View
213
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2014) 18(2):444-453
Copyright ⓒ2014 Korean Society of Civil Engineers
DOI 10.1007/s12205-014-1191-x
− 444 −
pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
Construction Management
Systematic Analyses on Knowledge Implementation Steps
and Themes at the Organizational Level
S. B. Kim*
Received April 1, 2013/Accepted April 24, 2013
··································································································································································································································
Abstract
The on-going global economic crisis drives the construction industry to even more competitive and many organizations arestruggling to be survived in this harsh environment. It is believed that the effective knowledge management often leads to creativevalue-added innovations and consequently raises competitiveness of its products and services. Despite of the growing emphasis onthe knowledge implementation effort, there is little research focused on the systematic knowledge implementation processes orthemes. The main objectives of this study is to assess the current status of the organizational knowledge implementation efforts basedon the implementation steps specified in the CII Implementation Model and on the implementation themes derived from the literaturereview. Identified implementation themes include management support, resources, communication, continuous improvement,integration, culture, benefit, documentation, research accessibility, and process. Various statistical analysis methods such as ANOVAand reliability tests were utilized in order to validate the findings from this study using the data collected with a structured survey. Ingeneral, management leadership and support are defined as strong areas when a construction related organization is implementingorganizational knowledge. However, it turns out that organizations need to put more tangible effort to improve their organizationalknowledge implementation level such as establishing systematic measurement system and assigning more resources includingpeople, time, and money. This study successfully identifies the common areas where the participating organizations need toconcentrate and proves the research hypothesis of that organizations have, in general, strengths and weaknesses in using certainimplementation steps and implementation themes.
Keywords: implementation steps, implementation themes, knowledge management, construction industry institute
··································································································································································································································
1. Introduction
The on-going global economic crisis drives the construction
industry to even more competitive and many organizations are
struggling to be survived in this harsh environment. For the
companies who want to keep the competitive edges over the
competitors, effective knowledge management has become one
area on which they have to concentrate (Kim, 2002a). It is
believed that effective knowledge management often leads to
value-added creative innovations and consequently raises
competitiveness of their products and services.
The construction industry is commonly regarded as a relatively
passive industry with the slow adoption of knowledge produced
by various research entities such as universities and Construction
Industry Institute (CII). CII has identified the common problems
of knowledge management in the construction industry and put
its efforts to improve the related practices. CII Implementation
Strategy Committee (ISC) emphasizes the importance of proper
implementation of produced knowledge as well as the production
of creative knowledge from timely research activities. This study
is one of by-products of CII ISC’s efforts on improving
organizational knowledge implementation in order to positively
revolutionize the industry.
Despite of the growing emphasis on the knowledge imple-
mentation effort, there is little research focused on the
systematic knowledge implementation processes or issues (Kim,
2002b). Therefore, this study focuses on identifying proper
implementation steps that need to be followed in order to
enhance knowledge implementation. In addition, specific issues
or themes related to the knowledge implementation are identified
from this research. Based on the findings on implementation
steps and themes, this study also attempts to assess the current
status of knowledge implementation in the construction industry
based on data collected with a structured survey. It is envisioned
that this study provides guidelines for construction organizations
to improve their knowledge implementation processes and
consequently to increase their competitiveness.
2. Research Objectives and Methodology
There are two primary objectives for this research. One is to
perform an analysis of the implementation steps specified in the
TECHNICAL NOTE
*Member, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Dongguk University, Seoul 100-715, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail:
kay95@dgu.edu)
Systematic Analyses on Knowledge Implementation Steps and Themes at the Organizational Level
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 445 −
CII Implementation Model in order to identify the general
strengths and weaknesses in knowledge implementation within
survey participants. The other is to develop implementation
themes based on a solid theoretical background and to analyze
them to evaluate their implications on the organizational imple-
mentation process. In achieving these objectives, the following
research hypothesis is employed in this study.
“Organizations have, in general, strengths and weaknesses in
using certain implementation steps and implementation themes”
Data collection on implementation steps and themes is done by
survey questionnaires developed for this study. The survey
follows the structure of the CII implementation model and it is
designed to address specific issues related to each implementation
step. The survey has eight sections corresponding to the first
eight implementation steps defined in the CII Implementation
Model and each section has different number of questions. Most
questions have a Likert’s one-to-five scale while the others are
yes/no questions. Participants also had a choice of not answering
the question by selecting a ‘Not Applicable’ option. The survey
was distributed to 88 organizations in the construction industry
and their composition is summarized in Fig. 1. Among 88
contacted samples, 41 organizations completed the survey.
