THE IMPACT OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ON MEGAPROJECT LEARNING

Meri Duryan1 and Hedley Smyth

The Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management, UCL, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK

ABSTRACT

Megaprojects have long durations and generate a great deal of tacit knowledge. As many important decisions are made in early design phases and involve numerous professionals it is crucial for the organisations to manage knowledge transfer effectively to support the management of uncertainties, complexities and project risks. The focus in this research is knowledge management in an infrastructure project client organisation, engaging with a great number of supply and stakeholder organisations which can contribute their expertise and competence. The potential is greater efficiency in execution and effectiveness in outcome regarding the delivery of benefits in use. In practice, however, lessons learnt are reviewed ad-hoc without real understanding or not reviewed at all. And even if lessons are captured, documented and validated, fragmented and unique nature of megaprojects restricts the assimilation of the lessons learnt by the organisations involved. Knowledge practitioners agree that the great challenge in developing an effective knowledge management system lies in the organisational and cultural aspects. This research introduces the impact of a client’s organisational culture on knowledge transfer in a multibillion-euro national infrastructure megaproject. The concluding remarks seek to establish a relationship between organisational culture and learning environment that facilitate capitalising on expert knowledge.

Keywords: knowledge management, megaproject, large infrastructure projects, organisational culture, organisational learning, stakeholder collaboration.

INTRODUCTION

Among other characteristics, megaprojects distinguish themselves from other projects by involvement of a large number of private actors having standards, processes and procedures predetermined by the client organisation, which is often a government or public sector organisation.

For the megaproject to improve collaboration among all stakeholders often with conflicting interests in order to deliver right quality, on the right time and at the right price the risks of repeated mistakes due to wrong decision making should be minimised. Appropriate cultural environment can enable megaproject learning leading to continuous improvement of the ability of the project to meet business goals.

1 m.duryan@ucl.ac.uk

1

Because of making such a significant contribution to the regional and global economy, developing relevant competence by capitalising on both historic and new “know-how” acquired in past, recently completed and current projects, during the planning stages and for early problem solving is crucial for better performance whether measured as efficiency in execution or effective benefits delivery. Therefore, explicit attention is needed to cultural processes in client organisations for the effective and efficient coordination and cooperation among all the stakeholders involved in megaprojects.Today, leading companies realise that their competitiveness depends on how fast knowledge and innovations flow through the organisation. Knowledge has become a strategic resource of the organisation, as the basis of competitive advantage. Dissemination and incorporation of lessons learnt into organisational processes can help organisations improve their current and future project delivery (Duffield and Whitty, 2016). Organisations therefore need to understand success and how to replicate it (Flybjerg, 2014). Equally, it is crucial to analyse failures to avoid repeating the mistakes. Project-based learning, which is mainly “ad hoc”, requires commitment and continuous investment of time and resources yet is also often neglected (Davies and Brady, 2000; Williams, 2008). There are no guidelines on structured ways of analysing projects and retaining lessons learnt for future projects and few for building the practical organisational capabilities and competencies. Organisational culture plays an important role in motivating and facilitating learning from projects (Principe and Tell, 2001). At the same time, organisational culture is labelled as the one of the most important barriers to knowledge management (KM) and “perhaps the most difficult constraint that knowledge managers must deal with” (Davenport, et al., 1997).

“Organisations learn only through individuals who learn” (Senge, 1990, p. 139). Organisations that implement large-scale infrastructure projects need to build capability by understanding their cultural environment and perspectives of employees regarding enablers and inhibitors to knowledge transfer (Davies and Brady, 2000).

The objective of this research is to understand the cultural barriers to learning in the client organisation, from projects with its complex multi-organisational composition that coordinates implementation. The empirical focus is a multibillion-euro (c. €5bn) infrastructure programme or megaproject comprising a series of sub-projects. Analysis is derived from a series of interviews conducted across the client organisation with using a cognitive mapping technique. It helped reveal the key inhibitors to creating a knowledge sharing culture and the areas that can be positively influenced by cultural changes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Lessons learnt from projects have received much attention among researchers and practitioners (Hartmann and Doree, 2014). Today, knowledge is considered as one of the most important assets in the economy invoking the idea that knowledge is “perhaps even the only-source of competitive advantage’’ (Drucker, 1998). At the same time, the construction industry is often criticised for slow learning or not learning at all (Hertogh et al., 2008; Flybjerg et al., 2002). The question remains as to how the organisation can overcome some of the main obstacles to knowledge sharing in individual, cultural and technological domains to enhance knowledge sharing culture in the organisation and among the key stakeholders. This is particularly critical where knowledge is “sticky” and the tacit form is predominant due to

2

the non-repetitive nature and context of much project work (Kelly et al., 2013; Szulanski, 2000).

Establishing a KM system will not automatically generate a learning environment or lead to greater understanding. Large-scale infrastructure programmes and projects are essentially a human enterprise and that cannot be understood solely in terms of technical relations among components. The organisations need to focus KM initiatives on people, and not on the collection of data, because knowledge resides in the people (Churchman, 1972; Davison and Blackman, 2005; Rubenstein-Montano et al. 2001).

It is important to find the most appropriate for the company way to reinforce the necessary behaviours around knowledge use. That will eventually lead to a long-term cultural change. New practices will change behaviours that over time will change norms (De Long, 1997). These changes will affect values on the long run which in its turn will significantly contribute to changes in organisational culture. Organisational culture plays a big role in decision making regarding knowledge creation, capture, share, access and application.

A review of different frameworks on KM (Heisig, 2002; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Wiig, 2000) was undertaken to identify the most suitable approach given the challenges revealed in the organisation under scrutiny. The Knowledge Flow Framework by American Productivity and Quality Centre (APQC) has been found to be the most suitable for structuring the ideas and recommendations by the interviewees as it reflects the most important soft and hard factors that contribute to capturing and sharing knowledge.

