization, mainly through maps, yellow pages,
and hypertext tools, (2) to develop a knowledge-intensive culture by encouraging and aggregating behaviours such as
KS and proactively seeking and offering knowledge; (3) to build a knowledge infrastructure-not only a technical
system, but a web of connections among people given space, time, tools, and encouragement to interact and
collaborate. This paper will focus on the KM second aim: the KS, because understanding the effectiveness of formal
and informal approaches to KS may assist organisations in taking full advantage of this practices and achieve better
performance levels8.
According to Robinson12 the CS represents one of the biggest resistant in terms of implementing KM strategies.
These authors defend that construction firms (CFs) are often reluctant to invest in new initiatives or innovative
approaches, citing low profit margins often militating against investment in research and development. Mohd Zin and
Egbu8 follow the same line of reasoning, highlighting a variety of factors, most notably the cultural practices.
Regarding this, the main purpose of this paper is to emphasize the facilitating and inhibiting factors of KS at the
construction industry firms and its impact on their performance.
To achieve more specific results, it will be separated individual KS from organizational KS factors, since its
intended with this paper the classification and improvement at the organizational level of the sector under analysis.
In this way, based on former literature, it will be developed a representative framework of a set of facilitators and
inhibitors to KS practices, distinguishing between individual and organisational factors. Throughout this literature
review it will be presented an overview of those who are specific connected to CFs.
Methodology
As previously stated this paper is based on literature review and according to Brereton15, a literature review has
three primary phases:
(1) Planning of the review;
(2) Conducting the review; and
(3) Documenting the results.
In this way, the paper will summarize all of these phases to answer the two research questions that were
formulated for this investigation:
(RSQ1) Which of the KS inhibitors and facilitators characterize the construction industry?
To get an overview of different types of KS challenges reported in literature and identify the challenges that are
most frequently reported in the context of this specific sector.
(RSQ2) Has the construction industry its specifics KS inhibitors and facilitators?
1000 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 998–1005
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000 3
To gain an understanding of the KS practices already implemented in CS.
All the investigation will be based on literature review itself, the verification of the data obtained through it and
the conclusions inherent to it.
Literature Review
According to Singh and Kant17, the implementation of KM in the organizations, especially the implementation of
KS strategies, represents one of the biggest attractions for researchers and specialists, simply due to the essential part
that KS plays for any organization that wish to compete with success.
KM is largely regarded as a process involving various activities. Slight discrepancies in the delineation of the
processes appear in the literature, namely in terms of the number and labeling of processes, rather than the underlying
concepts. Alavi and Leidner7 considered the four basic processes of KM that can be listed as: creating,
storing/retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge.
Knowledge Sharing in Construction Sector
Although there are many KS facilitators identified in the literature such as organizational culture, information
technology support, resources, intrinsic motivations, extrinsic incentives, social factors, reciprocity, conformity or
social proof, commitment, consistency, experts, authority (that should emphasize the importance of KS thus creating
an environment where people feel that they are treated fairly in exchange for their knowledge16), fondness and
scarcity17, there are persistent barriers to workplace learning, which will prevent the communication and sharing of
tacit knowledge between management and workers in teams18, including knowledge tacitly19, limited absorptive
capacity of knowledge receivers20, perceptions of competition by knowledge providers21,22, and lack of trust between
providers and receivers23.
The KS process and the consequent sharing knowledge strategy depends on each firm sector. A particular KS
strategy or specific managerial actions will not suit all firms. The implementation of KS goals and strategies into a
firm’s strategic planning will vary greatly24.
Construction projects are unique and temporary, which means that construction project teams are also temporary
and consist in multidisciplinary teams. During these projects it is valuable to collect information about events,
consequences and the steps taken together with their effectiveness25. It is important to collect all available information
and use it in subsequent projects. This use of available information is only possible when KS exists. Given that CFs
work on projects with different characteristics and normally many at the same time, it is important to realize that such
projects are managed differently. These management characteristics must be shared so that other teams can use this
shared knowledge in particular conditions of similar projects, in this way it is possible to use resources (time, people
and materials) more efficiently. However, some CFs take some unsuccessful efforts concerning the implementation
of KS strategies.
For JavernickWill17 the majority of prior work on KS strategies examines constructs and relationships at the macro
level, generally at the firm-level, leaving little work rooted in micro-foundations at the individual level28.That is why
it is necessary to separate the individual factors from the organizational ones, since the difference between them is
very sharp.
Table 2. Inhibiting and Facilitating Factors of KS in the Construction Industry.
Inhibiting Factors Facilitating factors
Resources Mainly time
Mainly a male sector
High turnover
Low level of training, intellectual capital
Culture12,17,26,29,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41
Financial/social motivations
Conformity to corporate culture
Reciprocity
Perceived value and uniqueness of knowledge
Peer recognition
Honouring KS commitments
Mimicking the behaviour of leaders
Culture
12,39,17,40,2,8,41,42
Table 2 highlights the inhibiting and facilitating factors of KS in the CS found in the literature. Now they can be
separate according to their specificity.
4 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
In this way, in Table 3 can be verified that the facilitating factors appear to have an individual nature almost in
their totality, allowing some conclusions about the lack of success in the application of organizational strategies of
KS in the sector. These conclusions also point to the fact that the inhibiting factors of the sector being totally linked
to organizational factors.
Table 3- Individual, Organisational, Inhibiting and Facilitating Factors of KS in CS.
Facilitators
Individual factors
Organisational factors
Conformity to corporate culture
Reciprocity
Perceived value and uniqueness of knowledge
Peer recognition
Honouring KS commitments
Mimicking the behaviour of leaders
Financial/social motivations
Culture
Inhibitors
Resources Mainly time
Mainly male sector
High turnover
Low level of training/ intellectual capital
Culture
Carrillo28 found that the main drivers for KM in construction are the need to encourage continuous improvement,
to share valuable tacit knowledge, to disseminate best practices, to respond to customers quickly, to reduce rework
and to develop new products and services. An effective KS process is therefore highly vital for CFs in order to prevent
the loss of knowledge gained in the construction projects26. In this regard, organizations should consider the most
suitable KS approach to their firm and select the right tools, techniques and practices in developing a KM strategy26.
The facilitating factors, could, in this way, work as guidelines to achieve a successful KS strategy.
Therefore, aiming to answer research question 1, Tables 2 and 3 present the inhibiting and facilitating factors which
characterize the CS as well as others economic sectors.
Then, Table 4 presents the facilitator factors mentioned above with characteristics found in the literature. Although
only organizational factors are considered in this study, it will also be presented the importance of the individual
factors so that CFs can adopt them, not in the individuality, but as a whole, according to its organizational culture.
Because the way of effectively managing knowledge is to translate individual and group knowledge to organizational
knowledge29.
Table 4: Facilitators framework
Facilitators
Financial/social
motivations
KS barriers need to be overcome and KM strategies appropriately supported by a reward and
incentive structure for a successful implementation in construction organisations14.
It is important to develop an incentive and reward structure since according to Lawton42 “goodwill
knowledge philanthropy” is hard to achieve12.
Conformity to corporate
culture
One complimentary factor for ensuring optimal information flow in global business processes
such as KM is a supportive and harmonized culture shared by all organizational constituents42.