Survey participants had three different ways of completing the
survey questionnaire including the survey website, email
submission using a MicrosoftTM Word file, and traditional survey
methods such as postal mail or fax. Out of 41 participants who
completed the survey, 34 respondents used the survey website
while only 7 used other means (See Fig. 1). This was very
encouraging from a data collector’s perspective since it
significantly reduced the time required to manually input data
into the database, and also minimized input errors due to the
built-in error checking functions within the survey website. This
also has implications for future research projects involving large
surveys, in terms of how to make the data collection process
more efficient. Fig. 1 shows the survey sample with completion
methods and a sample section of survey website is available in
Fig. 2.
3. Literature Review
3.1 Construction Industry Institute (CII) and CII Implemen-
tation Model
The Construction Industry Institute, based at The University of
Texas at Austin, is “a consortium of more than 100 leading
Fig. 1. Survey Sample (N=88) and Survey Completion Methods
Fig. 2. A Sample Section in Survey Website
S. B. Kim
− 446 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
owner, engineering-contractor, and supplier firms from both the
public and private arenas. These organizations have joined
together to enhance the business effectiveness and sustainability
of the capital facility life cycle through CII research, related
initiatives, and industry alliances. A learning organization with a
wealth of knowledge and information, CII is unique in the
engineering and construction industry” (CII, 2013).
Among the committees in CII, the Implementation Strategy
Committee (ISC) plays a major role on assisting member
organizations in implementing CII knowledge. The CII
Implementation Model shown in Fig. 3 illustrates nine
implementation steps proposed by ISC to improve knowledge
implementation within construction related organizations (Kim,
2001). This model provides the framework for the data collection
survey, and the analyses regarding each implementation step are
further conducted in this study.
Brief descriptions on foundations and implementation steps
from the implementation model are as follows; (CII, 2013)
1. A Foundation of CII Products, Support, and Benchmarking
and Metrics Data.
• CII products: implementation resources, research summa-
ries and educational materials that can be used to assist
individuals and organizations in process improvements.
• CII Supports: staff assistance, the experienced user pro-
gram, and periodic Implementation Champion Workshops
to facilitate implementation within and across CII member
organizations.
• Benefit/Cost data: project performance and practice use
metrics provided by the CII Benchmarking and Metris
(BM&M) program
2. Corporate Commitment: Any effective corporate implemen-
tation effort must begin with a clear and strong management
commitment to improve. This commitment may include:
• A statement from the leadership that clearly informs
employees what the company expects relative to knowledge
implementation
• Directives to implement specific CII research findings into
existing processes, procedures and practices within the
company.
• Evaluation of efforts to accomplish or support the imple-
mentation of CII research findings by incorporating these
goals into employee performance reviews with specific
usage targets.
• Use of the Implementation Model as a guide.
3. Corporate Implementation Champion (IC): A corporate
implementation champion is selected by the leadership, and
is provided support and resources to guide and direct imple-
mentation of CII products to maximize corporate benefits.
Essential duties of the IC include:
• Providing the leadership to identify the greatest corporate
improvement needs
• Facilitating communication of implementation benefits,
successes, and opportunities
• Spreading knowledge by enhancing the awareness
• Accomplishing objective measurement of the results of
using CII Knowledge
4. Self-Audit: Self audits should be performed periodically
with the corporate leadership in order to identify opportuni-
ties for improvement. Self-audit includes:
• Determine which CII research findings have been imple-
mented and the degree to which each has been imple-
mented.
• Use tools to make the self-auditing process efficient and
consistent.
5. Implementation Plan & Goals: In order to implement CII
knowledge effectively, an implementation plan should be
developed and target goals set to measure success. The plan
and goals should:
• Be based on corporate vision and specific corporate goals
• Select strategies and formulate specific implementation
steps.
• Focus on integrating CII knowledge into company pro-
cesses, procedures and culture.
6. Review Product/Boards Champions: In order to determine
which practices and products to adopt, an internal review
board facilitates corporate review of CII research findings.