Figure 1 Knowledge Flow Process Framework

Source: APQC, 2014

The Knowledge Flow Process diagram (Figure 1) is a seven-step cycle describing how knowledge is created, identified, collected, reviewed, shared, accessed, and used within organisations (APQC, 2014). People, process, content and technology, the soft and hard key knowledge management elements emphasised by the framework, reflect the most important factors contributing to capturing and sharing knowledge. All four elements are need to be

3

balanced to ensure that the full benefits of knowledge sharing are exploited. However, the role of people in knowledge management is one of the most important and complex elements to work with. Behaviour of people is often influenced by their beliefs, different values and attitudes. Organisational culture, existing roles and routines are among the factors that affect decisions regarding management in large projects.

METHODOLOGY AND METHODS

In order to objectively examine the cultural barriers to learning within project-based organisations, we used qualitative approach. A case study approach is adopted with an action research element. The study is supported and funded by Innovate UK via a 2-year Knowledge Transfer Partnership programme.

This programme started by mapping the mental models of the team responsible for coordination of multibillion-euro megaproject to learn about their perspectives regarding enablers and inhibitors to knowledge sharing and to understand the cultural environment, in which people identify, create and share knowledge.

A case study approach has been defined as an empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within its real-life context, when the multiple sources of evidence are used and when the boundaries between phenomenon and context cannot be clearly seen (Yin, 1984). Following case study research guidelines, the most important sources of the information were the interviews (Yin, 1984).

Stakeholder collaboration in complex settings among other cognitive limitations is affected by multiple perspectives and bounded rationality. Thus, it is very important to have the tools that allow full representation of all the perspectives and views. Soft interpretive organisational research (OR) approaches and techniques recognise the importance of human perceptions, interpretations and worldviews while dealing with subjectivity and uncertainty (Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001).

For this research, Cognitive Mapping (CM), one of the problem-structuring tools of soft OR and System Dynamics Causal Loops Diagrams (CLD) were applied. CM is a visual mapping technique that supports elicitation of mental models and generation of creative ideas using the language participants used to present their viewpoint and make their argumentation (Ackermann and Eden, 2010). The formal basis for cognitive maps derives from Kelly’s (1995) personal construct theory which proposes an understanding of how people ‘‘make sense of’’ their world by seeking to manage and control it (Eden, 2004). CM is designed to support decision makers in dealing with the complexity inherent in organisational problem findings. Cognitive maps however, do not demonstrate demonstrate feedback processesand time delays. CLDs were used to see dynamic behavior of the system.

Data was solicited from 12 members of megaproject management team of the client organisation. Prior engagement was a feature of the action research, although the level varied. This provided valuable context together with organisational artefacts such as documentation. The semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted over 1-2 hour periods. The interview scripts were then translated into the language of CM. The next step was to validate

4

the content of individual cognitive maps by sharing them with interviewees during follow-up interviews. The individual maps then were merged into a collective map that was analysed using Decision Explorer software2.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The cultural issues were derived from analysis of the collective cognitive map - see Figure 2. A comprehensive look at the map revealed some of the main obstacles to building a learning environment in the client organisation. They are categorised into three main domains:

1. Organisational/cultural, i.e. lack of clear and structured procedures for capturing and sharing lessons learnt,

2. Individual, i.e. lack of motivation to share knowledge,3. Technical, i.e. knowledge repositories are neither structured nor centralised.

These domains also represent barriers that are interrelated and any one of them, unless recognised and removed, can hold the organisation back from enhancing knowledge sharing culture.

The analysis of the map helped identify the key strategic options framed to achieve the goals “improve organisational performance” and “build a strong megaproject management team” (nodes 10 and 91, Figure 2). Domain and centrality analyses of the map revealed the key strategic actions necessary to achieve the goals - see Table 1.

In large and long-term complex projects it is very common to solve similar problems from scratch over and over again because of not sharing already developed and tested solutions. Based on interviewees’ perceptions the concepts “share knowledge” and “share best practice” are among the key issues mentioned by the management team.

The node “change the organisational culture” has the second highest scores. Culture, as an organisational mental model plays crucial role in effectiveness of KM and sharing. Based on the map, it directly affects organisational performance, top-down communication and employees’ comfort and security at work.

2 http://www.banxia.com, Banxia Software Ltd., Registered in England

5

Figure 5 NEPT Cognitive Map (size of the model: 462 concepts and 539 causal links)

6

1 change t heor gani sat i onal

cul t ur e

2 t oo m any pol i t i cst o consi der at w or k

3 cr eat e a l ear ni ngenvi r onm ent

4 r et ai n know l edgei n t he or gani sat i on

5 acceptconst r uct i ve

cr i t i ci sm

7 change t heat t i t ude t ow ar ds

hel pi ng each ot her8 devel op

com passi onat el eader shi p

9 pay m or e at t ent i ont o t he hum an si de

. . . t he t ask si de

10 bui l d a s t r ongm egapr oj ect

m anagem ent t eam

12 dr aw t he bi gpi ct ur e . . .

dot - t o- dot pi ct ur e

13 cont i nuousl y got hr ough st or m i ng,

nor m i ng andper f or m i ng st ages

w i t h t he t eam

14 put t he pl anni ngr i ght

15 gi ve ever yoneoppor t uni t y t o t al k

16 f or get about t hebands dur i ng t he

t eam m eet i ngs

17 ensur e f ul lat t endance at t het eam m eet i ngs . . .m ake assum pt i onabout som ebody

el se's opi ni on

20 go back t o basics

21 br ing back t heowner ship in t he

com pany

23 m ake t he cl i entor gani sat i on a

bet t er pl ace t o w or k

24 i m pr ove t op- dow ncom m uni cat i on

25 bui l d st r ong t eamspi r i t

26 del egat er ew ar di ng st af f t o

l i ne m anager s

27 cr eat e anenvi r onm ent of

m ut ual t r ust andunder st andi ng . . .