Establishing a culture with the norm of KS is critical to sustain KM initiatives within the
organization, as stated in 2012 by Javernick-Will17.
Honouring KS
commitments
According to Javernick-Will17, people want to appear consistent to others and having made their
intentions to share their knowledge explicit, people will want to live up to these intentions and
honour their commitment.
Peer recognition
It is in the interests of people to be viewed as experts. If people have a reputation for expertise this
is a source of power. They need to be certain that their colleagues will acknowledge the source of
this knowledge and will not claim credit for it2.
Perceived value and
uniqueness of knowledge
People find some subjects particularly fascinating, and Davenport and Prusak2 sustain that they
may be eager to talk about them as much from self-gratification as wanting to communicate
knowledge.
As knowledge becomes less available, people perceive it to be more valuable17.
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 998–1005 1001
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000 3
To gain an understanding of the KS practices already implemented in CS.
All the investigation will be based on literature review itself, the verification of the data obtained through it and
the conclusions inherent to it.
Literature Review
According to Singh and Kant17, the implementation of KM in the organizations, especially the implementation of
KS strategies, represents one of the biggest attractions for researchers and specialists, simply due to the essential part
that KS plays for any organization that wish to compete with success.
KM is largely regarded as a process involving various activities. Slight discrepancies in the delineation of the
processes appear in the literature, namely in terms of the number and labeling of processes, rather than the underlying
concepts. Alavi and Leidner7 considered the four basic processes of KM that can be listed as: creating,
storing/retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge.
Knowledge Sharing in Construction Sector
Although there are many KS facilitators identified in the literature such as organizational culture, information
technology support, resources, intrinsic motivations, extrinsic incentives, social factors, reciprocity, conformity or
social proof, commitment, consistency, experts, authority (that should emphasize the importance of KS thus creating
an environment where people feel that they are treated fairly in exchange for their knowledge16), fondness and
scarcity17, there are persistent barriers to workplace learning, which will prevent the communication and sharing of
tacit knowledge between management and workers in teams18, including knowledge tacitly19, limited absorptive
capacity of knowledge receivers20, perceptions of competition by knowledge providers21,22, and lack of trust between
providers and receivers23.
The KS process and the consequent sharing knowledge strategy depends on each firm sector. A particular KS
strategy or specific managerial actions will not suit all firms. The implementation of KS goals and strategies into a
firm’s strategic planning will vary greatly24.
Construction projects are unique and temporary, which means that construction project teams are also temporary
and consist in multidisciplinary teams. During these projects it is valuable to collect information about events,
consequences and the steps taken together with their effectiveness25. It is important to collect all available information
and use it in subsequent projects. This use of available information is only possible when KS exists. Given that CFs
work on projects with different characteristics and normally many at the same time, it is important to realize that such
projects are managed differently. These management characteristics must be shared so that other teams can use this
shared knowledge in particular conditions of similar projects, in this way it is possible to use resources (time, people
and materials) more efficiently. However, some CFs take some unsuccessful efforts concerning the implementation
of KS strategies.
For JavernickWill17 the majority of prior work on KS strategies examines constructs and relationships at the macro
level, generally at the firm-level, leaving little work rooted in micro-foundations at the individual level28.That is why
it is necessary to separate the individual factors from the organizational ones, since the difference between them is
very sharp.
Table 2. Inhibiting and Facilitating Factors of KS in the Construction Industry.
Inhibiting Factors
Facilitating factors
Resources Mainly time
Mainly a male sector
High turnover
Low level of training, intellectual capital
Culture12,17,26,29,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41
Financial/social motivations
Conformity to corporate culture
Reciprocity
Perceived value and uniqueness of knowledge
Peer recognition
Honouring KS commitments
Mimicking the behaviour of leaders
Culture12,39,17,40,2,8,41,42
Table 2 highlights the inhibiting and facilitating factors of KS in the CS found in the literature. Now they can be
separate according to their specificity.
4 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
In this way, in Table 3 can be verified that the facilitating factors appear to have an individual nature almost in
their totality, allowing some conclusions about the lack of success in the application of organizational strategies of
KS in the sector. These conclusions also point to the fact that the inhibiting factors of the sector being totally linked
to organizational factors.
Table 3- Individual, Organisational, Inhibiting and Facilitating Factors of KS in CS.
Facilitators
Individual factors Organisational factors
Conformity to corporate culture
Reciprocity
Perceived value and uniqueness of knowledge
Peer recognition
Honouring KS commitments
Mimicking the behaviour of leaders
Financial/social motivations
Culture
Inhibitors
Resources Mainly time
Mainly male sector
High turnover
Low level of training/ intellectual capital
Culture
Carrillo28 found that the main drivers for KM in construction are the need to encourage continuous improvement,
to share valuable tacit knowledge, to disseminate best practices, to respond to customers quickly, to reduce rework
and to develop new products and services. An effective KS process is therefore highly vital for CFs in order to prevent
the loss of knowledge gained in the construction projects26. In this regard, organizations should consider the most
suitable KS approach to their firm and select the right tools, techniques and practices in developing a KM strategy26.
The facilitating factors, could, in this way, work as guidelines to achieve a successful KS strategy.
Therefore, aiming to answer research question 1, Tables 2 and 3 present the inhibiting and facilitating factors which
characterize the CS as well as others economic sectors.
Then, Table 4 presents the facilitator factors mentioned above with characteristics found in the literature. Although
only organizational factors are considered in this study, it will also be presented the importance of the individual
factors so that CFs can adopt them, not in the individuality, but as a whole, according to its organizational culture.
Because the way of effectively managing knowledge is to translate individual and group knowledge to organizational
knowledge29.
Table 4: Facilitators framework
Facilitators
Financial/social
motivations
KS barriers need to be overcome and KM strategies appropriately supported by a reward and
incentive structure for a successful implementation in construction organisations14.
It is important to develop an incentive and reward structure since according to Lawton42 “goodwill
knowledge philanthropy” is hard to achieve12.
Conformity to corporate
culture
One complimentary factor for ensuring optimal information flow in global business processes
such as KM is a supportive and harmonized culture shared by all organizational constituents42.
Establishing a culture with the norm of KS is critical to sustain KM initiatives within the
organization, as stated in 2012 by Javernick-Will17.
Honouring KS
commitments
According to Javernick-Will17, people want to appear consistent to others and having made their
intentions to share their knowledge explicit, people will want to live up to these intentions and
honour their commitment.
Peer recognition
It is in the interests of people to be viewed as experts. If people have a reputation for expertise this
is a source of power. They need to be certain that their colleagues will acknowledge the source of
this knowledge and will not claim credit for it2.
Perceived value and
uniqueness of knowledge
People find some subjects particularly fascinating, and Davenport and Prusak2 sustain that they
may be eager to talk about them as much from self-gratification as wanting to communicate
knowledge.
As knowledge becomes less available, people perceive it to be more valuable17.
1002 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 998–1005
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000 5
Reciprocity
According to Davenport and Prusak2, time, energy and intelligence of people are all finite, and
people take time to help a colleague if they think they are likely to receive valuable knowledge in
return, either now or in the future which requires a sense of reciprocity42.
Mimicking the behaviour
of leaders
The activities of KM in construction companies can be implemented, according to Mohd -Zin and
Egbu8, more significantly if their top managers are willing to play a more important role in
conducting these activities by setting the example.