The board makes recommendations for adoption of selected
practices. Product champions are then assigned to facilitate
the implementation of the specific product.
The Review Board:
• Determines which CII Best Practices (or other practices)
are applicable to their company.
• Recommends specific CII Best Practices for application
within the company’s business process for capital develop-
ment projects.
The Product Champion:
• Is selected early in the review process to facilitate the
understanding of a CII Best Practice.
• Frequently serves as the overall manager of the knowledge
implementation process.
7. Product(s) Training: Effective implementation must be
accompanied by training developed specifically for the prac-
Fig. 3. CII Implementation Model
Systematic Analyses on Knowledge Implementation Steps and Themes at the Organizational Level
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 447 −
tice to be implemented. This training should:
• Provide knowledge necessary for successful implementa-
tion
• Include all key stakeholders
• Use appropriate resources available to support training.
• Be adequately resourced to achieve the implementation
goal.
8. Product Implementation: Next, the product/practice must be
implemented. It is recommended that this occur on a pilot
application basis on one or more projects with a good mech-
anism for measurement. Recommendations include:
• Select CII Best Practices for implementation based on
potential for improvement in your organization or project.
• Identify possible barriers and plan the necessary enablers
to counter any barriers.
• Provide leadership, communication, resources and support
to make sure that the effort is a fair test of the product or
practice.
9. Measure Results: As in the case of implementation of any
new tool, technique, or product, results must be measured to
make sure that the effort is worthwhile. Suggestions include:
• Use the same techniques that were used during the self-
audit.
• Measure both utilization of Best Practices and impact of
use.
• Participate in surveys conducted by CII BM&M Commit-
tee or others to identify their usefulness
10. Celebrate Success. To effectively integrate the practices into
the corporate culture and to inculcate a culture of implemen-
tation, celebration of success is an effective tool. Recom-
mendations include:
• Recognize and publicize successes in the implementation
process
• Use media such as newsletters, intranet sites, team meetings,
and organizational process documentation.
3.2 Implementation Themes
In developing implementation themes, important issues that
need to be addressed to improve organizational implementation
were identified through the extensive literature review (Funk et
al., 1991; Smith, 1995; Stetler, 1994; Parahoo, 2000). In addition,
some of the models related to the knowledge management are
reviewed including a diagnostic model for knowledge management
(Kale, 2012) and lean construction management model (Kim,
2006). Then, those issues were categorized into implementation
themes that are commonly used in related literatures and further
analyzed with the data collected using the survey questionnaires.
Since the survey questionnaire followed the structure of the CII
Table 1. Summary of Implementation Themes
Implementation Theme Definition Implementation Issues Information Source
Management Support
Perception of survey participantsregarding whether their managementsis supportive in implementing CIIproducts
Administrative support, involvementof management in implementation
Smith (1995), Stetler (1994), Funk et al. (1991b), Parahoo (2000).
ResourcesTangible or intangible assets that helpto support implementation of CIIproducts
Time, money, computers, incentives,publications, etc.
Closs et al. (2000),Sitzia (2001), Stetler (1994), Funk et al. (1991b), Walsh (1997),Parahoo (2000), Smith (1995),Pettengill et al. (1994).
CommunicationEffectiveness of transferring informationfrom one unit to another unit within anorganization
Research awareness, well-communi-cated goals, plans, benefits, etc.
Closs et al. (2000), Sitzia (2001),Stetler (1994), Funk et al. (1991b).
Continuous ImprovementDegree of adherence to the traditionalquality ‘plan-do-check-act’ model
Measure results, actions based onresults, repetitive process, etc.
Lane et al. (1999), Stetler (1994),Titler et al. (1994), Smith (1995), Funk et al. (1991b).
IntegrationAssessment of how well an implementedpractice is incorporated into existingprocesses
The degree of incorporation of newpractice into existing processes
Barta (1995), Dieng et al. (1999),Stetler (1994), Titler et al. (1994),Funk et al. (1991b).
CultureReadiness of an organizational environ-ment for implementing a new idea orpractice
Peer support, risk-taking environment,innovative thinking, etc.
Closs et al. (2000), Stitzia (2000),Walsh (1997), Funk et al. (1991b),Pettengill et al. (1994).
BenefitRecognition of related gains in anyform from implementation
Benefits in cost, time, quality, produc-tivity, etc.
