ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING IN CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

S. Mahdiputra, Dr. B. Giddings, K. Hogg and M. Daws

School of the Built Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE18ST
E- mail: suyanto.mahdiputra@unn.ac.uk

ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to report on the first phase of a PhD study based
in the North East of England. In overall terms, the study investigates how knowledge from an
existing project might benefit future projects. This would involve a chain of events in which a
project team would need a mechanism to embed its knowledge into the company and then the
company would need a second mechanism by which to inform new project teams. The
investigation is focussed on contracting organisations that engage with the UK performance
enhancement initiative known as Constructing Excellence. It also summarizes the theoretical
perspective on the current state of knowledge about organizational learning and outlines the
full methodology to be adopted. Preliminary findings of the first phase of this process are
presented. It exposes a snapshot of the North East construction activities. Later sections of the
paper outline how the rest of the study is to develop.

Keywords – Construction companies, Organisational learning, Project teams, Learning

mechanisms.

1. INTRODUCTION

The concept of organizational learning continues to gain momentum in both the academic
and the business community. From the academic perspective, it has even been claimed that
organisational learning as a research domain is now fully established (Easterby-Smith et al.,
2000: 783). Understanding the phenomenon of organisational learning is a difficult task
owing to its multifaceted nature. A full understanding of the phenomenon demands a
multitude of studies and pluralistic approaches. Yet, it is a fashionably interesting and elusive
organisational phenomenon attracting interest from almost boundless disciplines (Bapuji &
Crossan, 2004; Lipshitz & Popper, 2000; Clegg et al., 1996; Gilley et al., 2001; Starkey et al,
2004; Huber, 1991; Levitt & March, 1988; Easterby-Smith et al., 1999; Argyris & Schön,
1996; Dodgson, 1993; Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003). The construction domain is no
exception. Nevertheless, organisational learning research within the context of construction
has not yet been well represented. The body of literature on organisational learning is still
much dominated by scholars from management science, psychology and organisation
development, sociology and organisation theory, strategy, production management, cultural
anthropology, human resources and marketing (Easterby-Smith, 1997; Argyris & Schön,
1996; Easterby-Smith & Lyles, 2003; Bapuji & Crossan, 2004; Chiva & Alegre, 2005). It is
only recently that research has begun to take shape. As evidenced in the literature, a study is
developing on Cross Organisational Learning, primarily due to the COLA Project funded by
DETR and EPSRC (Cushman & Cornford, 2003; Cushman and Franco, 2004). There has also
been some work on Learning Capabilities (Knauseder, 2003; Styhre et al., 2004), Measuring
Organisational Learning (Kululanga et al, 2001) and Inter-organisational Learning (Barlow &
Jashapara, 1998).
The construction industry, and particularly construction companies, is typified by the fact
that its business mainly runs through projects. One of the claims is that construction is
inherently different from other industries in that its factory moves around and hardly ever
develops the same product twice. The principal approach of its management is based on a
one-off production philosophy. In fact, the traditional view treats each project as unique
(Morris et al., 2000; Bresnen & Marshall, 2001; Dubois & Gadde, 2002). As a consequence,
there is frequent evidence that the knowledge or lessons learned from projects is simply lost

696
following the completion of the project, as the project team is dissolved and members are
assigned to a different task, another team, and a new deadline (cf. Grabher, 2004: 1492).
The current literature that considers construction companies within the context of learning
is divided into two apparently isolated streams: project learning and organisational learning.
Project learning theories analyze the potential for learning and knowledge generated from
projects (e.g. Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Franco et al., 2004; Kotnour, 2000). The organisational
learning branch enriches the generic concept of organisational learning that is already
relatively well established and is studied in almost all types of organisation. While many have
seen and formulated the potential of projects to function as learning laboratories (Kreutzer,
1995) or arenas for learning processes (Lundin & Midler, 1998), few have provided empirical
evidence or conceptual analysis that has highlighted the process of transferring learning
across projects or between projects and the wider organisation (Pakendorff, 1995: 330), with
some exceptions, including Prencipe & Tell (2001), Williams (2003) and Cushman & Franco
(2004).
The purpose of the current research is, therefore, to contribute in addressing these gaps in
the literature. It is part of a PhD study based in the North East of England. In overall terms,
the study investigates how knowledge from an existing project might benefit future projects.
Hypothetically, this would involve a chain of events in which a project team would need a
mechanism to embed its knowledge into the company and then the company would need a
second mechanism by which to inform new project teams. The investigation is focussed on
contracting organisations that engage with the UK performance enhancement initiative
known as Constructing Excellence. The overall study process takes a multifaceted approach
(see the methodology section). In this part of the paper, tentative findings and preliminary
results gleaned from work in progress in the first phase of this process are highlighted. This
work took the form of a business audit relating to the size and type of projects currently being
undertaken and how the project teams are managed. The last part of the paper informs how
the remainder of the study will be conducted.