Culture
Robinson12 reminds that culture has been identified as one of the most crucial factors contributing
to the success of a KM project.
Culture provides norms/rules for behaviour in organizations41, which are essential in the sharing
of knowledge when well implemented in the organizational culture.
Serna1 emphasizes that in the KS process, in this particular sector, some inconveniences appear mostly because the
KS needs are not correctly identified and/or recollected. Besides, the actors implicated do not easily share their
knowledge about the problem30,31. Generally, much knowledge acquired is lost and the lessons learned are dispersed
at the end of the projects if not recorded or shared properly32.
Table 5 shows the main inhibitors factors collected from the literature that can explain the major problems of the
CFs in terms of a KS strategy implementation.
Table 5: Inhibitors framework
Inhibitors
Resources Mainly
time
Time constraint is a key barrier in construction organisations given that projects are characterised by fixed time
scales12.
Employees frequently cite a lack of time to share knowledge17.
Low level of
training/
intellectual capital
Covey37 suggests that the loss of intellectual capital due to the lack of means for knowledge is one of the several
reasons why sharing knowledge projects fail at the sector38.
The lack of standard work processes highlighted by Carrillo29 as a barrier to KS is partly connected with the low
level of training of the employees.
High turnover Staff leaving the organisation was point out as being one of the main barriers of the KS process37.
High staff defection is also seen as of the main obstacle in the implementation of KM36.
Mainly a male
sector
Lin34 noticed through previous literature that females are likely to experience high-
quality instrumental
exchanges about individualized information and personalized knowledge, suggesting that females are more
sensitive than males to the influence of instrumental ties on KS35.
Culture
Culture has been a recurrent theme in the KM literature as it can enable or inhibit an organisation’s KM
strategy12.
Several studies outlined cross-cultural sharing barriers based on organisational culture24,39,40,41.
The high turnover assumes an important role in terms of KS since is considered by the literature as the main obstacle
in the implementation of KM, more precisely a KS strategy, in CS. Given the way CFs work, with defined timelines
projects, the actors of each project have also a timeline schedule to find, gather and share knowledge. This cycle will
only be possible if a successful KS strategy is carried out by the construction firm that manages these same projects
to make sure that the found and gathered information leaves its individual field and becomes part of the organizational
field once shared. Although we can perceive, the influence that the inhibiting factors found in the literature have in
the construction industry KS process, it is inevitable, and considering the technological era in which we are living, to
mention an inhibiting factor not yet very developed in the literature that is the lack of willingness to share knowledge
by the non-appealing way in which this process has been defined in the construction. Ignoring the informal, non-
canonical nature of KS, including people’s motivation, ability and opportunity to share knowledge, is one of the key
causes of resistance to use knowledge-sharing information technology tools33 although there are already numerous
construction KS platforms such as Knowledge Platform for Contractors (KPfC) developed by a group of researchers
in Turkey to promote KS in a more interactive and dynamic way and more recently HASIFR, mentioned by Gajzler25,
which works as a knowledge based tool to support technical management in the selection of building materials and
technological solutions in the CS. The transformation of the CFs and their adaptation to the current market goes,
considering the technological advances, through the innovation of the KS strategies and the consequent adhesion of
the intervenient actors in the KS process.
6 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
So, in sum, and responding to second research question, based on Tables 4 and 5, it is possible to suggest that CS
has its own enablers and obstacles in process of sharing of knowledge. These factors are linked mainly to
organizational issues, but the individual’s perceptions are also very important in order to obtain better performances.
Conclusions, limitations and future research
Organizations are becoming more knowledge intensive. They are hiring “minds” more than “hands”, and the need
for leveraging the value of knowledge is increasing. A broad range of factors can influence the success of KM
implementation, has being mentioned in the literature. That same literature has also been studying the problematic
range of factors that inhibit KS at the CS.
Although these factors are all well known, the CFs seem to have stopped in time and does not demonstrate
innovation capabilities to establish a successful KM strategy that should always be aligned with the firm’s overall
strategy and objectives.
It was verified that the facilitating factors of KS in the CS are characterized as individual factors almost in their
totality, which indicates the lacking of success in the implementation of organizational KS strategies, despite of the
benefits that are well known.
On the contrary, the inhibiting factors present themselves as just organizational factors, reinforcing the conclusion
that the initiative of sharing knowledge it is very much the responsibility of the CFs organizational culture and its
capacity to implement a successful KS strategy.
Throughout the literature review, it was perceived that construction projects are unique and temporary which means
that construction project teams are also temporary and consist of multidisciplinary teams. The high turnover seems to
be one of the most characteristic inhibitor at the CS, if not the most characteristic one. The actors involved on the KS
strategy normally move to another project, resign or retire conditioning the KS process.
It was found that the facilitating factors might be the consequence of an effective and successful KS strategy and
can be seen as guidelines to improve the construction industry organizational performance and it will only be possible
if this industry is able to translate individual and group knowledge to organizational knowledge.
In present characterized by high technology, and most important, by our high dependence on it, which makes clear
that what may be considered a very visible barrier these days may not have been seen a few years ago. When we refer
to knowledge capturing and KS in construction projects, we refer to it as a tedious task and in this way, very difficult
to pass on to others (referring to administrative and documentary techniques). Nowadays, it is inevitable to consider
as a barrier to KS, the lack of will to do so, not only because of the lack of time, but also because of the boring nature
it seems to present. This inhibitor one can easily become a facilitator one if we adjust the CS to the incredibly easy
world that technology has created. There are online platforms for KS in the CS, known as Knowledge-based systems,
such as KPfC and more recently the advisory system HASIFR, which must be under constant updates. A simply
platform registration is no longer an eye-catching for the actors who can and should develop the process of KS.
In this way it is believed that the development of more interesting techniques could bring better benefits in this
matter. A partnership with researchers in the field of technology may be further established so that it can be developed
a knowledge-gathering and knowledge-sharing software that really encourages the construction industry to not only
know that there is a duty to share its knowledge but also to want and to desire to share its knowledge.
Regarding to limitations, this work do not have empirical data to prove any statement however, and talking about
future investigation, the framework presented will be useful to design questionnaires according to the specific
characteristics of this sector and to produce more investigation addressed to an economic sector as important as
construction is.
References
1. Serna EM, Bachiller OS, Serna AA. Knowledge meaning and management in requirements engineering. International Journal of Information
Management 2017; 37: 155-161.
2. Davenport TH, Prusak L. Working Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1998.
3. Nonaka I, H. The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press 1995.
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 998–1005 1003
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000 5
Reciprocity
According to Davenport and Prusak2, time, energy and intelligence of people are all finite, and
people take time to help a colleague if they think they are likely to receive valuable knowledge in
return, either now or in the future which requires a sense of reciprocity42.
Mimicking the behaviour
of leaders
The activities of KM in construction companies can be implemented, according to Mohd -Zin and
Egbu8, more significantly if their top managers are willing to play a more important role in
conducting these activities by setting the example.
Culture
Robinson12 reminds that culture has been identified as one of the most crucial factors contributing
to the success of a KM project.
Culture provides norms/rules for behaviour in organizations41, which are essential in the sharing
of knowledge when well implemented in the organizational culture.