"w ho shout s l ouderget s hi s w ay i n"

28 devel op hol i st i cvi ew on t he pur poseof t he m egapr oj ectm anagem ent t eam

29 or gani se w eekl yt eam m eet i ngs

30 l ear n f r om ot hercount r i es about

t hei r r ai l w ayel ect r i f i cat i on

pr ocesses

31 pl anel ect r i f i cat i on

car ef ul l y . . . w ast em oney because ofi m pr oper pl anni ng

32 be cl ear aboutt he pur pose of t he

t eam

33 i m pr oveef f i ci ency of

m eet i ngs

34 ensur e t hatcont r act s ar e i n

pl ace f or w hat w ear e del i ver i ng

35 be cl ear aboutdel i ver abl es

36 shar e know l edgei n t he m egapr oj ect

t eam bef or epr eachi ng i t t o

ot her s

37 over com echal l enges as a t eam

38 have a vi si on asa t eam

39 r educe l ear ni ngt i m e w hen m ovi ng

peopl e f r om one par tof t he com pany t o

anot her

40 shar e bestpr act i ce

41 consi dersi gni f i cant

i nvest m ent i n KM

45 el i m i nat e "bl am e"cul t ur e

46 r educe hi er ar chy

47 st op sayi ngt hi ngs t hat soundgood i f you do not

agr ee w i t h t hem

48 change " m yor gani sat i on i s

bet t er " m i nd- set ofdi r ect or s

49 updat e and applyknow- how t o cor e

pr ocesses

50 encour agecr eat i vi t y and

i nnovat i on

51 w r i t e dow n ast r at egi c pl an

52 i m pr ove r epor t i ng

53 i ncl udecr eat i vi t y and

i nnovat i on i n st af fper f or m ance

54 i ncr ease st af fm ot i vat i on

55 i m pr ovel eader shi p st yl e

56 change cor ebehavi or s

57 plan long- t er m

58 cr eat e m or ecom f or t and secur i t y

at w or k

59 r educef r ust r at i on f r om

w ast i ng t oo m ucht i m e w hi l e sear chi ng

f or i nf or m at i on

60 st ar t w i t h upperl evel

61 have m or ef unct i onal aut hor i t y

t o successf ul l yi m pl em ent

i nf r ust r uct ur epr oj ect

62 becom e apr ogr am m e m anagem ent

t eam i n a t r ue sense

64 enhance pr oj ectdel i ver y

65 shar e know l edge

66 know w hat i s KMabout

67 r el ease sum m ar yon l essons l ear nt

af t er ever yw or kshop/ conf er ence

68 enabl eef f i ci enci es

70 appr eci at e w hatot her s do i n t he

t eam

72 i m pr oveef f ect i veness ofREDG and NEDSG

73 i m pr ove t he w aypr obl em s ar e deal t

w i t h

74 know w hat you ar eexpect ed t o del i ver

75 do w hat you sai dyou ar e goi ng t o do

76 do not hi ndert eam bui l di ng by

f r equent l y r ot at i ngpr of essi onal s

77 r et hi nk t he needf or m ovi ng peopl eever y si x m ont hs

78 al l ow peopl ebui l d vi si on

r egar di ng t hei r j obs

80 keep a goodbal ance bet w een

exper i encedem pl oyees and new l y

hi r ed

81 al l ow t i m e t oshar e know l edge

83 use l unch t i m e t oshar e know l edge

84 bui l d w ar menvi r onm ent i n t he

t eam s

85 l ear n f r omsi m i l ar pr oj ect sbef or e t he st ar t

86 i ncl ude shar i ngknow l edge/ exper t i se

i n t he r et i r em entpr ocess

87 i ncl ude shar i ngknow l edge/ exper t i se

dur i ng i nt er nalt r ansf er s

88 i nvol ve per sonalcom m uni cat i on . . .put ever yt hi ng on

t he paper

89 bui l d r i ghtr el at i ons i n t he

m egapr oj ectm anagem ent t eam

90 st op l abel l i ngpeopl e by bands

91 i m pr oveor gani s at i onal

per f or m ance

93 incr ease em ployeeloyalt y

94 help t he newhir es lear n about

t he bus iness

95 under s t and t her easons f or bad

per f or m ance

96 shar e a clearvis ion about t he

r ailway of t hef ut ur e

98 r et hi nkper f or m ance r evi ewpr ocess . . . m ake i t

w ast e of t i m e

99 put st abi l i t yback t o t he com pany

100 i m pr ovecol l abor at i on w i t h

cont r act or s

101 def i nepr i or i t i es

102 al l ow t i m e t ocom e back w i t h

r equi r ed i nf or m at i on

103 r educe num ber ofi nef f ect i ve m eet i ngs

104 r educef r ust r at i on at t he

f r ont - l i ne

105 hear w hat peopl esay

106 m ake som echanges addr essi ng

i ssues

107 keep exper i enceand know l edge i n t he

com pany108 st op r eshapi ng

t he busi ness

109 wr it e up- t o- dat est andar ds

110 ensur e t hat t heor gani sat i on i s

r eady t o em br acechange bef or e

appl yi ng i t

112 or ganise acent r al t eam of

engineer s who willwor k on polic ies

113 do not allowbuilder s decide t he

policies

114 st op r einvent ingt he wheel ever y 3- 4

year s

115 give t heoppor t unit y f orem ployees t o

cont r ibut e t o t hatvis ion

116 ensur e t hat itis cascaded acr oss

t he com pany

117 keep t he r ightbalance of exper t ise