Titler et al. (1994), Stetler (1994),Funk et al. (1991b).
DocumentationRecording of any issues related to theimplementation process in a printedformat or in computer
Records of plan, process, lessons-learned, results, etc.
Stetler (1994), Smith (1995), Funk et al. (1991b).
Research AccessibilityEase of access to information regard-ing available research and getting helpin understanding research findings
Available CII publications, open-ness of training programs, practiceexpert, etc.
Closs (2000), Funk et al. (1991b),Walsh (1997).
Process
Existence of processes needed toeffectively implement a practice andthe degree of flexibility of existingprocesses to accommodate improvements
Implementation process, auditingprocess, measurement process, prod-uct-selection process, etc.
Demarest (1997), Argote et al. (2000),Quintas et al. (1997), Titler et al. (1994),Funk et al. (1991b).
S. B. Kim
− 448 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
Implementation Model, not all implementation themes are
addressed in single section of the survey. For example, issues
about ‘available resources’ to successfully implement knowledge
are asked with seven questions in five different sections. Since
the implementation themes were developed based on the
findings from the literature review, examinations of the use of
each theme might yield interesting findings related to organizational
implementation.
Identified implementation themes include management support,
resources, communication, continuous improvement, integration,
culture, benefit, documentation, research accessibility, and process.
Issues related to each implementation theme were reviewed and
used as inputs in developing the survey instrument. In addition, the
implementation themes were analyzed by grouping related
questions under each implementation theme which were often
spread out in several sections of the survey. After grouping of
questions were completed, reliability tests were also conducted to
investigate internal consistencies among questions grouped under
each implementation theme. Reliability analysis results of the
implementation themes are explained later. The definitions of the
implementation themes, related issues to each theme and information
source are summarized in Table 1. Table 2 shows the groups of
questions that were categorized under each implementation theme
and how they were used in analyzing the implementation themes.
4. Analysis of the CII Implementation Steps &Themes
This chapter provides insights into the usage of the implementation
steps and themes within organizations by analyzing survey
results from the 41 organizations that participated in this study.
Note that step nine of the Implementation Model, celebrate
results, was not assessed. The areas of strength and weakness
are also identified based on the scores calculated for each
implementation step. It was envisioned that this information
could provide organizations with guidelines on where to put
their emphasis in order to achieve better implementation.
4.1 Analysis Results on Knowledge Implementation Steps
As previously mentioned, the survey consisted of eight sections
that corresponded to the first eight implementation steps defined
in the CII Implementation Model. Each section contained a set of
questions to assess how well the implementation step had been
addressed within the responding organization. Summary statistics
for the eight implementation steps were calculated by aggregating
the answers for the questions in each section and these are
provided in Fig. 4. In calculating means for each implementation
step, answers for all the questions within the corresponding
survey section, excluding ‘Not Applicable’ questions, were
averaged. As shown in Table 3 and in Fig. 4, ‘Self-Audit’ and
‘Measurement’ were identified as areas where participating
organizations have weaknesses in general compared to the other
implementation steps. In contrast, organizations typically had
better scores in ‘Corporate Commitment’ and ‘Corporate
Implementation Champion’ than the other implementation steps.
Boxplots for the implementation steps shown in Fig. 5 illustrate
that the two weakest areas also have more variation when
Table 2. Implementation Themes and Related Questions in Survey
Implementation Theme Questions in Survey
Management Support 1-1, 1-7, 4-3, 8-12*
Resource 1-10, 2-5, 4-5, 4-6, 5-4, 8-12
Communication 1-3, 4-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 6-8
Continuous Improvement 2-7, 6-11, 7-7, 7-10, 8-3, 8-9, 8-10
Integration 1-4, 1-5, 3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 4-1, 6-9
Culture 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 4-7, 4-8, 7-6
Benefit* 1-2, 3-6, 5-6
Documentation 1-5, 2-6, 6-2, 6-3
Research Accessibility 7-1, 7-2, 7-6
Process 1-6, 2-1, 4-1, 6-4, 6-5, 6-9, 8-9
*Excluded from the final analysis due to internal inconsistencies among ques-tions (Refer Table 9)
Fig. 4. Implementation Scores by Implementation Steps (N = 41)
Table 3. Summary Statistics by Implementation Steps
Implementation Step* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mean 3.48 2.63 3.21 3.28 3.49 3.28 3.34 3.02
Standard Deviation 0.71 0.82 0.97 0.70 1.07 0.63 0.70 0.90
Range 2.90 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.64 3.00 3.85
Maximum 1.70 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 2.00 1.80 1.00
Minimum 4.60 4.00 5.00 4.25 5.00 4.64 4.80 4.85
*Notes 1: Corporate Commitment, 2: Self-Audit, 3: Product Champions/ Review Boards, 4: Product (Practice) Implementation, 5: Corporate Imple-mentation Champion, 6: Implementation Plans & Goals, 7: Product Training, 8: Measure Results
Systematic Analyses on Knowledge Implementation Steps and Themes at the Organizational Level
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 449 −
compared to other implementation steps. Some outliers are also
identified in the boxplots and they are shown as eclipses in Fig.