2. A BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Review of the Current State of Knowledge

Prior organisational learning concepts have emerged primarily from the studies of routine-
based organisations (Cyert & March, 1963; Levitt & March, 1988; Hedberg, 1981). From this
body of work, the process of learning can be understood as “encoding inferences from history
into routines that guide behaviour” (Levitt & March, 1988: 320). Despite an overwhelming
body of literature, how the term “organisationa l learning” should be defined is still
controversial. In fact, the definitions of organisational learning are almost as numerous as the
theorists working in the field. This predicament can be traced in part to the fact that the
ground or setting from which organisational learning is being studied is so diverse. For
example, Cangelosi & Dill (1965) observed the phenomenon from their designed simulation
in which a small group of students formed what is called “a seven- man team” and acted as
managers of a simulated-company- like organisation. Others, such as Argyris & Schön
(1978), formulated the concept by examining individual learning within a permanent, stable
organisation. Goh (2003) studied the organisational learning processes through case studies
of stable organisations. Leonard-Barton (1992) proposed his organisational learning model
from a factory setting. Schofield & Wilson (1995) added the role of project-team
organisations. Knauseder (2003) tried to view learning from the perspective of project
organisations. However, the majority of the body of literature in this domain is based on the

697
study of typical permanent organisations (see, among others, Denton, 1998; Cyert & March,
1963; Levitt & March, 1988; Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000; Naot et al, 2004).
Notwithstanding the above diversity in studying organisational learning, there are
commonly held principles that in order to become a learning organisation, a company should
(1) create continuous learning opportunities, (2) promote inquiry and dialogue, (3) encourage
collaborative and team learning, (4) establish systems to capture and share learning, (5)
empower people toward a collective vision, and (6) connect the organisation to its
environment (Watkins & Marsick, 1993; Marsick & Watkins, 1999; 2003).
There are still those who assert that learning is totally related to individuals (e.g. Simon,
1991: 125 and Dodgson, 1993: 377). However, most theorists recognise that organisational
learning can exist in its own right and be more than just the sum of individuals’ knowledge
(Fiol & Lyles, 1985: 804). Others have shown that learning at the organisational level occurs
through shared insights and mental models (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Senge, 1990) and builds
on the past knowledge and experience of organisation members (Stata, 1996). Over time, the
knowledge possessed by an individual may spread to other individuals in the organisation and
indeed to other organisations. Knowledge may then be stored in organisational memory
(Walsh & Ungson, 1991) in the form of files, manuals, policies, procedures, routines, etc. for
retrieval and use. It should not be assumed that organisations behave like individuals. As
Hedberg (1981: 3) points out “Organisations do not have brains, but they have cognitive
systems and memories… Members come and go, and leadership changes, but organisations’
memories preserve certain behaviours, mental maps, norms, and values over time”.
This school of organisational theorists agrees that learning can occur through different
levels. The learning of individuals is important to organisations, but the link between
individual and organisational learning is often the team. This relationship was recognized as
early as 1965 when Cangelosi & Dill suggested that learning occurs at all three levels -
individual, group (team) and organisation. As previously noted, individual learning can only
become organisational if that learning is shared among the organisation’s members (Argyris
& Schön, 1978; Shrivastava, 1983). Thus, some practices of collective learning and sharing
meanings (knowledge, beliefs, assumptions) through a form of dialogue, social interaction,
formal/informal communication, group dynamic activities, etc. must precede organisational
learning.
Current developments in the relation to the need to link individual learning and
organisational learning are progressing by looking at the potential of the social, situational
and relational aspects of learning. Proponents of this approach include, among others, Lave &
Wenger (1991), Wenger et al, (1998, 2000, 2002) and Brown & Duguid (1991, 2002).
Theorists from this school believe that organisational learning phenomena might be best
studied from the social learning perspective rather than the traditional view based on
individual cognitive orientation. This emerging perspective advocates the shift in paradigm
by seeing organisational learning as a phenomenon of ‘learning by organisations’ rather than
mere ‘learning in organisations’ (Lipshitz et al., 2002). As a by-product of this fundamental
shift, the argument that organisations have the capacity to learn (DeGeus, 1988; Goh, 2003)
now becomes an unquestionably verified metaphor. The growing body of literature on this
theme discusses the distinction between organisations that learn and those that do not. The
greatest contribution of this cerebral undertaking was perhaps the emergence of learning
organisation models with their set of characteristics. Through his book “The Fifth Discipline:
The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization”, Peter Senge (1990) marks the
celebration of this academic progression. Various perspectives have also emerged from both
empirical studies and theoretical conceptions.