118 have m or e peoplewit h long- t er m

exper ience in t hecom pany . . . people

f r om out side

120 deal wit h m ediabet t er

121 hir e people whocan sof t en m edia

122 inf or minf r ast r uc t ur e

or ganisat ion t hat isgoing t o im plem ent a

pr oject

123 cr eat e andm ai nt ai n an

ef f ect i ve know l edger eposi t or y

124 r et ai n know l edgew hen peopl e r et i r e

125 f ol l owsuccessi on pl anni ng

. . . j ust t al k aboutt hat

126 m ake a buzz- w or dsear ch possi bl e

127 upl oad t he l i stof peopl e

account abl e f orpar t i cul ar i ssues

128 cont i nueor gani si ng

conf er ences

129 est abl i sh KMdepar t m ent

130 know w hat youneed t o shar e

132 st r uct ur e t heconf er ence

133 set up t heagenda

134 ensur e t hatr i ght par t i ci pant s

ar e chosen

135 m ake t hemdynam i c, i nt er act i ve

and f un

136 f i l t er successst or i es t hr ough

137 ensur e t hatconf er ence m at er i al s

ar e st or ed i n ast r uct ur ed

r eposi t or y w i t h aneasy accesss

138 publ i sh t he l i stof at t endees

140 oper at e as acom pany . . . di vi de

and conquer

141 desi gn onenew sl et t er f or t he

com pany

142 ensur e t hati nf or m at i on i s

up- t o- dat e

143 assi gnpr of essi onal s t o

m anage t he pl at f or m

144 i ncr easeconf er ence

par t i ci pat i on r at e

145 see i f t her e ar el i nkages am ong t hem

146 avoi d di scussi ngt he sam e i ssues over

and over agai n

147 ensur e t hat ashor t sum m ar y i s

avai l abl e t onon- exper t s

148 or gani set hem at i c conf er ences

149 docum ent bestpr act i ce

150 i m pr oveaw ar eness r egar di ng

m aj or pr oj ect s

151 do not f or cepeopl e r eappl y f or

t hei r j obs

152 r educe st r essf r om expect i ng t o

hear " w e do not needyou i n t hi s pr oj ect "

153 i ncr easecl i ent 's aw ar enessabout m egapr oj ect

154 el i m i nat e t hel ayer of f r ost

bet w een us and t her egi ons

155 deal w i t hpr obl em s . . . dr aw

cer t ai n aspect s outof cont ext and st r i p

aw ay t he r est

156 cr eat e adat abase w i t h

st af f 's cor ecom pet enci es

158 r educe am ount ofi nf or m at i on t o be

shar ed

159 educat e peopl eon t he benef i t s ofshar i ng know l edge

160 el i m i nat ef eel i ng of w or ki ng

i n a di f f er entcom pany

161 est abl i shdocum ent m anagem ent

syst em . . . m akepeopl e go t hei r ow n

w ays

162 st r uct ur edocum ent s on

Shar ePoi nt and onConnect

163 show m or ei nt er est i n w hat

ot her s ar e doi ng . . .del i ver , del i ver ,

del i ver

164 i m pr ovef unct i onal i t y

165 r educei nf or m at i on over l oad

166 avoi di nf or m at i on

f r agm ent at i on

167 be honest w i t hpeopl e

168 be aw ar e of w hatpeopl e t hi nk at t he

f r ont - l i ne

169 gi ve f eedbackeven i f som et hi ng

di dn't w or k out

170 keep t he pr om i set o r ew ar d hi gh

per f or m ance

171 say t her e i s nopay i ncr ease t hi s

year . . . br i ngper f or m ance r evi ew

dow n

172 f i nd out w hatyour em pl oyees ar e

doi ng and w hy . . .cr i t i ci se t hem f or

not doi ng enough byt he end of t he year

173 m or e vi si t s t ot he f r ont - l i ne byt he com pany's

l eader s

176 do not say " yes"if t he com pany is

not r eady

177 r es ist polit icalpr essur e

178 lear n howBr it ish Railways was

oper at ing

179 do not cr it iciset hose who do car e

and want t ocont r ibut e

180 cr eat e a specialt eam dedicat ed t o

t est innovat iveideas and cascade

t hem down

181 ensur e t hat allr egions f ollow t hesam e s t andar ds

182 m ake it easiert o r eveal t he bes t

pr ac t ice

183 f ix what isalr eady wr ong bef or e

com ing up wit hinnovat ive ideas

184 deal wit h bigpr oblem s on t im e . . .

t r y t o solve t hemwhen it is t oo lat e

185 do not allow" innovat ion" due t o

vague s t andar ds

186 ensur e t hat t hebasic " building

blocks" ar e t her e

187 f ollow t hest andar ds

188 pr ojec t t eamshould not develop

st andar ds

189 challenge t hewhole business

cr it ical r uleinit iat ives

190 put t oget herpolicy wr it ing t eam

191 st op r einvent ingt he wheel

192 bui l d peopl e'st r ust i n t he syst em

193 ensur e t hatw r i t t en obj ect i ves

r ef l ect w hat t heper son i s act ual l y

doi ng

194 m ot i vat e andt r ust l i ne m anager s

195 pr oj ect del i ver yt eam

196 pr ogr am m em anagem ent t eam

197 have a cl earm eet i ng agenda w i t h

def i ned " expect edout com es"