5. No data point was excluded from the analyses. The analysis
performed to compare implementation steps is a very high level
of aggregation and that this is likely to be due in part to
individual differences between firms. Areas of improvement for
each implementation step are also summarized in Table 4 based
on the comments gathered from the survey.
After investigating the summary statistics of each of the
implementation steps, an ANOVA was conducted to evaluate
whether the mean differences among these implementation steps
were statistically significant. From the ANOVA test results
shown in Table 5, there were significant statistical differences
between means of some implementation steps as the p value is
less than 0.05. Complete SPSS® ANOVA analysis results
include multiple comparison information with every possible
combination of two implementation steps.
After analyzing the differences between implementation
steps, further statistical analyses were performed within each
implementation step. Statistical reliability among questions
within each section is checked by using the SPSS® reliability
test. Based on the reliability test results, it is statistically proven
that most of the questions in measuring each implementation
Fig. 5. Boxplots by Implementation Steps
Table 4. Analysis Summary of Implementation Steps
Implementation Step Average Score Areas for Improvement
Corporate Commitment 3.48 − Not enough resources allocated
Self-Audit 2.63− Lack of self-auditing process− Lack of self-auditing tools− No documentation of self-auditing results
Product Champions/ Review Boards 3.20− Need product implementation champions for specific CII practices− Process to review and select appropriate CII practices to implement− Benefit and cost data
Product Implementation 3.28− Not enough resources− Identification of implementation barriers− Not enough time for implementation
Corporate Implementation Champion 3.48− Measurement of results vs. planned− Effective use of resources
Implementation Plans & Goals 3.28− Identification long-team and short-term goals for implementation− Lack of relevant data in preparing plans− Communication of plans and goals
Product Training 3.34− Need more training time per employee− Timely-offered training program− Need for a mechanism to identify future training needs
Measure Results 3.02− Measurement of the degree and impact of implementation− Appropriate analysis of measured data− Proper incentives system
Table 5. ANOVA Results among Implementation Steps
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 22.503 7 3.215 4.725 0.0001
Within Groups 217.044 319
Total 239.546 326
Table 6. Summary Statistics on Step 5. Corporate Implementation
Champion
No. Mean1 Percent2 Stdev3 RangeNo of NAs4
CL5
1 4.41 89% 1.43 4 0 0.45
2 4.19 84% 0.75 3 5 0.25
3 4.28 86% 0.78 3 5 0.27
4 3.44 68% 1.98 4 5 0.67
5 3.23 66% 1.01 4 7 0.35
6 3.58 72% 0.87 3 5 0.30
7 3.74 75% 0.85 3 6 0.29
8 4.13 83% 0.59 2 5 0.20
9 4.22 84% 0.59 2 5 0.20
10 3.57 72% 0.94 3 8 0.33
11 3.03 61% 1.07 4 8 0.38
12 3.40 68% 0.92 4 6 0.32
Total 3.49 70% 1.06 4 73 0.331Maximum Mean: 5, Minimum Mean: 1, Sample size = 412Percentage of the Maximum3Standard Deviation4Number of participants who answered as ‘Not Applicable’5Confidence Level (95%)
S. B. Kim
− 450 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
step are internally consistent with each other. The ones have
low reliabilities were excluded from the analysis. ANOVA
tests among questions within each section are also conducted
to investigate the mean difference of survey responses in each
question, which are statistically significant with no abnormal
issues. Table 6, 7, 8 show the analyses results of implementation
step ‘5. Corporate Implementation Champion’ as an example.