698
2.2 Characteristic of a Learning Organisation

As evidenced in the literature, the growing interest of many theorists has turned towards
trying to formulate the features of a learning organisation. Some have taken a stand with a
descriptive approach, whilst others tend to provide prescriptive views. In synthesizing the
proposals of various theorists, a set of key characteristic elements of a learning organisation
can be derived (see Figure 1).
(Pedler et al., 1997; Denton, 1998;
Strategic thinking Phillips, 2004)
L
e (Senge, 1990; Goh, 1998; Pedler et al, 1997;
Shared vision Goh, 2003)
a
r (Goh, 1998; Denton, 1998; Sadler, 2001;
Committed leadership
n Goh, 2003; Phillips, 2004)
i Flexible organizational structure (Pedler et al., 1997; Denton, 1998)
n
(Pedler et al., 1997; Denton, 1998;
g Facilitative learning climate Nevis et al., 1995; Nyhan et al., 2004)
(Goh, 1998; Garvin, 1993; Goh, 2003;
O Experimentation & innovation is norm Luthans, 1995)
r
g (Senge, 1990; Garvin, 1993; Pedler et al., 1997;
Supported self-development
Luthans, 1995)
a
(Senge, 1990; Goh, 1998; Yorks et al, 2003;
n Effective teamwork & collaboration
Jashapara, 1993; Watkins & Marsick, 1993)
i
Active external scanning (Pedler et al., 1997; Nevis et al., 1995;
s
Huber, 1991)
a
(Pedler et al., 1997; Huber, 1991; Garvin,
t Efficient information distribution
1993; Nonaka et al., 2001)
i
o Continuous improvement (Kululanga, 2001; Phillips, 2004)
n
Autonomous project team (Nonaka & Takeuichi, 1995)

Fig. 1. Key characteristic elements of a learning organisation

Different models also emerge, for example, paying more attention to people (Senge,
1990), strategic approach (Goh, 1998), tools or technology (Garvin, 1993), context
development (Pedler et al., 1997) and systemic or holistic approaches (Watkins & Marsick,
1993). Luthans (1995), Nyhan et al. (2004) and Phillips (2004) are amongst those who have
tried to synthesize these perspectives and Jashapara (1993) and Nevis et al. (1995) actually
proposed what claimed to be more comprehensive models that emerge from two dissimilar
paradigms, namely competitive learning organisations and the learning system paradigms
respectively. Broad reviews on this theme are also presented by Örtenblad (2002) and
Moilanen (2001).

2.3 Measuring Organisational Learning

David Garvin (1993) stresses the need for measurement if learning is to become meaningful.
He states: “if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” (Garvin, 1993: 89). Similarly,
Campbell and Cairns (1994: 10) maintain that any endeavour to bring theory into reality
remains difficult without effective measurement tools. Working in this vein, theorists have
attempted to develop an instrument to measure the performance of organisations with regard
to their attainment against the key elements of the characteristics of learning organisations.
These contributors include Pedler et al. (1997), Gardiner & Whiting (1997), Hill (1996),

699
Moilanen (2001), Zairi (1999), and Yang (2003), amongst others. Despite the fact that many
have taken stakes in building a framework for measuring organisational learning, there is no
single exemplary framework that appears to be a good representation of the ‘learning by
organisation’ paradigm. At the core of the majority of these works seems to be the old
conviction that organisational learning is no more than just an extension from individual
learning, referred to here as the ‘learning in organisations’ paradigm. In this way, the premise
that organisations, by their own right, have the capacity or capability to learn has not yet been
properly addressed. However, there are some who have tried to make contributions on this
theme. For instance, Appelbaum & Reichart (1998) developed a survey instrument for
measuring organisational learning ability, while Goh & Richards (1997) and Jerez-G?mez et
al. (2005), proposed a benchmark of learning capability. Naot et al. (2004) in particular
provide good conceptual instances on how to discern the quality of organisational learning.
The work presented in this paper is partly inspired by this conception, in that it emphasises
the relationship between different organisational facets. In the case of this paper, these are the
relationships between the structural, political and cultural facets of organisational learning.

2.4 Indicators of Learning

In spite of the wealth of literature on organisational learning, disappointingly little seems to

be known about indicators of learning. In fact, this is one of the areas that remain remote
from research. The literature speaks about indicators of learning being trapped into copying
ideas about individual ‘human’ learning process that reflect on behaviour versus cognitive
changes. For example, Fiol & Lyles (1985) and Inkpen & Crossan (1995) consider that
organisational learning involves both behavioural and cognitive changes. However, this
assertion is also still a matter of some debate. For Argyris & Schön (1978), Senge (1990),
Levitt & March (1988), Hedberg (1981), Huber (1991) and Akgün et al, (2003), learning is
more associated with cognitive elements (i.e. interpretation, reflection, consciousness,
assumption, belief, etc), whilst Changelosi & Dill (1996), Herriott et al. (1985), Cyert &
March (1963), Shrivastava (1983), Stata (1996), Haleblian & Finkelstein (1999) and Greve
(2003) associate learning with adaptation or changes in behaviour. At a distance from this
state of debatable conceptions, the core interest of the present study is to consider how the
symptoms of (pre)occurrences of organisational learning can be sensed or indicated in a
concrete form. The aim is to make any attempt at measuring organisational learning become
feasible. This might be identified through the tangible existence of various explicit learning
mechanisms in use. The next section analyses a conceptual framework that will be used, in
part, to benchmark construction companies’ learning performance.