198 ensur e t hatt her e ar e r i ghtpeopl e at t he

m eet i ngs

200 do not f or cepar t i ci pat i on i f t he

m eet i ng has noconnect i on t o t he

j ob

201 i nvi t e onl yt hose w ho ar e aw ar eof t he si t uat i on and

can cont r i but e

202 i nvi t ef r ont - l i ne f or

saf et y t r ai ni ngs . . .t op peopl e w ho ar e

f ar f r om t hef r ont - l i ne

203 be cl ear aboutr equi r ed r esour ces,

f i nance, pr oduct s w euse

204 t al k m or e aboutor gani sat i onal

obj ect i ves i n t het eam

205 becom e a car i ngor gani sat i on

206 do not w or k atcr oss- pur poses

207 i m pr ovecol l abor at i on am ong

w or ki ng gr oupsdeal i ng w i t h hum an

r esour ces

208 el i m i nat er edundanci es i n

t eam s

209 r educe t i m er equi r ed f or peopl e

t o know how t hebusi ness w or ks

210 suggesti nt r oduct i on cour seot her t han i nduct i on

. . . l et peopl e f i ndi t out by w or ki ng

about 6 m ont hs orl onger

211 r educe si deef f ect s f r om each

r eor gani sat i on

212 r educe st af ft ur nover

213 cal cul at e t her i sk f r om

r eor gani sat i onbef or e act ual l yi m pl em ent i ng i t

214 l ear n f r om t hebest pr act i ce

r egar di ng si m i l arsi t uat i ons

215 del egat e

216 pr act i ce act i vel i st eni ng

217 em pow er st af f t om ake deci si ons

218 Tf L exper i ence 219 m ap i ndi vi dual sacr oss t hei r r ol ecom pet enci es . . .

dem ot i vat e t hem byquest i oni ng t hei r

l oyal t y

220 save t i m er equi r ed t o l ook f ort he r i ght peopl e t o

t al k t o

221 al l ow qui ckaccess t o know l edge

speci f i c t o t hecl i ent or gani sat i on

222 desi gn auser - f r i endl y

f r am ew or k

223 enabl e one- cl i cksear ch as i n G oogl e

224 i nt r oducef ul l - t i m e KM

posi t i ons

225 pr om ot e KM . . .keep i t as a dr y

t opi c

226 desi gn KMst r at egy and em bed

i t i nt oor gani sat i onal

st r at egy

227 m ake KM a par tof t he cl i ent 's cor e

busi ness

228 di ssem i nat eknow l edge f ur t her

dow n

229 i ssue anew sl et t er on a

r el at ed t opi c

230 secur e f i ndi ngsf or t he f or um s

231 r educe t henum ber of

unnecessar y m eet i ngs

232 el i m i nat e " si l o"ef f ect i n t heor gani sat i on233 i m pr ove

com m uni cat i on am ongpr oj ect m anager s and

engi neer s

234 r educe t henum ber of

cont r act i ng st af f

235 do not out sour ceknow l edge w i t h

out sour ced pr oj ect s

236 r educescept i ci sm r egar di ng

l ear ni ng f r om eachot her

237 i m pr ovecom m uni cat i on i n t he

m egapr oj ectm anagem ent t eam

238 i ncr easeaw ar eness r egar di ng

m egapr oj ectdi r ect or 'sact i vi t i es

239 have m or eposi t i ve i nput f r om

t he t eam

240 be aw ar e of t het eam m em ber s'

pr of essi onaldevel opm ent needs

241 cont r i but ebet t er w i t h t he

know l edge w e have

242 upl oad shor tbi os on t he w eb

243 m ake i t r eal l yshor t

244 put onl yr el evant i nf or m at i on

245 docum entt echni cal know l edge

246 i nvol ve j uni orl evel engi neer s i n

t he pr oj ect

247 cont r i but e t ot hei r devel opm ent

248 dem onst r at e m or ecar e f or peopl e . . .

have a ham m erappr oach

249 showvul ner abi l i t y

250 al l owdi sagr eem ent w i t h a

hi gher l evel

251 r ew ar d st af f f ordoi ng m or e t han i ti s w r i t t en i n t hei r

obj ect i ves

252 do notdiscour age s t af f by

r ejec t ing voicedinit iat ive bef or e

t r ying t o under st andwhat should be done

253 acknowledge andappr ec iat e good

t hings done

254 i ncl udeknow l edge shar i ng i n

i n st af f per f or m ance

255 encour agenew com er s t o adapt

. . . t hem f ol l owt hei r st yl e of

behavi or shaped bydi f f er ent

ci r cum st ances

256 gi ve an exam pl eof r i ght behavi our

257 cr eat e af avour abl e

envi r onm ent f orpeopl e t o see

vul ner abi l i t y i nt hem sel ves

259 account abi l i t y260 go back t obasi cs i n pr oj ect

m anagem ent

262 shar e r esour cepool

263 m ake f unct i onall eads r esponsi bl e

f or ow ni ng andi ncor por at i ng best

pr act i ce

264 dem onst r at e howKM i s i m pl em ent ed

265 speci f y w hat i si m por t ant f or I P

266 cascade KMr el at ed per f or m ance

obj ect i ves t or egi onal l evel s

267 know w hen youneed t o shar e

268 i dent i f y bestpr act i ce f or G RI P

pr ocess andm et hodol ogy

269 i dent i f y bestpr act i ce f or

di f f er ent par t s ofbusi ness

270 HR

271 pr ogr am m em anagem ent

272 engi neer i ng

273 com m er ci al st af f

274 t echni cal st af f

275 know m or e aboutknow l edge ow ner s

276 m ake f unct i onall eads r esponsi bl e

f or del i ver yaccur acy and

r el i abi l i t y ofi nf or m at i on

277 st andar ds

278 i dent i f y t hebest per son i n I P t o

ow n st andar ds

279 pr ovi de anevi dence of m anagi ng

and st r uct ur i ng t heknow - how ar ound

st andar ds

280 m ake peopl et hi nk about

know l edge and t hei rcont r i but i on

281 i dent i f y t hebest per son i n I P t o

ow n G RI P

282 pr ovi de anevi dence of m anagi ng

and st r uct ur i ng t heknow - how ar ound G RI P

283 pr i or i t i sepr oj ect s

284 have a cl ear l ydef i ned act i on pl an

285 keepcost - com par at i ve

m odel up- t o- dat e andavai l abl e

286 enabl e suppl ychai n t o del i veri nt egr at ed pl an

287 have cl ear l ydef i ned pol i ci est hat w i l l r equi r esuppl y chai n t o