4.2 Analysis Results on Knowledge Implementation Themes
Initially, there were ten implementation themes identified
based on the findings from the literature review. However, one
implementation theme, benefits, was excluded from the analyses
after testing its internal reliability, since the questions to this
theme were not adequately consistent and the Alpha value was
not within the acceptable range. The Alpha values for the 10
initial implementation themes by analyzing groups of questions
in Table 2 are provided in Table 9.
The nine implementation themes that are analyzed in this
section included management support, resources, communication,
continuous improvement, integration, culture, documentation,
accessibility, and process as described in chapter 3.2. This
section contains comparison information of the nine different
implementation themes in terms of their organizational
implementation status. The differences in usage of different
themes are addressed as well as general strengths and weaknesses
identified among survey participants. Each implementation
theme was analyzed in detail by looking at individual questions
grouped to measure each implementation theme. Each
implementation theme had a different number of questions and
the consistency among the questions in each category was
tested using the SPSS® reliability test function. Summary
statistics of the nine implementation themes are given in Table
10 and differences among the implementation themes in terms
of their average implementation scores are graphically shown
in Fig. 6.
As shown in Table 10 and Fig. 6 ‘Resources’ and ‘Documentation’
were identified as the weakest areas while ‘Management Support’
had a considerably higher implementation score than the other
implementation themes. This is a somewhat contradictory
finding since one might think that more resources would be
available when management supports knowledge implementation.
However, it seemed that the respondents felt that although
management was saying that they supported the organizational
knowledge implementation, there were just not enough resources
to adequately support implementation. This perception may be
caused by a lack of awareness of the best practices and their
Table 7. ANOVA Results on Step 5. Corporate Implementation Cham-
pion
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 83.818 7 7.620 6.827 0.0001
Within Groups 446.213 415 1.116
Total 547.030 426
Table 8. Reliability Analysis on Step 5. Corporate Implementation
Champion
Question Alpha if Item Deleted
1 0.9571
2 0.9541
3 0.9547
4 0.9680
5 0.9580
6 0.9558
7 0.9561
8 0.9541
9 0.9541
10 0.9371
11 0.9573
12 0.9585
Overall Alpha 0.9606
Table 9. Reliability Analysis on Implementation Themes
Implementation Theme Chronbach Alpha
Management Support 0.7796
Resources 0.7495
Communication 0.6939
Continuous Improvement 0.8263
Integration 0.8275
Benefits* 0.4057
Culture 0.6895
Documentation 0.7485
Research Accessibility 0.8441
Process 0.8533
*Excluded from the analysis
Table 10. Summary Statistics by Implementation Themes
Themes* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mean 3.82 2.85 3.35 3.14 3.37 3.38 3.02 3.18 3.26
Median 4.00 3.00 3.40 3.14 3.42 3.29 3.00 3.67 3.30
Stdev.** 0.83 0.84 0.68 0.64 0.86 0.60 0.79 1.11 0.77
Range 3.67 3.09 2.75 2.57 3.14 3.14 3.50 4.33 3.80
Min. 1.33 1.33 2.00 1.71 1.42 1.43 1.00 0.67 0.70
Max. 5.00 4.42 4.75 4.29 4.57 4.57 4.50 5.00 4.50
*Notes 1: Management Support, 2: Resources, 3: Communication, 4: Continuous Improvement, 5: Integration, 6: Culture, 7: Documentation, 8:Research Accessibility, 9: Process**Stdev.: Standard Deviation
Systematic Analyses on Knowledge Implementation Steps and Themes at the Organizational Level
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 451 −
potential benefits by management or management may not
realize the amount of resources that need to be allocated to
effectively support implementation. Areas of improvement for
each implementation theme are also summarized in Table 11
based on the comments gathered from the survey.
An ANOVA was conducted to evaluate whether the mean
differences between implementation themes are statistically
significant. The mean differences were statistically significant
since the p value from the ANOVA test was 0.0001 which is
less than 0.05(See Table 12). It means that differences among
implementation themes are statistically significant in terms of
their level of efforts dedicated to each implementation theme.
Similarly as in analyzing implementation steps, further statistical
analyses were performed within each implementation theme.