3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Having reviewed the major generic organisational learning theories in a broad sense, this
paper found a paradox in that most of these theories scarcely support the true existence of
organisational learning per se, while they supposedly pursue understanding of the
phenomenon of ‘learning by organisations’. There are still many who analyse organisational
learning as ‘learning of individuals in organisations’ or even simply assume that it is
metaphorically similar to individual learning. However, a number of recent articles mark the
necessary shift in paradigm (e.g. Lipshitz et al., 2000; 2002). In this view, the occurrence of
organisational learning is understood as ‘learning by organisations’ not ‘by individuals in
organisations’. This principle was first coined by Lipshitz et al. (2002) and is adopted in the
present paper. Based on this argument, the idea of organisational learning mechanisms has
emerged.

700
3.1 Organisational Le arning Mechanisms

For the learning of individuals to becoming organisational learning, a set of infrastructures is

needed. These are known as Organisational Learning Mechanisms. These mechanisms
function as a bridge by which the learning of individuals in an organisation may be
institutionalized into learning by organisations. This paper follows the definition of
organisational learning mechanisms by Lipshitz & Popper (2002) and Amstrong & Foley
(2003) with some adaptations.

Table 1. Organisational learning mechanisms in various forms

Learning processes
Locus of Pre-learning Experience Knowledge Codification/ Dissemination/
learning systems accumulation articulation Storage Distribution
• Project operating • Pre-project meeting • Project planning • Project plan/audit • Inter-project
Project Learning

procedures • Developed groupthink meetings • Milestones/ deadlines correspondence

• Strictly observed • Project team • On-site project • Meeting minutes • Inter-project
overlap for communication meetings • Case writing personal
departing/ arriving • Informal encounters • Post-project • Project history files exchange
members • Inter-project visits review • Intra-project ‘lessons • Project quality
• Project • Onsite information • Project evaluation learned’ database cycles
information exchange • Project progress • Learning histories • Staffing shift
system • Project team exposure meetings • As-built drawings from project to
• Inter-project- • Project progress home
meetings reports organisation
• On-site problem • Project final reports
solving
• Allocated • Informal organisational • Project manager • Drawings • Communities of
Organisation Learning

resources available routines, rules and camps • Process maps practice

for learning selection processes • Knowledge • Project management • Information
• Flexible • Departmentalisation retreats process technology
organisation to and specialisation • Professional • Lessons learned • Regular formal
allow mobility of • Benchmarking (internal networks database & informal
employees & external) • Knowledge • Job descriptions meetings
• Reward system • Imitation facilitators and • Routines • Story telling
• Established • Induction programs for managers • Standard operational • Informal
informing system new members • Personal reflection procedures communication
• System for control • Staff development /on- • Error corrections • Rules & regulations • Updating &
mechanism the-job training • Joint project • Artefacts coordinating
• Reporting system • Re-use of experts research • Diary meetings among
• Evaluation system • Professional-based • After-action • Reporting system various teams
• Formalized networks reflection • Individual systems • Job/role
relationship with • Inter-company based • Review from design rotations
boundary system networks success & failure • Individual memory • Trade shows
• Reward system • External & internal • In-house research • Embedded and exhibitions
• Employee seminars improvement experience
feedback system • Initiative of individual programs • Formal learning
learning procedure
• Partnering • Sub-contracting
• Corporate mentoring agreements
• Environmental • Engineering contract
scanning

Organisational learning mechanisms, in simple terms, are therefore defined as the

observable organisational sub-systems that are intentionally established to facilitate the
development of and improvement to the learning environment for continuous learning. In
other words, they are the context where the process of learning (i.e. accumulation,
articulation, codification and dissemination) takes place on behalf of the organisation. These
can be in the form of structural or procedural arrangements. There are overwhelming

701
instances of such mecha nisms appearing in the literature (see, for example, Kululanga et al.,
2001; Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Franco et al., 2004; Roth & Kleiner, 1998; Amstrong & Foley,
2003). However, this paper exclusively presents some key learning mechanisms that are
relevant to construction companies, as suggested by some prior literature. In synthesizing the
various useful learning mechanisms, a set of theoretical construction organisational learning
mechanisms is prepared (see Table 1).

3.2 Framework for Benchmarking Organisational Learning Performance

According to Popper & Lipshitz (2000: 185), “organisational learning mechanisms link
learning in organisations to learning by organisations in a concrete, directly observable and
malleable fashion”. If organisational learning performance is what the organisation aims to
measure, one may direct a glanced observation at whether organisational learning
mechanisms are in existence in the first place; otherwise, there will be no organisational
learning, in the sense that they may have not been institutionalized ‘formally’. However,
Lipshitz at al. (2002) themselves argue that whilst these structural facets are fundamental,
alone, they are not sufficient to accurately gauge the quality of organisational learning
performance. In this paper, it is argued that the degree of organisational learning performance
depends on two additional facets of organisational learning, i.e. political and cultural. The
proposed framework (see Figure 2) hypothesizes the linkage between these organisational
learning facets. It starts with the political facet, as represented by some organisational
political interventions (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Ferdinand, 2004), which in turn will instigate
the presence of a set of structural infrastructures in the form of organisational learning
mechanisms. Together, both organisational political interventions and organisational learning
mechanisms will facilitate the formation of learning cultures and norms (Yang, 2003; Jerez-
G?mez et al., 2005), which are prerequisites to the occurrence of learning by organisations.
How this affects the presence of learning environments (Pedler et al, 1997; Thomsen &
Hoest, 2001) can be observed and measured through the proposed organisational learning key
performance indicators. The ultimate attainment of such processes is the state of a highly
facilitative learning environment. The end story will be the identification of characteristics
that represent a model of a learning organisation (see the characteristic of learning
organisations).

