Beyond words: Aesthetic knowledge and knowing in design

Aesthetic knowledge comes from practitioners understanding the look, feel, smell, taste and sound of things. It is vital to work in many organizational contexts. In this paper, we explore aesthetic knowledge and knowing in organizations through detailed observation of design work in the architectural practice Edward Cullinan Architects. Through our research, we explore aesthetic knowledge in the context of architectural work, we unpack what it is, how it is generated, and how it is applied in design projects, shared between practitioners and developed at the level of the organization. Our analysis suggests that aesthetic knowledge plays an important part in organizational practice, not only as the symbolic context for work, but as an integral part of the work that people do. It suggests that aesthetic reflexivity, which involves an opening up and questioning of what is known, is experienced as part of practice as well as a `time out' from practice.

Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as 'epistemic objects'

We use a detailed study of the knowledge work around visual representations to draw attention to the multidimensional nature of `objects'. Objects are variously described in the literatures as relatively stable or in flux; as abstract or concrete; and as used within or across practices. We clarify these dimensions, drawing on and extending the literature on boundary objects, and connecting it with work on epistemic and technical objects. In particular, we highlight the epistemic role of objects, using our observations of knowledge work on an architectural design project to show how, in this setting, visual representations are characterized by a `lack' or incompleteness that precipitates unfolding. The conceptual design of a building involves a wide range of technical, social and aesthetic forms of knowledge that need to be developed and aligned. We explore how visual representations are used, and how these are meaningful to different stakeholders, eliciting their distinct contributions. As the project evolves and the drawings change, new issues and needs for knowledge work arise. These objects have an `unfolding ontology' and are constantly in flux, rather than fully formed. We discuss the implications for wider understandings of objects in organizations and for how knowledge work is achieved in practice.

Knowledge sharing: Context, confusion and controversy

Project managers in the construction industry increasingly seek to learn from other industrial sectors. Knowledge sharing between different contexts is thus viewed as an essential source of competitive advantage. It is important therefore for project managers from all sectors to address and develop appropriate methods of knowledge sharing. However, too often it is assumed that knowledge freely exists and can be captured and shared between contexts. Such assumptions belie complexities and problems awaiting the unsuspecting knowledge-sharing protagonist. Knowledge per se is a problematic esoteric concept that does not lend itself easily to codification. Specifically tacit knowledge possessed by individuals, presents particular methodological issues for those considering harnessing its utility in return for competitive advantage. The notion that knowledge is also embedded in specific social contexts compounds this complexity. It is argued that knowledge is highly individualistic and concomitant with the various surrounding contexts within which it is shaped and enacted. Indeed, these contexts are also shaped as a consequence of knowledge adding further complexity to the problem domain. Current methods of knowledge capture, transfer and, sharing fall short of addressing these problematic issues. Research is presented that addresses these problems and proposes an alternative method of knowledge sharing. Drawing on data and observations collected from its application, the findings clearly demonstrate the crucial role of re-contextualisation, social interaction and dialectic debate in understanding knowledge sharing.

Learning across business sectors: Knowledge sharing between aerospace and construction

This report addresses the extent that managerial practices can be shared between the aerospace and construction sectors. Current recipes for learning from other industries tend to be oversimplistic and often fail to recognise the embedded and contextual nature of managerial knowledge. Knowledge sharing between business sectors is best understood as an essential source of innovation. The process of comparison challenges assumptions and better equips managers to cope with future change. Comparisons between the aerospace and construction sectors are especially useful because they are so different. The two sectors differ hugely in terms of their institutional context, structure and technological intensity. The aerospace sector has experienced extensive consolidation and is dominated by a small number of global companies. Aerospace companies operate within complex networks of global interdependency such that collaborative working is a commercial imperative. In contrast, the construction sector remains highly fragmented and is characterised by a continued reliance on small firms. The vast majority of construction firms compete within localised markets that are too often characterised by opportunistic behaviour. Comparing construction to aerospace highlights the unique characteristics of both sectors and helps explain how managerial practices are mediated by context. Detailed comparisons between the two sectors are made in a range of areas and guidance is provided for the implementation of knowledge sharing strategies within and across organisations. The commonly accepted notion of ‘best practice’ is exposed as a myth. Indeed, universal models of best practice can be detrimental to performance by deflecting from the need to adapt continuously to changing circumstances. Competitiveness in the construction sector too often rests on efficiency in managing contracts, with a particular emphasis on the allocation of risk. Innovation in construction tends to be problem-driven and is rarely shared from project to project. In aerospace, the dominant model of competitiveness means that firms have little choice other than to invest in continuous innovation, despite difficult trading conditions. Research and development (R&D) expenditure in aerospace continues to rise as a percentage of turnovers. A sustained capacity for innovation within the aerospace sector depends crucially upon stability and continuity of work. In the construction sector, the emergence of the ‘hollowed-out’ firm has undermined the industry’s capacity for innovation. Integrated procurement contexts such as prime contracting in construction potentially provide a more supportive climate for an innovation-based model of competitiveness. However, investment in new ways of working depends upon a shift in thinking not only amongst construction contractors, but also amongst the industry’s major clients.

Assessing the process of knowledge transfer – An empirical study

This paper investigates and evaluates the process of knowledge transfer in construction projects. Due to the highly competitive nature of business environments, knowledge transfer between organisations has become increasingly popular in recent years. However, although organisations can realise remarkable benefits by transferring knowledge from one unit to another, successful knowledge transfer can be difficult to achieve. The discussions presented in the paper are mainly based on findings of two case studies. The two cases were selected from Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects in the UK. According to the case study findings, different stages of a knowledge transfer process can be overlapped, omitted, repeated as well as intermitted and then restarted. One of the significant findings of the case studies was the role of the "knowledge mediator". In selected case studies, there were external consultants and expert staff in the form of knowledge mediators. The importance of their roles was frequently highlighted by the interview participants. They were not only facilitating the close liaison between the knowledge source and the receiver, but also their role was strongly associated with practices of translation and interpretation. This combined role of mediator/translator, therefore, appears to be particularly significant for inter-organisational knowledge transfer in PFI projects.

Knowledge communication and translation- A knowledge transfer model

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a process model for knowledge transfer in using theories relating knowledge communication and knowledge translation. Design/methodology/approach – Most of what is put forward in this paper is based on a research project titled “Procurement for innovation and knowledge transfer (ProFIK)”. The project is funded by a UK government research council – The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). The discussions are mainly grounded on a thorough review of literature accomplished as part of the research project. Findings – The process model developed in this paper has built upon the theory of knowledge transfer and the theory of communication. Knowledge transfer, per se, is not a mere transfer of knowledge. It involves different stages of knowledge transformation. Depending on the context of knowledge transfer, it can also be influenced by many factors; some positive and some negative. The developed model of knowledge transfer attempts to encapsulate all these issues in order to create a holistic framework. Originality/value of paper – An attempt has been made in the paper to combine some of the significant theories or findings relating to knowledge transfer together, making the paper an original and valuable one.