Statistical reliability among questions related each implementation
theme is checked by using the SPSS® reliability test. The
reliability test results reveal that most of the questions in
measuring each implementation theme are consistent with each
other. Based on the ANOVA tests among questions within each
implementation theme, it is indicated that the mean difference of
survey responses are statistically significant. Table 13, 14, 15
show the analyses results of implementation theme ‘2. Resources’
as an example.
Fig. 6. Implementation Scores by Implementation Themes (N = 41)
Table 11. Analysis Summary of Implementation Themes
Implementation Themes Average Score Areas for Improvement
Management Support 3.82 − No specific issues were identified
Resources 2.85
− Lack of resources for implementation− Lack of time for implementation− Effective use of allocated resources − Lack of incentives system
Communication 3.35− Effective communication between involved parties− Communication of plans and goals
Continuous Improvement 3.14− Lack of self-auditing processes− Lack of actions based on the auditing results− Need for a mechanism to identify future training needs to continuously improve
Integration 3.37 − Need for a system to select CII practices applicable to existing company processes
Culture 3.38− Peer support in implementation practices− Encouragement to related parties to participate in the product implementation
Documentation 3.02− Documenting self-auditing results and recommendations− Measurement of the degree and impact of implementation
Research Accessibility 3.18 − More training time per employee participating in the implementation process
Process 3.26
− Lack of self-auditing process− Measurement process− CII practices review process− Lessons learned capturing process
Table 12. ANOVA among Implementation Themes
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 24.451 8 3.056 4.709 0.0001
Within Groups 233.653 360 .649
Total 258.104 368
Table 13. Reliability Analysis on Theme 2. Resources
Question Alpha if Item Deleted
1-10 0.6654
2-5 0.6639
4-5 0.6661
4-6 0.7268
5-4 0.6721
8-12 0.7556
Overall Alpha 0.7495
Table 14. Summary Statistics on Theme 2. Resources
Question Mean1 Percent2 Stdev3 RangeNo of NAs4
CL5
1-10 3.02 60% 1.27 4 0 0.40
2-5 2.69 54% 1.00 3 2 0.37
4-5 2.90 59% 1.10 3 5 0.35
4-6 3.18 64% 1.08 4 1 0.35
5-4 3.44 69% 1.98 4 5 0.67
8-12 2.02 40% 1.77 4 2 0.57
Total 2.87 57% 0.83 4 71 0.281Maximum Mean: 5, Minimum Mean: 1, Sample size = 412Percentage of the Maximum3Standard Deviation4Number of participants who answered as ‘Not Applicable’5Confidence Level (95%)
S. B. Kim
− 452 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
5. Conclusions
The main objectives of this study are to assess the current
status of knowledge implementation efforts based on the
implementation steps specified in the CII Implementation Model
and on the implementation themes derived from the literature
review. The CII Implementation Model is a core implementation
aid developed with the support from the CII ISC and served as
the basis for this study in preparing the survey. The CII
Implementation Model specifies nine implementation steps that
organizations are recommended to follow when implementing
knowledge from CII research activities. Implementation themes,
another main analysis subject for this study, were identified from
the literature review focused on the issues related to research
implementation and knowledge management. The findings
revealed that the CII Implementation Model generally follows
examples in the literature and successfully addresses the topics
related to research implementation and knowledge management.
There are general consistencies between implementation themes
and the CII Implementation Model based on the background
research. Nine implementation themes identified in this study are
management support, resources, communication, continuous
improvement, integration, culture, benefit, documentation, research
accessibility, and process.
Eight implementation steps defined in the CII Implementation
Model and nine implementation themes developed based on the
findings from the literature review were analyzed in details using
such statistical techniques as reliability tests and ANOVA analysis
in this study. Analyses of implementation steps and themes identified
general strengths and weaknesses among the participating
organizations as shown in Table 16. Specific issues that need to
be addressed in order to improve specific implementation steps
and themes are also discussed based on survey comments. In
general, management leadership and support are defined as strong
areas when a construction related organization is implementing
organizational knowledge. However, it turns out that organizations
need to put more tangible effort to improve their organizational
knowledge implementation level such as establishing systematic
measurement system and assigning more resources including
people, time, and money.
This research is considered one of the first attempts in the
construction industry on analyzing specific steps and themes for
proper knowledge implementation using various statistical analysis.