(Structural facet + Learning

Political facet) + Cultural facet = Environment

Organizational
Learning Organization

A1
Learning
State of
Mechanisms Organizational
Cultural Highly
Learning’s Key
Instigates

values and Facilitative

Performance
norms Learning
Indicators
Organization Environment
A2 Political
Interventions

A1,2 B C D D
Facilitates Requires Leads to Results in

Fig. 2. Framework for benchmarking organisational learning performance

702
3.3 Organisational Learning Key Performance Indicators

The aforementioned key characteristic elements of a learning organisation serve as qualitative

features that are difficult to measure. In practice, there is a need for more substantive
indicators that are operationally observable and recognisable for the purpose of measurement.
Drawing on these elements, the paper develops a model of organisational learning key
performance indicators. This conceptual framework functions as a benchmarking instrument
which, first of all, will be employed in the next stage as part of the research process, i.e. to
segregate samples of construction companies in the order of their learning performances. It
should be noted here, however, that learning performances in the context of this paper are
basically mere symptoms of the (pre)occurrence of organisational learning per se. In concrete
terms, these are the formal existence of organisational learning mechanisms. The instrument
surveys the organisations in terms of the degree (intensity) of their quantitative engagement
with various learning mechanisms. The qualitative aspect measures the climate of the
learning environment, involving organisation members at various levels. Figure 3 presents a
set of key performance indicators of organisational learning that will function as
measurement criteria following the development of a measuring questionnaire.

Organizational Learning Key Performance Indicators

No Yes
(OLKPIs)

Company policies reflect the values of all

State of Highly Facilitative Learning Environment

Experimentation and innovation are the norm
State of Poor Learning Environment

Errors are tolerated

There is a climate of openness

Change is embraced by every-one
Personal development is supported

Information is easily accessible for every one

There is freedom of speech
Inquiry and dialogue is the norm

Personal and team interactions are promoted

Autonomy is given to each project team
Informal learning is facilitated
Rewards are given for every achievement

Fig. 3.Organisational learning key performance indicators

4. METHODOLOGY

This research is intended to discover how construction companies learn. The aim is to test the
previously stated propositions about the construction context with respect to organisational
learning. The main objective, however, is not the examination of learning per se, but rather to
seek how it ought to be practiced in the industry. This will eventually involve the evaluation
of current generic models in terms of their applicability to construction companies and the
generation of a specific model for the process of organizational learning in the context of
project-based construction organisation. The overall research methodology has been designed

703
to follow six major stages. In the Review of the Current State of Knowledge, a literature
search is carried out to establish the theoretical underpinning of the research. It is based on
the generic theories of organisational learning, supplemented by a small number of
construction-specific research studies. This is followed by a Business Environment Audit.
To provide the sample for the study, approximately 100 construction companies linked to
the Constructing Excellence initiative in the North East are being audited to establish their
business environments, such as their position in the market, typical procurement experience,
external and internal business contexts and in particular how they manage themselves. The
objective is to identify a comparable group of companies that can be analysed in depth. For
the purpose of primary Data Collection, a process of screening on the basis of consistency of
the business environment criteria will be undertaken. The selected companies will then be
invited to participate in the full data collection process. The data collection process will be
multifaceted in nature and dependent upon the learning mechanisms in practice.
The Data Analysis will determine the extent of engagement with organisational learning
key performance indicators derived from the review of the current state of knowledge. 20%
of the selected companies – those that exhibit greatest correlation with the key performance
indicators - will be involved in the model building stage via case study methodology. In
Model Building, the learning processes undertaken by the sample of high achieving
companies, in terms of their learning performance, will be tested against the generic
organisational learning theories to build a construction-specific model. The model will then
be tested on another 20% of companies – those that exhibit the least correlation with the key
learning performance indicators.

5. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

A Business Environment Audit Questionnaire was sent out to a number of construction

companies engaged with the Government-supported Constructing Excellence initiative in the
North East of England. A set of questions was asked relating to geographical area of most
work, category of construction activity, sector of activity, type of building, nature of
construction work, size of projects, experience of procurement systems, number of direct
employees, typical project team size, project organization, and willingness to support future
research. Some companies have responded to this questionnaire, and more responses are
being received.
A preliminary analysis of these responses revealed some interesting findings. Although
samples were exclusively drawn from the North East region in terms of where the companies’
offices were located, it was anticipated that they might work beyond this area. Responses
revealed that 32% of the companies extended their areas of activity to other areas of the UK.
Local companies –those that focus their work within the North East only-- accounted for 58%
of the total number of responding companies. The activities with which the respondents
engage were equally distributed between the public and the private sector.
Respondents were engaged with five types of construction project, namely residential,
office, leisure, retail and community. The main activity was office building, which was
occurring in the North East. Correspondingly, new build construction was more prevalent
(72%) than refurbishment (28%). The median size of the projects was in the range of
£1.000,000 - £5,000,000. However, in general the largest projects in which respondents had
engaged since 2000 most commonly exceeded £10,000,000. Furthermore, findings from the
business environment survey also disclosed some preliminary data about how project teams
within the construction companies were organised, i.e. whether they were reformed for each
new project or stayed together.

704
 In summary, although still relatively small in number, the quality of the responses was
excellent in terms of their consistency, completeness and clarity with regard to the
information provided by respondents. There was no indication of confusion or difficulty in
answering the questions in the questionnaire, signifying its efficiency and appropriateness. In
themselves, these tentative findings contain new empirical data and present a fascinating
snapshot of the North East construction activities.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER ACTION

This paper has presented some reflections on the current state of the literature on
organisational learning. The key to this paper is a presentation of a conceptual framework for
benchmarking organisational learning performance. This was followed by the presentation of two sub-
frameworks: organisational learning mechanisms and organisational learning key performance
indicators. It is proposed that this framework be used as a model for measuring organisational
learning. This conceptual framework will then be tested empirically during the next stage of
the research process. It incorporates three organisational learning facets: structural, political,
and cultural.
At the present stage of analysis, a business environment aud it has been partly completed
and a preliminary analysis of responses to the questionnaire prepared. An interesting image of
the North East construction activity as a result of this analysis has also been portrayed. This
also offers a picture of some indicative characteristics regarding how construction companies
organize their projects. Albeit a fraction of ongoing major research, this preliminary report
paves the way for some immediate reflections on how the next stages of the research are
organized, as will be presented below.

6.1 Roadmap to the Way Ahead

The next stage of the study will be the primary data collection. The initial procedure is to
select a comparable group of responding companies based on the consistency of business
environment criteria. A comp arable group of construction companies that is anticipated to
emerge from this segregation process will then be assessed as to whether they will be
technically and theoretically qualified to be invited to participate in further in-depth
investigation. These selected companies will go through a test of their learning performance
using a proposed model of the organisational learning key performance indicators. The
outcome of this test is expected to sort and list these companies in terms of their degree of
learning performance. Approximately 20% of these companies – the high achievers - will be
involved in the model building stage through case studies. At the heart of this procedure is
the development of a construction-specific organisational learning model. This involves the
identification of learning mechanisms that allow project teams to transfer their learning from
projects to their home organisations. In the same vein, there should be other secondary
mechanisms by which organisations inform new project teams. All in all, a representation of
how a project-based construction organisation learns is hoped to be replicated in this model.
The final procedure of the research will involve model testing and refinement of the
organisational learning key performance indicators model.
Two keys contributions are anticipated to materialize upon the completion of this PhD
study. The primary contribution will be the generation of a model, specific to construction
companies, which displays the process of organisational learning from existing projects for
the benefits of future projects. Secondly, as part of the process, knowledge will be gained in
terms of synthesising theoretical perspectives in generic organisational learning. One of the
outcomes of the latter is the key performance indicators model that functions as the analytical

705
framework for this research. At present, as can be seen from the list of references used in this
paper, there is little current knowledge on the business environment of construction
companies and data of this kind will represent additional knowledge. There is also little
known about the extent and nature of the learning processes currently being used by
construction companies and this study offers insights in that direction as well.

7. REFERENCES

Akgün, A.E., Lynn, G.S. and Byrne, J.C., 2003, Organizational learning: a socio-cognitive
framework, Human Relations, 56(7), pp839-868

Amstrong, A. and Foley, P., 2003, Foundations for a learning organization: organizational
learning mechanisms, The Learning Organization, 10(2), pp74-82

Appelbaum, S.H. and Reichart, W., 1998, How to measure an organization’s learning
ability: the facilitating factors – part II, Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(1), pp15-28

Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A., 1978, Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A., 1996, Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA

Bapuji, H. and Crossan, M., 2004, From questions to answers: reviewing organizational
learning research, Management Learning, 35(4), pp397-417

Barlow, J. and Jashapara, A., 1998, Organizational learning and inter-firm partnering in the
UK construction industry, The Learning Organization, 5(2), pp86-98

Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N., 2001, Understanding the diffusion and application of new
management ideas in construction, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 8(5/6), pp335-345

Brown, J. and Duguid, P., 1991, Organisational learning and communities of practice,
Organization Science, 2(1)

Brown, J. and Duguid, P., 2002, Local knowledge: innovation in the networked age,
Management Learning, 33(4), pp427–37