cooper at e

288 cl ear l ycom m uni cat e t he

i ssues w i t hst andar ds t o

m egapr oj ect 'sdi r ect or

289 st r uct ur e onl i nei nf or m at i on

290 r educe t i m espent on dat a

anal ysi s

291 be aw ar e ofst andar ds t hat

hi nder pr oj ect s'del i ver y

292 r educe pr i de

293 st op t r eat i ngr egi ons as ki ngdom s

294 pay m or eat t ent i on t o

pr ogr am m e m anagem ent. . . concent r at e on

pr oj ect s295 be aw ar e t hat w e

ar e par t s of oneor gani sat i on

296 ensur e t hat i ti s shar ed

297 avoid changes att he t op ever y 2- 3

year s

298 m ake peopl e knoww hat f ut ur e hol ds

f or t hem

299 t ake t i m e t ol ear n t he l essons

. . . t ake cont r olper i od af t er cont r ol

per i od

300 l ear n f r omor gani sat i onal

hi st or y

301 t ake t i m e t oeducat e cont r act or s

about w hat t hecl i ent or gani sat i onr equi r es f r om t hem

302 devel op per sonalcont act s . . . m anage

f r om t he di st ance

303 under st and yourpr oduct bef or e

sel l i ng i t

304 gi ve t hem t i m et o under st and

305 shar e t he keypoi nt s dur i ng

w or kshop, f ocusgr oups . . . send

pi l es of docum ent s

306 ensur e t hat t heyunder st and t he

cl i ent 's st andar ds

307 ensur e t hat t hecl i ent 's st af f f ul l y

under st and pr ocessesand pr ocedur es

bef or e com m uni cat i ngt hem t o cont r act or s

308 r es ist t hoser edir ec t ions com ingf r om t he gover nm ent

t hat m ay hindercom pany's long- t er m

well- being

309 t ake t i m e t ounder st and w hat t hebusi ness i s goi ng t o

del i ver and how

310 under st and w hatt he cl i ent di d w el l

311 under st and w hatt he cl i ent can do

bet t er

312 do notover pr om i se and

under del i ver

313 m ot ivat e newhir es 314 do not

over pr om ise whatt hey ar e going t o

get315 cr eat e al ear ni ng envi r onm ent

f or youngpr of essi onal s

316 let t hem gr ow int he or ganisat ion . . .

put t hem in posit ionwher e t hey have no

exper ience

317 give m or eoppor t unit ies t o

em ployees t o do whatt hey should be doing 318 im pr ove

pr ocesses andpr ocedur es

319 acknow l edge t hatever yt hi ng el se m ust

st op

320 r educet r avel l i ng especi al y

f or new hi r es

321 save t i m e f ornew hi r es t o l ear n

322 m ake i t easi ert o sear ch f or

i nf or m at i on

323 i m pr ovest r uct ur e of CO NNECT

324 i m pr ove t he w aysaf et y i s cascaded

i nsi de t heor gani sai on

326 consi der howm uch hum an m i nd can

car r y

327 m at ch st af fr espons ibilit ies

wit h salar yexpect at ions

328 int r oduce bet t erst af f incent ives

329 ut i l i se f ul lcapaci t y of peopl e

330 r educe pr essur ef r om t he w or kl oad

331 el i m i nat ebuf f er s

332 do not f i l t erm essages333 r et hi nk t he

bandi ng syst em

334 m akecom m uni cat i on f ast

and easy

336 encour age peopl eshar e i nf or m at i onr egar di ng pr obl em

si t uat i ons

337 be f ast w i t h af eedback . . . do not

r espond at al l

338 t oo m anyf or m at s: I M S, M O SS,

CCM S2

339 i nt r oduce shar edaccount abi l i t y

bet w een one w hom ai nt ai ns dat abase

and a desi gnat edseni or poi nt w i t hi n

appr opr i at e f unct i on

340 i nt r oducequal i t y cont r ol

341 ensur e accur acyand t r ust w or t hi ness

of i nf or m ai t on

342 f i l t eri nf or m at i on bef or eal l ow i ng shar i ng i t

w i t h t he cl i ent 'scom m uni t y

343 ensur e t hati nf or m at i on com pl i es

w i t h t he l at estpol i ci es

344 m ake t hem m or eef f ect i ve

345 i nvi t e l eadpeopl e t o t he

conf er ence

346 shar e pr ogr essr egar di ng l ast

sol ut i on t ochal l enges r ai sed

dur i ng pr evi ousconf er ence

347 put m or eem phasi s on hum an

com m uni cat i on

348 encour ageone- t o- one m eet i ngs

349 hir e m or e peoplet o do t he act ual job

350 m or e wor k ingbees . . . queen bees

351 em bed honest y i nt he cul t ur e

352 st ar t f r om t het op

353 do not puni sh orpenal i se f or

expr essi ng opi ni ons

354 encour ageper sonal

com m uni cat i on w henpeopl e needassi st ance

355 r em ove f ear ofl ooki ng st upi d

356 m ake peopl e m or ecom f or t abl e

expr essi ng t hei rneeds f or hel p

357 do not consi derknow l edge ascom pet i t i ve

advant age

358 st op r evi ew i ngpeopl e agai nst t hei r

peer s

359 r educe f ear f r omper f or m i ng w or set han a col l eague

360 t he bot t om 5%ar e expect ed t o

l eave t he i ndust r ybecause of poor

per f or m ance

361 m ot i vat econt r act or s t o shar e

know l edge

362 i nt r oducer ecogni t i on syst em

f or shar i ngknow l edge

363 do not cr eat ecom pet i t i on i n t eam s

364 st op copyi ngever yone i n em ai l s

365 ensur e t hat t hebr i ef i ngs ar e

cascaded

366 i nf or m t he keypeopl e . . . l et t heml ear n about t hi ngs

f r om t he new sl et t er s

367 di f f er ent i at et he w ays of shar i ng

know l edge at t heupper l evel and at

t he f r ont - l i ne

368 m ake m or e t i m ef or col l ect i ve

gat her i ng

369 agr ee t he pl anw i t h t he one w ho i sr esponsi bl e . . . putt he nam es on t he

