Knowledge management critical success factors and project management performance outcomes in major construction organisations in Sri Lanka. A case study
| Date | 12 November 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2018-0051 |
| Pages | 537-558 |
| Published date | 12 November 2018 |
| Author | Vipula Sisirakumara Gunasekera,Siong Choy Chong |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,Knowledge management systems |
Knowledge management critical
success factors and project
management performance
outcomes in major construction
organisations in Sri Lanka
A case study
Vipula Sisirakumara Gunasekera
Graduate School of Management, Management and Science University,
Shah Alam, Malaysia, and
Siong Choy Chong
Department of Accreditation, Finance Accreditation Agency,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of knowledge management critical
success factors (KM CSFs) on project management performance outcomes in major construction
organisations in Sri Lanka. As a result, the significant KM CSFs are prioritised to support KM
implementation.
Design/methodology/approach –This study is cross-sectional in nature, adopting the quantitative
method of analysis. The research model includes nine KM CSFs (culture, leadership, organisational
structure, IT support, T-shaped skills, training, teamwork, performance measurement and
benchmarking) and nine items measuring project management performanceoutcomes.Datawere
collected from senior, middle and technical staff involved in projects by means of a self-administered
survey questionnaire mailed to them.
Findings –The Pearson’s correlation coefficient suggests that all of the KM CSFs are adequately
correlated except for organisational structure, which has a poor correlation with IT support, T-shaped
skills, teamwork and benchmarking. The results of multiple linear regression show that four KM CSFs
(T-shaped skills, teamwork, benchmarking and transformational leadership) are significantly
and positively related to project management performance outcomes. The remaining five KM CSFs
are not significant. The multiple-criteria decision-making analysis reveals that benchmarking,
transformational leadership, teamwork and T-shaped skills are the main priority for the construction
organisations to consider in implementing KM.
Research limitations/implications –Future studies should consider construction organisations of
multiple sizes and include factors beyond organisational control, KM processes and the effects of
demographic variables. Longitudinal studies are also imperative to determine the performance impact
brought aboutby KM implementation over a period of time.
Practical/implications –Benchmarking, transformational leadership, teamwork and T-shaped skills
should serve as the initial focus to support KM implementationto achieve the desired project management
performance outcomes. It is only after these KM CSFs are in place that the construction organisations can
concentrateon other factors.
Originality/value –This study contributes to a better understanding of the relationships between the
KM CSFs and project management performance outcomes in the construction industry in Sri Lanka,
which is still at its infancy stage of KM implementation. Prioritisation of the significant KM CSFs in
Knowledge
management
critical success
factors
537
Received29 June 2018
Revised17 September 2018
Accepted30 September 2018
VINEJournal of Information and
KnowledgeManagement Systems
Vol.48 No. 4, 2018
pp. 537-558
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5891
DOI 10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2018-0051
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5891.htm
supporting effective KM implementation in the construction organisations further enhances the value of
this study.
Keywords Sri Lanka, Knowledge management success factors, Major construction organisations,
Project management performance outcomes
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Construction organisations are known to use project management methodologies in
planning, executing and monitoringprojects (Zhai et al.,2014) to achieve the desired project
management performance outcomes (Yeong and Lim, 2015). However, such methodologies
have not contributed to the expected outcomes wherefor the past 70 years (Flyvbjerg et al.,
2003), construction projects still suffer from issues relating to cost, time of completion and
quality, resulting in dissatisfaction of clients. As a matter of fact, these issues have been
found to be the frequent challenges encountered by the construction industry (Handzic and
Durmic, 2015), bothin the developed and developing countries (Gale and Fellows, 1990).
A different approach is, hence, required to overcome such challenges (Rungasamy and
Ghosh, 2002). These challengeshad led the organisations to look for a sustainable approach,
with knowledge management (KM) implementation identified as a promising one (Enshassi
et al.,2016;Nilashi et al.,2015). This is in view of the large number of knowledge workers
employed by the construction industry to work in project teams (Kale and Karaman,2011),
along with the increasing utilisation of information technology (IT) to plan, execute and
monitor projects, both of which are pre-requisites to KM implementation (Gunasekera and
Chong, 2018).
However, successful KM implementation requires a good understanding and proper
execution of the various KM processes supported by the KM critical success factors (KM
CSFs), and at the same time appreciating the tangible and intangible outcomes brought
about by such implementation(Al-Hakim and Hassan, 2012;Nejatian et al., 2013;Zhao et al.,
2013). In the construction setting,the KM processes, which enable project team members to
create, share and store both tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
arising from project planning, execution and monitoring to solve various project-related
issues (Muthur et al.,2013) are carried out subconsciously but not documented, leading to
knowledge loss. Because of this, knowledge gained from previous projects have not been
applied to current projects,leading to project failures (Yeong and Lim, 2010). In addition,the
lack of support provided by the KM CSFs (Berraies et al., 2014;Sharimllah Devi et al.,2013)
on the implementation of KM has also led to poor performance of projects (Takim and
Adnan, 2008).
Idris and Kolawole (2016) found that research on KM CSFs in the construction setting
have been given relatively less attention. The available research is fragmented in nature,
with no study attempted to investigate all the KM CSFs in the construction industry in a
single setting (Gunasekera and Chong, in press). This calls for more empirical research not
just to identify but to prioritise on the KM CSFs so that the desired project management
performance outcomes can be achieved. Given the fact that the available resources in
construction companies and projects are limited (Yong and Mustaffa, 2013), prioritising on
the KM CSFs will enable the construction companiesto execute the more significant CSFs in
project planning, execution and monitoring, leading to the desired outcomes (Al-Zaharani,
2013;Bullen and Rockart,1981). This are the objectives of this research.
The rest of the article is organised as follows. The next section presents the literatureon
KM CSFs and project management performance outcomes, which resulted in the
VJIKMS
48,4
538
To continue reading
Request your trial