Campbell, T. and Cairns, H., 1994, Developing and measuring the learning organization:
from buzz words to behaviours, Industrial and Commercial Training, 26(7), pp10-15

Cangelosi, V. and Dill, W.R., 1965, Organizational learning: observations toward a theory,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(2), pp175-203

Chiva, R. and Alegre, J., 2005, Organizational learning and organizational knowledge:
towards the integration of two approaches, Management Learning, 36(1), pp49-68

Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds), 1996, Handbook of organization studies, Sage,
London

706
Cushman, M. and Cornford, T., 2003, Infrastructures for construction collaboration: the
cross organisational learning approach, International Journal of IT in Architecture,
Engineering and Construction, 1(1), pp67-78

Cushman, M. and Franco, A., 2004, Sharing insights from managing major construction
projects, in Friend, J. and Hickling, A. (Eds) Planning under Pressure: The Strategic
Choice Approach (third edition), Architectural Press, Oxford

Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G., 1963, A behavioral theory of the firm, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

DeGeus, A.P., 1988, Planning as learning, Harvard Business Review, 66, pp70-74

Denton, J., 1998, Organizational learning and effectiveness, Routledge, London

Dodgson, M., 1993, Organizational learning: a review of some literatures, Organization

Studies, 14(3), pp375-395

Dubois, A. and Gadde, L., 2002, The construction industry as a loosely coupled system:
implications for productivity and innovation, Construction Management and Economics,
20, pp621-631

Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. (Eds), 2003, Blackwell handbook of organizational

learning and knowledge management, Blackwell, Oxford

Easterby-Smith, M., 1997, Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and

critiques, Human Relations, 50(9), pp1085-1113

Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (Eds), 1999, Organizational learning and
the learning organization: developing in theory and practice, Sage Publications, London

Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D., 2000, Organizational learning: debates
past, present and future, Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), pp783-796

Ferdinand, J., 2004, Power, politics and state intervention in organizational learning,
Management Learning, 35(4), pp435-450

Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A., 1985, Organizational learning, Academy of Management
Review, 10(4), pp803-813

Franco, L.A., Cushman, M. and Rosenhead, J., 2004, Project review and learning in the
construction industry: embedding a problem structuring method within a partnership
context, European Jour nal of Operational Research, 152, pp586-601

Gardiner, P. and Whiting, P., 1997, Success factors in learning organizations: an empirical
study, Industrial and Commercial Training, 29(2), pp41-48

Garvin, D.A., 1993, Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Rev., 71(4), 78-91

707
Gilley, J.W., Dean, P. and Bierema, L., 2001, Philosophy and practice of organizational
learning, performance, and change, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA

Goh, S.C. and Richards, G., 1997, Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations,
European Management Journal, 15(5), pp575-588

Goh, S.C., 1998, Toward a learning organization: the strategic building blocks, SAM
Advanced Management Journal, 63(2), pp15-22

Goh, S.C., 2003, Improving organizational learning capability: lessons from two case
studies, The Learning Organization, 10(4), pp216-227

Grabher, G., 2004, Temporary architectures of learning: knowledge governance in project

ecologies, Organization Studies, 25(9), pp1491-1514

Greve, H.R., 2003, Organizational learning from performance feedback: a behavioral

perspective on innovation and change, Cambridge University Press

Haleblian, J. and Finkelstein, S., 1999, The influence of organizational acquisition experience
on acquisition performance: a behavioral learning perspective, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(1), pp29-56

Hedberg, B., 1981, How organizations learn and unlearn’, in P.C. Nystrom and W.H.
Starbuck (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Design, Oxford University Press, pp3-27

Herriott, S., Levintal, D. and March, J., 1985, Learning from experience in organizations,
American Economic Review, 75, pp298-302

Hill, R., 1996, A measure of the learning organization, Industrial and Commercial Training,
28(1), pp19-25

Huber, G.P., 1991, Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures,
Organization Science, 2, pp88-115

Inkpen, A. C. and Crossan, M. M., 1995, Believing is seeing: Joint ventures and organization
learning, Journal of Management Studies, 32(5), September, pp595-618

Jashapara, A., 1993, The competitive learning organization: a quest for the holy grail,
Management Decision, 31(8), pp52-62

Jerez-G?mez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J. and Valle-Cabrera, R., 2005, Organizational learning

capability: a proposal of measurement, Journal of Business Research, 58, pp715-725

Knauseder, I., 2003, Organizational learning capabilities in construction projects, Chalmers

University of Technology, Goteborg

Kotnour, T., 2000, Organizational learning practices in the project management

environment, Int. Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 17(4/5), pp393-406

708
Kreutzer, W.B., 1995, Building learning laboratories to create more effective distributed
decision making, in R.A. Lundin and C. Midler (Eds) Projects as Arenas for Renewal and
Learning Processes, Kluwer Academic, London, pp217-227

Kululanga, G.K., Edum-Fotwe, F.T. and McCaffer, R., 2001, Measuring construction
contractors’ organizational learning, Building Research & Information, 29(1), pp21-29