l i st

370 m ake i t w or k . . .l oosel y f ol l ow

371 m ake it m or eat t r ac t ive t o wor k

in t he com pany . . .wor k as a cont r act or

372 r et hink t he ideaof de- r isk ing bycont r ac t ing out

ex t er nally

373 avoid r isks ofpaying 3- 4 t im es

higher cos t s

374 t ake m or e ofwor k in house

375 own t he endr esult . . . end uppaying m or e t o

cor r ec t som ebody'sm ist akes376 do not allow

cont r ac t or s r aisepr ices out of f ear

t o pay lar gecom pensat ion ift hings go wr ong

377 considercar r ying t he r isk of

poor job

378 m ake cont r act or spay f or t heir

m ist akes

379 m ake t hemr egul ar

380 be cl ear aboutt he f ocus

381 ensur e t hatf ai l ur es ar e shar ed

as w el l

382 be cl ear aboutw her e t he pr obl em i s

383 m or e i nt er act i veon t he f r ont - l i ne. . . a 100- page

docum ent on how t odo i t

384 i nvest t i m e andef f or t s

385 def i ne t he G RI Pf or el ect r i f i cat i on

pr ocedur e

386 gi ve equalf r eedom t o al ldesi gn gr oups

387 gi ve t he sam er i ght t o m ake

deci si ons r egar di ngt ar get s t o EPDG ,

Tr ack, Si gnal andBui l di ng gr oups

388 have appr opr i at er epr esent at i on at

t he m eet i ng

389 gi ve a f eedbackt o t he gr oup

390 m ake deci si onsabout pr oj ect s'