Serna1 emphasizes that in the KS process, in this particular sector, some inconveniences appear mostly because the
KS needs are not correctly identified and/or recollected. Besides, the actors implicated do not easily share their
knowledge about the problem30,31. Generally, much knowledge acquired is lost and the lessons learned are dispersed
at the end of the projects if not recorded or shared properly32.
Table 5 shows the main inhibitors factors collected from the literature that can explain the major problems of the
CFs in terms of a KS strategy implementation.
Table 5: Inhibitors framework
Inhibitors
Resources Mainly
time
Time constraint is a key barrier in construction organisations given that projects are characterised by fixed time
scales12.
Employees frequently cite a lack of time to share knowledge17.
Low level of
training/
intellectual capital
Covey37 suggests that the loss of intellectual capital due to the lack of means for knowledge is one of the several
reasons why sharing knowledge projects fail at the sector38.
The lack of standard work processes highlighted by Carrillo29 as a barrier to KS is partly connected with the low
level of training of the employees.
High turnover
Staff leaving the organisation was point out as being one of the main barriers of the KS process37.
High staff defection is also seen as of the main obstacle in the implementation of KM36.
Mainly a male
sector
Lin34 noticed through previous literature that females are likely to experience high-quality instrumental
exchanges about individualized information and personalized knowledge, suggesting that females are more
sensitive than males to the influence of instrumental ties on KS35.
Culture
Culture has been a recurrent theme in the KM literature as it can enable or inhibit an organisation’s KM
strategy12.
Several studies outlined cross-cultural sharing barriers based on organisational culture24,39,40,41.
The high turnover assumes an important role in terms of KS since is considered by the literature as the main obstacle
in the implementation of KM, more precisely a KS strategy, in CS. Given the way CFs work, with defined timelines
projects, the actors of each project have also a timeline schedule to find, gather and share knowledge. This cycle will
only be possible if a successful KS strategy is carried out by the construction firm that manages these same projects
to make sure that the found and gathered information leaves its individual field and becomes part of the organizational
field once shared. Although we can perceive, the influence that the inhibiting factors found in the literature have in
the construction industry KS process, it is inevitable, and considering the technological era in which we are living, to
mention an inhibiting factor not yet very developed in the literature that is the lack of willingness to share knowledge
by the non-appealing way in which this process has been defined in the construction. Ignoring the informal, non-
canonical nature of KS, including people’s motivation, ability and opportunity to share knowledge, is one of the key
causes of resistance to use knowledge-sharing information technology tools33 although there are already numerous
construction KS platforms such as Knowledge Platform for Contractors (KPfC) developed by a group of researchers
in Turkey to promote KS in a more interactive and dynamic way and more recently HASIFR, mentioned by Gajzler25,
which works as a knowledge based tool to support technical management in the selection of building materials and
technological solutions in the CS. The transformation of the CFs and their adaptation to the current market goes,
considering the technological advances, through the innovation of the KS strategies and the consequent adhesion of
the intervenient actors in the KS process.
6 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
So, in sum, and responding to second research question, based on Tables 4 and 5, it is possible to suggest that CS
has its own enablers and obstacles in process of sharing of knowledge. These factors are linked mainly to
organizational issues, but the individual’s perceptions are also very important in order to obtain better performances.
Conclusions, limitations and future research
Organizations are becoming more knowledge intensive. They are hiring “minds” more than “hands”, and the need
for leveraging the value of knowledge is increasing. A broad range of factors can influence the success of KM
implementation, has being mentioned in the literature. That same literature has also been studying the problematic
range of factors that inhibit KS at the CS.
Although these factors are all well known, the CFs seem to have stopped in time and does not demonstrate
innovation capabilities to establish a successful KM strategy that should always be aligned with the firm’s overall
strategy and objectives.
It was verified that the facilitating factors of KS in the CS are characterized as individual factors almost in their
totality, which indicates the lacking of success in the implementation of organizational KS strategies, despite of the
benefits that are well known.
On the contrary, the inhibiting factors present themselves as just organizational factors, reinforcing the conclusion
that the initiative of sharing knowledge it is very much the responsibility of the CFs organizational culture and its
capacity to implement a successful KS strategy.
Throughout the literature review, it was perceived that construction projects are unique and temporary which means
that construction project teams are also temporary and consist of multidisciplinary teams. The high turnover seems to
be one of the most characteristic inhibitor at the CS, if not the most characteristic one. The actors involved on the KS
strategy normally move to another project, resign or retire conditioning the KS process.
It was found that the facilitating factors might be the consequence of an effective and successful KS strategy and
can be seen as guidelines to improve the construction industry organizational performance and it will only be possible
if this industry is able to translate individual and group knowledge to organizational knowledge.
In present characterized by high technology, and most important, by our high dependence on it, which makes clear
that what may be considered a very visible barrier these days may not have been seen a few years ago. When we refer
to knowledge capturing and KS in construction projects, we refer to it as a tedious task and in this way, very difficult
to pass on to others (referring to administrative and documentary techniques). Nowadays, it is inevitable to consider
as a barrier to KS, the lack of will to do so, not only because of the lack of time, but also because of the boring nature
it seems to present. This inhibitor one can easily become a facilitator one if we adjust the CS to the incredibly easy
world that technology has created. There are online platforms for KS in the CS, known as Knowledge-based systems,
such as KPfC and more recently the advisory system HASIFR, which must be under constant updates. A simply
platform registration is no longer an eye-catching for the actors who can and should develop the process of KS.
In this way it is believed that the development of more interesting techniques could bring better benefits in this
matter. A partnership with researchers in the field of technology may be further established so that it can be developed
a knowledge-gathering and knowledge-sharing software that really encourages the construction industry to not only
know that there is a duty to share its knowledge but also to want and to desire to share its knowledge.
Regarding to limitations, this work do not have empirical data to prove any statement however, and talking about
future investigation, the framework presented will be useful to design questionnaires according to the specific
characteristics of this sector and to produce more investigation addressed to an economic sector as important as
construction is.
References
1. Serna EM, Bachiller OS, Serna AA. Knowledge meaning and management in requirements engineering. International Journal of Information
Management 2017; 37: 155-161.
2. Davenport TH, Prusak L. Working Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1998.
3. Nonaka I, H. The Knowledge Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press 1995.
1004 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 998–1005
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000 7
4. Nonaka I, Totama R, Nakata A. A Firm as A Knowledge Creation Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of The Firm. Industrial and
Corporate Change 2000; 9(1):1-20.
5. Dawson R. Knowledge capabilities as the focus of organizational development and strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management 2000; 4(4):
320-327.
6. Egbu CO. Managing Knowledge and Intellectual Capital for Improved Organizational Innovations in the Construction Industry: an Examination
of Critical Success Factor. Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 2004; 11(5): 301-315.
7. Alavi M, Leidner DE. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly
2001; 25(1): 107-136.
8. Mohd Zin IN, Egbu CO. A Review of Knowledge Management Strategies Issues, Contexts and Benefits for the Construction Industry. The
University of Salford: School of Built Environment 2010.
9. Ipe M. Knowledge sharing on organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review 2003; 2(4): 337-359.
10. Choi SY, Kang YS, Lee H. The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination. Journal of Information
Science 2008; 34(5):742-754.
11. Hansen S, Avital M. Share and share alike: the social and technological influences on knowledge sharing behavior. Sprouts: Working Papers
on Information Systems 2005; 5(13):5-13.