This study successfully identifies the common areas where the
participating organizations need to concentrate and proves the
research hypothesis of that organizations have, in general,
strengths and weaknesses in using certain implementation steps
and implementation themes. It would be an interest expansion of
this study if one could increase the sample size and cluster them
by various factors such as type of organizational roles in
construction projects. It would also prove the importance of
knowledge management by measuring the impacts of the
organizational knowledge implementation against organizational
performance based on individual project performance.
References
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, L., and Moreland, R. (2000). “Knowledge
transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82,
No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Barta, K. M. (1995). “Information-seeking, research utilization, and
barriers to research utilization of pediatric nurse educators.” Journal
of Professional Nursing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 49-57.
Closs, J., Baum, G., Bryar, M., Griffiths, J., and Knight, S. (2000).
“Barriers to research implementation in two Yorkshire hospitals.”
Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 3-10.
CII (2013). Construction industry institute <https://www.construction-
institute.org/scriptcontent/index.cfm> (March, 29, 2013).
Demarest, M. (1997). “Understanding knowledge management.” Long
Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 374-384.
Dieng, R., Corby, O., Giboin, A., and Ribiere, M. (1999). “Methods and
tools for corporate knowledge management.” International Journal
of Human Computer Studies, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 567-598.
Funk, G., Champagne, T., Wiese, A., and Tornquist, E. M. (1991a). “The
barriers to research utilization scale.” Nursing Clinics of North
America, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 39-45.
Funk, G., Champagne, T., Wiese, A., and Tornquist, E. M. (1991b).
“Barriers to using research findings in practice: The clinician’s
perspective.” Applied Nursing Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 90-95.
Kim, S. B. (2002a). Assessment of CII knowledge implementation at the
organization level, PhD Thesis, Austin, University of Texas at Austin.
Kim, S. B. and Gibson, G. E. (2001). “A guide to the CII implementation
model and knowledge structure.” CII Implementation Resource 166-
2, Austin, Texas: Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas
at Austin.
Kim, S. B. and Gibson, G. E. (2002b). “Assessment of CII knowledge
implementation at the organization level.” A Report to the Construction
Industry Institute, Research Report 166-11, The University of Texas
at Austin, September 2002.
Kim, D. and Park, H. (2006). “Innovative construction management
method: assessment of lean construction implementation.” KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering, KSCE, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 381-388.
Lane, E. and Stephenson, L. (1999). “Fisheries-management science: A
framework for the implementation of fisheries-management systems.”
ICES Journal of Marine Science, Vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 1059-1066.
Parahoo, K. (2000). “Barriers to, and facilitators of research utilization
Table 15. ANOVA on Theme 2. Resources (95%)
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 44.471 5 8.894 4.574 .0001
Within Groups 445.316 229 1.945
Total 489.787 234
Table 16. Summary of Analyses on Implementation Steps and
Themes
Implementation Steps Implementation Themes
Strengths− Corporate Commitment− Corporate Implementation
Champion− Management Support
Weaknesses− Self-audit− Measurement
− Resources− Documentation
Systematic Analyses on Knowledge Implementation Steps and Themes at the Organizational Level
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 453 −
among nurses in northern ireland.” Journal in Advanced Nursing,
Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 89-98.
Pettengill, M. M., Gillies, D. A., and Clark, C. C. (1994). “Factors
encouraging and discouraging the use of nursing research findings.”
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.143-148.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., and Jones, G. (1997). “Knowledge management:
A strategic agenda.” Long Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 385-
391.
Sitzia, J. (2001). “Barriers to research utilization: The clinical setting
and nurses themselves.” European Journal of Oncology Nursing,
Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 154-164.
Smith, G. R. (1995). Barriers to implementation, A Report to the
Construction Industry Institute, Research Report 42-11, The
Pennsylvania State University, September 1995.
Stetler, C. B. (1994). “Refinement of the Steler/Marram model for
application of research findings to practice.” Nursing Outlook, Vol.
42, No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Titler, M. G., Kleiber, C., Steelman, V., Goode, C., Rakel, B., Small, S.,
and Buckwalter, K. (1994). “Infusing research into practice to
promote quality care.” Nursing Research, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 307-
313.
Walsh, M. (1997). “Perception of barriers to implementing research”
Nursing Standard, Vol. 11, No. 19, pp. 34-37.
Recommended