Systematic analyses on knowledge implementation steps and themes at the organizational level

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:

[email protected])

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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%)


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


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.

Documents

Systematic analyses on knowledge implementation steps and themes at the organizational level