12. Robinson HS, Carrillo PM, Anumba CJ, Al-Ghassani AM. Perceptions and barriers in implementing knowledge management strategies in large
construction organisations. Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough: Loughborough University 2001.
13. Brereton P, Kitchenham B, Budgen D, Turner M, Khalil M. Lessonsfrom applying the systematic literature review process within the software
engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software 2007; 80(4): 571583.
14. Lytras MD, Pouloudi A. Project Management as Knowledge Management primer: the learning infrastructure in knowledge-intensive
organizations: projects as knowledge transformations and beyond. The Learning Organisation 2003; 4:237-250.
15. Singh MD, Kant R. Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modeling approach. International Journal of Management
Science and Engineering Management 2008; 3(2):141-150.
16. MacNeil CM. Line Managers: facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams. The Business School, Oxford Brookes University 2003; 25(3): 294-
307.
17. Javernick-Will A. Motivating Knowledge Sharing in Engineering and Construction Organizations: Power of Social Motivations. Journal of
Management in Engineering 2012; 2:193-202.
18. Argris C, Schon DA. Organisational Learning a Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978.
19. Teece D. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 1986;
15(6): 285-305.
20. Szulanski G. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Winter
Special Issue 1996; 17: 27-43.
21. Hansen MT, Mors ML, Lovas B. Knowledge sharing in organizations: multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal
2005; 48(5): 776-793.
22. Tsai W. Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing.
Organization Science 2002; 13(2): 179-190.
23. Levin, D., Cross, R. Z. The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. 2004,
Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.
24. Riege A. Three dozen knowledge sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management 2005; 9(3):1367-3270.
25. Gajzler M. Usefulness of mining methods in knowledge source analysis in the construction industry. Archives of Civil Engineering 2016;
LXII(1): 127-142.
26. Serkan K, Gokhan A, Irem D, Birgonul MT. Capturing knowledge in construction projects: knowledge platform for contractors. Journal of
Management in Engineering 2008; 24: 87-95.
27. Foss NJ, Husted K, Michailova S. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research
directions. Journal of Management Studies 2010; 47(3): 455-482.
28. Carrillo PM, Robinson HS, Al-Ghassani, AM, Anumba, CJ. Knowledge management in UK construction: strategies, resources and barriers.
Project Management Journal 2004; 35(1):46-56.
29. Van den Hooff B, De Ridder JA. Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment communication climate and CMC
use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management 2004; 8(6): 117-130.
30. Burnay C, Jureta I, Faulkner S. What stakeholders will or will not say: A theoretical and empirical study of topic importance in requirements
engineering elicitation interviews. Information Systems 2014; 46:6181.
31. Vásquez D, Sánchez M, Medina F, Amescua A. Knowledge Management acquisition improvement by using software engineering elicitation
techniques. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 30: 721730.
32. Kazi A, Koivuniemi A. Sharing through social interaction: The case study of YIT Construction Ltd. Real-Life KM. Lessons from the field
2006; 72(4): 6381.
8 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
33. Huysman M, Wulf V. IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology
2006; 21: 40-51.
34. Lin C. Gender differs: modelling knowledge sharing from a perspective of social network ties. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2006; 9:
236-241.
35. Elsass PM, Graves LM. Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: The experience of women and people of color. Academy of
Management Review 1997; 22:946-973.
36. Singh MD, Shankar R. Survey of knowledge management practices in Indian manufacturing industries. Journal of Knowledge Management
2006; 10 (6):110-128.
37. Covey SR. The five pillars of organizational excellence. Quality Congress. ASQ Annual Quality Congress Proceedings 2004; 58: 191-202.
38. Ly E, Anumba CJ, Carrillo PM. Knowledge management practices of construction project managers. In Khosrowshahi, F. (Ed). Simpósio
conduzido na 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, Londres, Reino Unido 2005.
39. Ives W, Torrey B, Gordon C. Knowledge sharing is a human hehavior. In Morey, D. et al. (Eds), Knowledge Management, MIT Press:
Cambridge 2000.
40. Chow C, Deng JF, Ho J. The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: a comparative study in the United Dtates and the PRC.
Journal of Management Accounting Research 2000; 12: 65-95.
41. McDermott R, O’Dell C. Overcoming culture barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management 2001; 5(1):76-85.
42. Balthazard PA, Cooke RA. Organisational culture and knowledge management success: Assessing the behavior performance continuum.
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2004.
43. Clark T, Rollo C. Corporate initiatives in knowledge management. MBC University Press 2001; 43(4/5):206-214.
44. Yang J. Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative culture. Tourism Management 2007; 28:530-543.
45. Lawton P. Moving knowledge management beyond technology. PricewaterhouseCoopers, http://www.pwcglobal.com, accessed 02/05/00.
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 998–1005 1005
Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000 7
4. Nonaka I, Totama R, Nakata A. A Firm as A Knowledge Creation Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of The Firm. Industrial and
Corporate Change 2000; 9(1):1-20.
5. Dawson R. Knowledge capabilities as the focus of organizational development and strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management 2000; 4(4):
320-327.
6. Egbu CO. Managing Knowledge and Intellectual Capital for Improved Organizational Innovations in the Construction Industry: an Examination
of Critical Success Factor. Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 2004; 11(5): 301-315.
7. Alavi M, Leidner DE. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly
2001; 25(1): 107-136.
8. Mohd Zin IN, Egbu CO. A Review of Knowledge Management Strategies Issues, Contexts and Benefits for the Construction Industry. The
University of Salford: School of Built Environment 2010.
9. Ipe M. Knowledge sharing on organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review 2003; 2(4): 337-359.
10. Choi SY, Kang YS, Lee H. The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination. Journal of Information
Science 2008; 34(5):742-754.
11. Hansen S, Avital M. Share and share alike: the social and technological influences on knowledge sharing behavior. Sprouts: Working Papers
on Information Systems 2005; 5(13):5-13.
12. Robinson HS, Carrillo PM, Anumba CJ, Al-Ghassani AM. Perceptions and barriers in implementing knowledge management strategies in large
construction organisations. Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough: Loughborough University 2001.
13. Brereton P, Kitchenham B, Budgen D, Turner M, Khalil M. Lessonsfrom applying the systematic literature review process within the software
engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software 2007; 80(4): 571583.
14. Lytras MD, Pouloudi A. Project Management as Knowledge Management primer: the learning infrastructure in knowledge-intensive
organizations: projects as knowledge transformations and beyond. The Learning Organisation 2003; 4:237-250.
15. Singh MD, Kant R. Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modeling approach. International Journal of Management
Science and Engineering Management 2008; 3(2):141-150.
16. MacNeil CM. Line Managers: facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams. The Business School, Oxford Brookes University 2003; 25(3): 294-
307.
17. Javernick-Will A. Motivating Knowledge Sharing in Engineering and Construction Organizations: Power of Social Motivations. Journal of
Management in Engineering 2012; 2:193-202.
18. Argris C, Schon DA. Organisational Learning a Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1978.
19. Teece D. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 1986;
15(6): 285-305.
20. Szulanski G. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Winter
Special Issue 1996; 17: 27-43.
21. Hansen MT, Mors ML, Lovas B. Knowledge sharing in organizations: multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal
2005; 48(5): 776-793.