Lave, J. & Wenger, E., 1991, Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation,
Cambridge University Press, New York

Leonard-Barton, D., 1992, The factory as a learning laboratory, Sloan Management Review,
Fall, pp23-38

Levitt, B. and March, J.G., 1988, Organizational learning, Annual Review of Sociology, 14,
pp319-340

Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M., 2000, Organizational learning in a hospital, Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 36, pp345-361

Lipshitz, R., Popper, M. and Friedman, V.J., 2002, A multi-facet model of organizational
learning, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(1), pp78-98

Lundin, R.A. and Midler, C., 1998, Projects as arenas for renewal and learning processes,
Kluwer Academic, London

Luthans, F., 1995, Going beyond total quality: the characteristics, techniques, and measure
of learning organizations, The Int. Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), pp24-44

Marsick, V., & Watkins, K., 1999, Facilitating learning organizations: making learning
count, Gower Press, London

Marsick, V., & Watkins, K., 2003, Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning
culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 5(2), pp132-151

Moilanen, R., 2001, Diagnostic tools for learning organizations, The Learning Organization,
8(1), pp6-20

Morris, P.G, Patel, M.B., and Wearne, S. H., 2000, Research into revising the APM project
management body of knowledge, Int. Journal of Project Management, 18, pp155-164

Naot, Y.B., Lipshitz, R. and Popper, M., 2004, Discerning the quality of organizational
learning, Management Learning, 35(4), pp451-472

Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. and Gould, J.M., 1995, Understanding organizations as learning
systems, Sloan Management Review, 36(2), pp73-85

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., 1995, The knowledge creating company, Oxford University
Press, New York

709
Nonaka, I., Reinmöller, P and Toyama, R., 2001, Integrated information technology systems
for knowledge creation, in Diekers, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds),
Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge, Oxford University Press, London

Nyhan, B., Cressey, P., Tomassini, M., Kelleher, M. and Poell, R., 2004, European
perspectives on the learning organization, Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(1),
pp67-92

Örtenblad, A., 2002, A typology of the idea of learning organization, Management Learning,
33, pp213–230

Pakendorff, J., 1995, Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project
management research, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), pp319-333

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., and Boydell, T, 1997, The learning company: a strategy for
sustainable development, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, London

Phillips, B.T., 2004, A four-level learning organization benchmark implementation model,

The Learning Organization, 10(2), pp98-105

Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R., 2000, Organizational learning: mechanisms, culture, and
feasibility, Management Learning, 31(2), pp181-196

Prencipe, A. and Tell, F., 2001, Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge
codification in project-based firms, Research Policy, 30, pp1373-1394

Roth, G. and Kleiner, A., 1998, Developing organizational memory through learning
histories, Organizational Dynamics, 27(2), pp43-59

Sadler, P., 2001, Leadership and organizational learning, in M. Diekers, A.B. Antal, J.
Child, and I. Nonaka (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Kno wledge,
Oxford University Press, London

Schofield, J. and Wilson, D.C., 1995, The role of capital investment project teams in
organizational learning, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), pp423-436

Schwandt, D.R. and Marquardt, M.J., 2000, Organizational learning: from world-class
theories to global best practices, St. Lucie Press, London

Senge, P.M., 1990, The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization,
Century Business, London

Shrivastava, P., 1983, A typology of organizational learning systems, Journal of Management

Studies, 20(1), pp7-28

Simon, H.A., 1991, Bounded rationality and organizational learning, Organization Science,
2, pp125-134

Starkey, K., Tempest, S. and McKinlay, A. (Eds), 2004, How organizations learn: managing
the search for knowledge 2nd edition, Thomson Business Press, London

710
Stata, R., 1996, Organizational learning: the key to management innovation, in K. Starkey
(Ed.), How Organizations Learn, Thomson Business Press, London

Styhre, A., Josephson, P. and Knauseder, I., 2004, Learning capabilities in organizational
networks: case studies of six construction projects, Construction Management and
Economics, November, 22, pp957-966

Thomsen, H.K. and Hoest, V., 2001, Employees’ perception of the learning organization,
Management Learning, 32(4), pp469-491

Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R., 1991, Organizational memory, Academy of Management
Review, 16, pp57-91

Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J., 1993, Sculpting the learning organization: lessons in the
art and science of systemic change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California

Wenger, E. and Snyder, W.M., 2000, Communities of practice: the organizational frontier,
Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, pp139-145

Wenger, E., 1998, Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity, Cambridge
University Press, New York

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W., 2002, Cultivating communities of practice: a
guide to managing knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA

Williams, T.M., 2003, Learning from projects, Journal of the Operational Research Society,
54(5), pp443-451

Yang, B., 2003, Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), pp152-162

Yorks, L. Marsick, V.J., Kasl, E. and Dechant, K., 2003, Contextualizing team learning:
implications for research and practice, Advances in Developing Human Resources,
February, 5, pp103 – 117

Zairi, M., 1999, The learning organization: results of a benchmarking study, The Learning
Organization, 6(2), pp76-81

711