22. Tsai W. Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing.
Organization Science 2002; 13(2): 179-190.
23. Levin, D., Cross, R. Z. The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. 2004,
Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.
24. Riege A. Three dozen knowledge sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management 2005; 9(3):1367-3270.
25. Gajzler M. Usefulness of mining methods in knowledge source analysis in the construction industry. Archives of Civil Engineering 2016;
LXII(1): 127-142.
26. Serkan K, Gokhan A, Irem D, Birgonul MT. Capturing knowledge in construction projects: knowledge platform for contractors. Journal of
Management in Engineering 2008; 24: 87-95.
27. Foss NJ, Husted K, Michailova S. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research
directions. Journal of Management Studies 2010; 47(3): 455-482.
28. Carrillo PM, Robinson HS, Al-Ghassani, AM, Anumba, CJ. Knowledge management in UK construction: strategies, resources and barriers.
Project Management Journal 2004; 35(1):46-56.
29. Van den Hooff B, De Ridder JA. Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment communication climate and CMC
use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management 2004; 8(6): 117-130.
30. Burnay C, Jureta I, Faulkner S. What stakeholders will or will not say: A theoretical and empirical study of topic importance in requirements
engineering elicitation interviews. Information Systems 2014; 46:6181.
31. Vásquez D, Sánchez M, Medina F, Amescua A. Knowledge Management acquisition improvement by using software engineering elicitation
techniques. Computers in Human Behavior 2014; 30: 721730.
32. Kazi A, Koivuniemi A. Sharing through social interaction: The case study of YIT Construction Ltd. Real-Life KM. Lessons from the field
2006; 72(4): 6381.
8 Carmem Leal et al. / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000000
33. Huysman M, Wulf V. IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology
2006; 21: 40-51.
34. Lin C. Gender differs: modelling knowledge sharing from a perspective of social network ties. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2006; 9:
236-241.
35. Elsass PM, Graves LM. Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: The experience of women and people of color. Academy of
Management Review 1997; 22:946-973.
36. Singh MD, Shankar R. Survey of knowledge management practices in Indian manufacturing industries. Journal of Knowledge Management
2006; 10 (6):110-128.
37. Covey SR. The five pillars of organizational excellence. Quality Congress. ASQ Annual Quality Congress Proceedings 2004; 58: 191-202.
38. Ly E, Anumba CJ, Carrillo PM. Knowledge management practices of construction project managers. In Khosrowshahi, F. (Ed). Simpósio
conduzido na 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, Londres, Reino Unido 2005.
39. Ives W, Torrey B, Gordon C. Knowledge sharing is a human hehavior. In Morey, D. et al. (Eds), Knowledge Management, MIT Press:
Cambridge 2000.
40. Chow C, Deng JF, Ho J. The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: a comparative study in the United Dtates and the PRC.
Journal of Management Accounting Research 2000; 12: 65-95.
41. McDermott R, O’Dell C. Overcoming culture barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management 2001; 5(1):76-85.
42. Balthazard PA, Cooke RA. Organisational culture and knowledge management success: Assessing the behavior performance continuum.
Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2004.
43. Clark T, Rollo C. Corporate initiatives in knowledge management. MBC University Press 2001; 43(4/5):206-214.
44. Yang J. Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative culture. Tourism Management 2007; 28:530-543.
45. Lawton P. Moving knowledge management beyond technology. PricewaterhouseCoopers, http://www.pwcglobal.com, accessed 02/05/00.
... At the same time, training and greater involvement in educational opportunities, conferences, and other information-sharing events can help raise their understanding of knowledge management in the workplace. As a result, employees can reflect on their jobs, exchange stories and ideas with coworkers, and stay up to date on professional concepts and applications (Leal et al., 2017). ...
... In order to manage organisational knowledge in construction businesses, three things must be considered: product, which represents technical knowledge; process, which represents procedural and regulatory information; and people, which identifies and links individual talents with experiences. Detailed components of such solutions include workshops for information distribution, seminars for knowledge exchange, departmental meetings, summary reports, and a project award plan (Leal et al., 2017). ...
... This strategy is based on the knowledge requirements for both operations and projects. Beyond the obvious training issues, its concept is founded on management practices that should be designed in order to proactively detect and eradicate detrimental situations (Leal et al., 2017). Knowledge representation and knowledge exchange are the two most important parts of knowledge management, and they are interconnected. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to determine the current issues associated with the transfer of knowledge in the construction industry published between 1987 and December 2021 to provide insights and ideas for future research. A total of 1240 publications were analysed to offer metadata analysis, and these papers were extracted from the Scopus database. The insights gained from analysing papers from Scopus databases are presented along with classifications of the literature based on content analyses, including conceptual understanding, barriers and facilitators, a collaborative effort with knowledge management and other optimisation models, and evaluation of knowledge management practices and performance. The study's findings show a declining trend in research on drivers or obstacles analysis of knowledge management. In contrast, there is a growing trend in applying mathematical optimisation models to enhance decision-making in pursuing knowledge management performance. Furthermore, the study's findings reveal a steady increase in assessing knowledge management techniques and performance over time. Contributions by disciplines are identified, and the most significant authors, leading journals, leading nations, leading contributing institutions, and leading contributing institutions. The study's results and future research possibilities open up a new channel for further inquiry and contribution to this subject.
... Thus, the performances of these organisations are affected and their future threatened (Yusof and Abubakar, 2012). Subsequent construction projects are facing the same problems or mistakes or errors the previous projects witnessed, because they are reinventing the wheel (Oke et al., 2013;Tan, 2015;Leal et al., 2017). Furthermore, construction organisations are facing great challenge in handling, storing, organising and disseminating effectively all the information needed to design and build a major facility, and this is affecting construction industry performance. ...
... Furthermore, construction organisations are facing great challenge in handling, storing, organising and disseminating effectively all the information needed to design and build a major facility, and this is affecting construction industry performance. Therefore, there is a need for the efficient and effective knowledge management in construction organisations (Becerik, 2004;Leal et al, 2017). ...
... The summary of the barriers identified from literature is shown in Table 1. (2018) 2 Poor communication networks Kasim and Saeed (2018) 3 Absence of firms' structural approach Kasim and Saeed (2018) 4 cultural elements Carrillo et al. (2006), Oke et al. (2013), Kasim and Saeed (2018) 5 Lack of 'voice' of the user group(s) , Whelton et al. (2002 6 Inadequate stakeholder involvement and participation , Whelton et al. (2002 7 Poor group dynamics , Whelton et al. (2002 8 Misunderstanding of client organization and culture , Whelton et al. (2002 9 Lack of client education of process , Whelton et al. (2002 10 Lack of formal review and learning processes , Whelton et al. (2002 11 Lack of Time (Time constraint) Carrillo and Chinowsky (2006), Leal et al. (2017), Kazi et al. (1999); Oke et al. (2013) 12 ...
... As a result, Table 1 presents the most commonly recognised knowledge sharing barriers and facilitators. Leadership (Davenport and Prusak, 1998;Leal, Cunha and Couto, 2017) Trust (Goh SK, 2013;Mura et al., 2016) Trust (Yang, Ye and Wang, 2021;Jian and Ali, 2022) Poor verbal and written communication skills (Riege, 2005;Ghobadi and Mathiassen, 2016) Organizational culture (Yang, 2007;Enwereuzor, 2021) lack of organizational rewards (Bell, Lee and Yeung, 2006) As we can see in table 1, the factors that act as obstacles to KS can also serve as boosters for the practise of KS. ...
... Two interview procedures were devised for the current study; one for the technical directors of the institutions and the other for the staff. The interview script was created based on the major theme's literature review (Leal, Cunha and Couto, 2017). The interview methodology was designed to investigate themes such as collaboration, factors supporting KS, KS obstructions, relationships between peers, and relationships between employees and superiors before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. ...
Article
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic period resulted in a global crisis, whether in the economy, personal or professional life. Because of the pandemic, people and institutions had to change the way they did things. Even though people are becoming more aware of the value of knowledge and it is becoming more common in some institutions, knowledge management methods are still not well known in the social sector and as a key tool for institutions in crisis. Considering the beneficial role that knowledge sharing (KS) practices play in organizations, the current study aims to investigate the impact of KS practices in Portuguese private social solidarity institutions in adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic period. To achieve the purpose and considering the exploratory nature of the research, semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifteen professionals from four private social solidarity institutions in northern Portugal. Nvivo processed the interviews. Because COVID-19 is new, there is no research on knowledge sharing in these institutions, so the study can be considered as original. Before and during pandemics, the presence of knowledge sharing practises, such as the integration of new employees, the proactivity of learning, the sharing of new ideas and mistakes, and the sharing relationship between peers and superiors and other institutions, was observed through the interviews. In this study, we discovered that trust, communication, technology, and social networks, as well as the role of leadership in creating an environment conducive to formal and informal sharing, were elements that facilitated knowledge sharing practises, even throughout the pandemics. During the interviews, both technical directors and employees acknowledged the following: the relationship between superiors and employees in decision-making processes; recognition, feedback and incentives from leaders and the presence of formal and informal communication networks. When it came to sharing, which could happen in a formal or informal setting, employees seemed to prefer informal interactions. To summarise, the institutions were able to adjust to the limits imposed by the pandemic, and the basic practises of KS are part of the daily routine of the organisations analysed.
... A construction project involves a lot of professionals from different backgrounds/departments such as architecture, engineering, cost consulting and project management. During the management and delivery of construction projects, the project team members want to appear consistent with the project objectives and have made their intentions to share their knowledge explicit -they will want to live up to these intentions and honour their commitment (Leal et al., 2017). Once team members are involved in a problem or issue, they would like to remain involved in it to give advice, information, knowledge or solutions until the problem or issue is eventually solved (Javernick-Will, 2012). ...
... The tactic is the knowledge that is hard to express and to be acquired, and it is necessary to gain experience. According to Leal et al. (2017), tacit knowledge is individual and could be considered non-visible, hardly ever expressed, communicated, realised, or measured. Explicit knowledge was reported by Zenker (2018) as a resource that is verbalised, codified, systematic and formal. ...
... The tactic is the knowledge that is hard to express and to be acquired, and it is necessary to gain experience. According to Leal et al. (2017), tacit knowledge is individual and could be considered non-visible, hardly ever expressed, communicated, realised, or measured. Explicit knowledge was reported by Zenker (2018) as a resource that is verbalised, codified, systematic and formal. ...
... Moreover, in a study conducted by Leal, Cunha and Couto (2017), infrastructural and key factors of knowledge management implementation were examined. The findings of this study indicated that five factors are considered important in knowledge management implementation. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article primarily aims to develop a model for knowledge management implementation in organizations. This research is based on the synthesis of the literature of knowledge management. The current literature of knowledge management provides evidence regarding the critical factors influencing effective knowledge management implementation. A theoretical model for knowledge management implementation is suggested and the theoretical linkages are formulated based on the model. Since knowledge management implementation is multidimensional and the interaction among organizational factors can lead to knowledge management strength in organizations, effort is made to explain the impacts of organizational factors on knowledge management implementation. The synthesis of literature indicates that to implement knowledge management in organizations, leaders can build a strong organizational culture and structure and also deploy information technology to create new knowledge and disseminate it around the companies. This research can contribute to practice by identifying the ways in which to implement knowledge management in organizations.
... In earthquake-prone areas, knowledge and understanding of construction workers regarding the construction of earthquake resistant housing is very important.Therefore, construction workers must understand the techniques of building earthquake resistant houses according to the construction spesification. There are many studies conduct around the world to improve the knowledge of construction workers among others Prihatmaji, et al. [8], Herrgard, et al. [9], Leal [10], Chmutina and Rose [11], Lette, et al. [12], McRae, et al. [13], Opdyke, et al. [14], Srivastava and Kumar [15], and Lund [16]. ...
Article
Banda Aceh is one of the areas in Indonesia which is constantly at risk of earthquake that can cause damage and collapse of buildings instantly, especially for housing. Knowledge and understanding on the concept of earthquake resistant buildings for construction workers is very important for the sustainability disaster risk reduction. It is not only civil engineers experts play the great role but also the construction workers must understand techniques for earthquake resistant housing so that its quality is in accordance with the applicable specifications in Indonesia from Ministry of Public Works and Housing. The problem of this research is capacity of construction workers on the technique of building earthquake resistant housing. This study aims to determine the level of knowledge of construction workers in building earthquake resistant housing. It covers construction elements of foundation, reinforcement, columns, walls, roofs, concrete mixtures, and materials. Data collection was conducted by distributing questionnaires to 50 respondents, namely construction workers in Meuraxa and Syiah Kuala Districts. The questionner is in the form of construction drawing in order to easily understand by the workers. Validity and reliability tests have been carried out in this study. The results showed that the workers have low knowledge on the material used for construction. Overall, the percentage of knowledge of construction workers on the technique of building earthquake resistant housing is 47.06%. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct certified training for construction worker; especially knowledge on the construction material which indicates low percentage in this reasearch, so that they have knowledge on building techniques and quality of material for earthquake-resistant housing based on Indonesian regulation.
Article
Full-text available
M-Learning is a very suitable alternative for learning in improving professional training development. In order to implement M-Learning, it is necessary to do a preliminary study. There are three main aspects that need to be considered such as content, context, and characteristics of potential users. However, there is no specific study on the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (MDTCA) enforcement officers for the use of M-Learning for their training purposes. This case study involves eight experts and the data was collected using quantitative data and interview data. The instrument of this study consists of questionnaires and it was analyzed using frequency and percentage data. The reliability value for the questionnaire was 0.91 alpha Cronbach, besides the interview protocol method for expert validation. The expert was selected purposively based on their experience and expertise in online training. The interview data was analyzed using thematic methods. The findings of the study show that MDTCA enforcement officers need extra training for professional development. Besides that, its shows that training via M-Learning is needed continuously to improve the efficiency of enforcement officers. The implications of this study will improve the quality of training MDTCA Northern Zone Malaysia to enhance the competency of the enforcement officers.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose This paper aims to investigate the motivational drivers for knowledge sharing (KS) through the application of mobile social networking (MSN) and their influence on employee productivity in the Malaysian construction industry. Design/methodology/approach The data was collected by distributing a self-administered questionnaire among employees working in the construction industry. A total of 250 questionnaires were collected and analysed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. This study used a variety of analysis methodologies including correlation analysis, reliability and validity testing, as well as a structural model in evaluating the relationships between KS, motivational factors and influence on productivity. Findings The empirical results of this study reveal that utilitarian motivation is positively related to internal and external KS. Similarly, internal and external KS have a positive influence on productivity, while internal and external hedonic motivation does not show any significant relationship with productivity. Research limitations/implications Considering the paucity of evidence regarding the determinants of KS motivational drives on employee productivity in the Malaysian construction industry, this study enriches the social cognitive theory-based literature on KS. Practical implications This study provides some insights to the players in the construction industry in implementing the most appropriate KS promotion strategies that could potentially influence employee productivity. Organisations in the construction industry that place great emphasis on utilitarian motivation including competency, reward and incentives are more likely to have a better influence on KS and, in turn, positively impact employee productivity. Originality/value This study meaningfully contributes to enhancing the understanding of the motivational drivers for sharing knowledge on MSN and its influence on productivity. The findings of this study potentially assist construction practitioners in developing a holistic blueprint for managing their KS towards improving the overall productivity of their employees.
Article
Full-text available
The mining methods are classified as the methods of data analysis and the knowledge acquisition and they are derived from the methods of “Knowledge Discovery”. Within the scope of these methods, there are two main variants associated with a form of data, i.e.: “data” and “text mining”. The author of the paper tries to find an answer to a question about helpfulness and usefulness of these methods for the purpose of knowledge acquisition in the construction industry. The very process of knowledge acquisition is essential in terms of the systems and tools operating based on knowledge. Nowadays, they are the basis for the tools which support the decision-making processes. The paper presents three cases studies. The mining methods have been applied to practical problems - the selection of an adhesive mortar coupled with alternative solutions, analysis of residential real estate locations under construction by a developer company as well as support of technical management of a building facility with a large floor area.
Article
Full-text available
In recent years, attempts to capture and leverage a firm's knowledge resources have become a primary focus in the pursuit of competitive advantage. Business leaders have increasingly looked to their firms' bases of knowledge-on topics such as customers, suppliers, markets, and business practices-as their most critical strategic resource. This trend has led to the widespread adoption of knowledge management initiatives aimed at capturing and leveraging the knowledge of social actors within an organization to advance the economic interests of the firm. Within such an effort, the behavior of knowledge sharing by individual business professionals stands as a necessary first condition for programmatic success. This essay explores the determinants of knowledge sharing by applying Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior to the context of knowledge management. The implications of the model provide support for an emphasis on organizational culture and relationship issues in the development and initiation of a knowledge management program. The model presented incorporates both formal and informal features of organizational contexts that can promote or discourage knowledge sharing behavior. The critical nature of social factors, reflected in the organizational culture of a firm, is strongly supported by the model. In addition, the analysis will illustrate the degree to which technological resources can influence the expected knowledge sharing behavior of business professionals.
Article
In the fast changing global business, knowledge management (KM) has emerged as an integral part of business strategy. Many business organizations have implemented KM and many are in the process of its implementation. KM implementation is adversely affected by few factors which are known as KM barriers. The objective of this paper is to develop the relationships among the identifiedKMbarriers. Further, this paper is also helpful to understand mutual influences of barriers and to identify those barriers which support other barriers (driving barrier) and also those barriers which are most influenced by other barriers (dependent barriers). The interpretive structural modeling (ISM) methodology is used to evolve mutual relationships among these barriers. KM barriers have been classified, based on their driving power and dependence power. The objective behind this classification is to analyze the driving power and dependence power of these barriers.
Article
It is traditionally assumed that requirements specification, as a product of requirements engineering, has a high impact on the ensuing software development stages. Therefore, the knowledge management used to construct the requirements specification should be performed in a structured manner to discover, analyze and understand the data–information–knowledge chain, both tacit and explicit, that the interested parties possess. In this article, the results of a literature review are presented, seeking to answer the following questions: (1) What is the meaning of knowledge in requirements engineering? (2) What approaches are proposed to manage knowledge in requirements engineering? (3) Can the efficiency and the efficacy of knowledge management models be evidenced in requirements engineering? Thirty-six works were chosen for analysis out of a total 83 found in our search. The analysis showed that (1) knowledge has a central significance at this stage, but the authors have yet to agree on the best methods to impart and apply that knowledge; (2) no general framework has emerged as a validated approach to manage knowledge for requirements engineering; and (3) the evaluation marks for model efficiency and efficacy are low, consisting mostly of personal interpretations.
Article
Recent research suggests that people obtain complex, useful knowledge from other people with whom they work closely and frequently (i.e., strong ties). Yet there has been only limited systematic empirical work examining why strong ties are important for knowledge transfer. Based on a review of the social network, trust, and knowledge/organizational learning literatures, we propose a model whereby two-party (dyadic) trust mediates the relationship between strong ties and effective knowledge transfer. We tested this model with a two-stage survey in three companies in different countries and found strong support. First, the relationship between strong ties and effective knowledge transfer (as reported by the knowledge receiver) was mediated by competence- and benevolence-based trust. Second, once we controlled for these two dimensions of trust, it was actually weak ties that provided the most useful knowledge. This latter finding is consistent with prior research suggesting that weak ties provide access to non-redundant information. Third, we also found that competence-based trust was especially important for the transfer of complex (tacit) knowledge. Implications are drawn for the social network and knowledge/organizational learning literatures as well as for management practice.
Article
Knowledge management (KM) has received considerable attention in recent years. Some consider knowledge the most strategically important resource, and learning the most strategically important capability for business organizations. Major UK construction organizations have recognized the benefits that KM can offer and have thus invested in KM. This paper reports on a survey of these companies. The purpose of the survey was: (1) to examine the importance of KM to UK construction organizations; (2) to investigate the resources used to implement KM strategies; and (3) to identify the main barriers to implementing KM strategies. The survey found that the main reasons for implementing a KM strategy was the need to share the tacit knowledge of key employees and to disseminate best practice. Also, significant resources in terms of staff time and money were being invested in KM, but the main barrier to implementing a KM strategy was the lack of standard work processes.
Article
In this article we propose a theoretical model of the dynamics underlying the experiences of women and people of color in demographically diverse decision-making groups. Based upon the framework provided by the model, we then describe the different roles women and people of color may experience in these groups, and we examine the dynamics by which their roles may change over time. Finally, we discuss implications for future research and management practice.
Article
Interviewing stakeholders is a way to elicit information about requirements for a system-to-be. A difficulty when preparing such elicitation interviews is to select the topics to discuss, so as to avoid missing important information. Stakeholders may spontaneously share information on some topics, but remain silent on others, unless asked explicitly. We propose the Elicitation Topic Map (ETM) to help engineers in preparing interviews. ETM is a diagram showing topics that may be discussed during interviews, and shows how likely stakeholders discuss each of these topics spontaneously. If a topic is less likely to be discussed spontaneously, then this suggests that engineers may want to prepare questions on it, before the interview. ETM was produced through theoretical and empirical research. The theoretical part consisted of identifying topic sets based on a conceptual model of communication context, grounded in philosophy, artificial intelligence, and computer science. The empirical part involved interviews with requirements engineering professionals to identify the topic sets and topics in each set, surveys of business people in order to evaluate how likely they would spontaneously share information about topics, and evaluations of how likely students would share information about each topic, when asked about requirements for social network websites.