pr i or i t y f ori nt er nal desi gn

gr oup

391 i nvol vecont r act or s at

eal i er G RI P st ages

392 el i m i nat e f earof l osi ng

pow er / cont r ol

393 do a r obust j obi n a pr evi ous G RI P

394 i nvol ve t hedesi gn gr oup i n

pl anni ng pr ocess f orot her G RI Ps

395 al l ow t he desi gngr oup m ake t hi ngs

easi er f or t hosei nvol ved i n t he

f ol l ow i ng G RI P

396 r educe st r essf r om cor r ect i ng t hem i st akes f r om t he

pr evi ous G RI P

397 w r i t e pol i ci esr egar di ng

i nvol vem ent ofdi f f er ent gr oups i nt he G RI P pl anni ng

pr ocess

398 br i ng di f f er entper spect i ves399 use know l edge

acqui r ed w hi l ew or ki ng i n a pr i vat e

sect or 400 gi ve m or ef r eedom t o t he gr oup

t o m ake st r at egi cdeci si ons

401 under st and howdesi gn gr oup

oper at es

402 under st and t hechal l enges t he gr oup

i s f aci ng

403 m i t i gat edel i ver y pr essur e

404 set r eal i st i cdel i ver y t ar get s

405 check t hecapaci t y i n t he

busi ness t o del i verbef or e set t i ng t he

deadl i nes

406 ask t he gr oupw hat shoul d be done

t o del i ver

407 ask t he gr oupw hen t hey canact ual l y del i ver

408 check i f t her ei s m odel l i ng

i nvol ved

409 check i f t her ear e com pl ex

deci si ons t o be m ade

410 hel p t he gr oupunder st and w her e

t hey can add m or eval ue t o t he com pany

411 shar e know l edgeabout al l t hepr oj ect s and

t i m escal es w i t h t hedesi gn gr oup

412 i nvol ve t hegr oup i n deci si on

m aki ng r egar di ng t het ar get s . . . enf or cet ar get s upon t he

gr oup

413 di scuss t het ar get s set by

busi ness w i t h t hegr oup

414 i nvol ve t hegr oup i n ear l y

pl anni ng cycl es . . .w hen i t i s t oo l at e

t o i nf l uence t ar get s

415 advi ce sponsoror gani sat i ons t o

com m uni cat e w i t h t hedesi gn gr oups w henset t i ng t he st r at egy

416 or gani secom m uni t i es of

pr act i ce

417 choose oner epr esent at i ve per

each com m uni t y t opar t i ci pat e

418 m andat e t o com eback and shar e

419 i gnor e hi er ar chyw hi l e chosi ng w ho

shoul d at t end

420 send t he sam epeopl e t o f or um s

w i t h par t i cul art opi cs

421 cascade t hei nf or m at i on i n t eam s

422 shar e t her esul t s onl i ne

423 t he key poi nt svi a new sl et t er

424 upl oad a shor tsum m ar y on t he

w ebsi t e

425 once perquar t er / t w o m ont hs

426 i nvi t e t hose w hodo t he act ual j ob

427 consi der t hei ropi ni on i n st r at egi c

deci si on m aki ng

428 ask f or t i ps429 ask f or l essons

l ear nt

430 r educebur eaucr acy r el at ed

t o deal i ng w i t hpr obl em s

431 be aw ar e of w homt o t al k t o w hen you

need hel p

432 l ear n abouthobbi es of each

ot her

433 avoi dunnecessar y del ays

434 r educe em ai lcom m uni cat i on

435 m or e f l exi bi l i t yw i t h pr ocur em ent

436 base salar y onexper ience andsk ills . . . year swor k ing in t he

com pany

437 gi ve t heoppor t uni t y f or newhi r es t o go t hr ough

t hose st ages

438 peopl e

439 pl ant

440 m at er i al s

441 cost s

442 st akehol dercol l abor at i on pl ans

443 keep i t dynam i c

444 t al k m or e abouthow w e oper at e . . .t al k about t ar get s

445 i ncr ease st af faw ar eness of

pr oj ect s i m pl em ent edby each m em ber of

t he m egapr oj ectm anagem ent t eam 446 shar e t he

pr ocess . . . onl y t her esul t

447 i dent i f yover l aps

448 do not m i ss goodi deas

449 shar i ngknow l el dge does not

m ean l osi ngexper t i se

451 el i m i nat e t heneed t o r em em ber

appr opr i at e pl at f or mand passw or d

452 put qui ck andsm ar t l i nks

453 do not m anage i tt hr ough CO M M S peopl e

w ho m i ght not havenecessar y

qual i f i cat i ons

454 desi gn st r i ctpol i ci es r egar di ng

pl at f or m usage

455 cont r oli m pl em ent at i on of

pol i ci es

456 r est r i ct r i ght st o cr eat e new

pl at f or m s

457 or gani seaw ar eness cam pai gn

r egar di ng t hebenef i t s of usi ng

one pl at f or m

458 be qui ck i nr espondi ng t o

r equest s f or t hesyst em i m pr ovem ent

. . . go t hr ough 25st eps

459 t r y t ounder st and peopl e

. . . pi geonhol epeopl e

460 be cl ear as at eam about our

expect at i ons

461 or gani se f ol der sby t he r egi ons

462 or gani se f i l esi n t he f ol der s i naccor dance w i t hpr oj ect num ber s

463 be consi st ent

464 send l i nks t ot he docum ent s . . .

send t hem asat t achm ent s

465 st ar t f r omt op- dow n bl am e w hen

pr essur ed by t hegover nm ent / m edi a

466 devel op a habi tof sayi ng " us" . . .

"s/ he"

467 est abl i sh t hecul t ur e of achi evi ng

goal s

468 hel p peopl eassoci at e success of

t he com pany w i t hshar i ng t he best

pr act i ce

469 hel p peopl e seet he benef i t s of

per f or m i ng

470 cl ear l y def i net he r ol e each per son

pl ays i n achi evi ngt he bi g pi ct ur e

471 do not m akepeopl e becom e r i sk

aver se

472 i nt r oduce sof tt ype of r epor t i ng

473 keep i thal f - an- hour

474 have onl y 4- 5peopl e t al k

475 be pr epar ed

476 avoi d f al l i ngi nt o t ypi cal t eam

m eet i ngs w her e w ear e t aught by HR

w hat t o do and howt o behave

477 send t henar r at i ve t o

f aci l i t at or onFr i day f or t he

M onday m eet i ng478 bul l et poi nt s

479 keepf aci l i t at i on on a

r ot a

480 keep t hedeadl i nes

481 have a r obustst r at egic plan482 ensur e

deliver abilit y

483 consult deliver yt eam

484 get t he r ightbalance bet ween

st af f andcont r ac t ing agenc ies

485 ensur e t hat t heclient has r ight

pr ogr am m e cont r ol

486 have a cl earst r uct ur e

487 do i tcont i nuousl y . . .have i t once per

year

488 use 360

489 i ncr easeaw ar eness r egar di ng

t eam m em ber s'act i vi t i es

490 have a t eamr epr esent at i ve f or

st akehol der m eet i ng

Table 1

Domain and centrality analysis of the map

Loop analysis of the cognitive map helps reveal causal feedback processes as perceived by the interviewees The loops were modified in order to build SD CLD with the help of Vensim3 software (Figure 3). It demonstrates that the changes in organisational culture directly affect other strategic directions listed in the Table 1. From the perspectives of the respondents positive changes in the organisational culture can improve top-down communication, reduce blame and improve core behaviours.

3 http://vensim.com/

7

The key strategic directions in descending order The reference on the map

1. share knowledge 65

2. change the organisational culture 1

3. make the client organisation a better place to work 23

4. create a learning environment 3

5. retain knowledge in the organisation 4

6. share best practice 40

7. continue organising conferences 128

8. create more comfort and security at work 58

9. improve top-down communication 24

10. create and maintain an effective knowledge repository 123

Figure 3 Causal Loop Diagram4

Better top-down communication may help reduce top-down blame, which may positively affect core behaviours and facilitate more transparency in the organisation, which will eventually contribute to improvement of organisational culture.

The loops demonstrate also that there is a concern regarding employees’ comfort and security at work which affects staff motivation, loyalty and may eventually lead to staff turnover. Staff motivation also promotes creativity and innovation in the organisation. High turnover rate affects knowledge retention, which in its turn influences knowledge sharing. Retained organisational knowledge contributes to organisational stability which makes it a better place to work.

Deeper analysis of the map showed that the main challenges to knowledge transfer among the key stakeholders are in the cultural domain. Among many other barriers the interviewees mentioned: a) “silo” mentality, b) “blame” culture, c) lack of the environment of mutual trust and understanding among the stakeholders, d) outsourcing knowledge with outsourced projects; e) lack of proper planning, and f) lack of common language within the supply chain.While each of these issues is not unfamiliar to those researching projects and project organisations, including certain concurrence, the combination as a cultural force and the clarity of actor recognition as emanating from the parent organisations is worthy of attention. Indeed the client organisation proved powerful in setting the tone, norms and conduct in the supply chain (Smyth and Duryan, 2016).

It is extremely difficult to change or transform organisational culture, however, organisations need a paradigm shift from “knowledge is power” to “sharing knowledge is more powerful” (Dalkir, 2005). In order to organise effective collaboration with all the stakeholders of a megaproject it is necessary to elicit their thinking about the problem situation and their ideas about possible solutions. The management should be aware of what is going on at the front line and should address at least some of the issues communicated to them. They need the “time out to hear what people at the bottom think” because staff needs to be “valued and listened to”. The organisations need to build trust in their culture before expecting employees to share their knowledge and expertise without worrying about their competitive advantage.

The KM system implementation requires consideration and planning, especially at the programme front-end and for each sub-project within this megaproject. A KM strategy must be linked to specific business, programme and project objectives and must address work processes that create organisational knowledge. Compliance with company’s business objectives will allow embedding KM activities in daily work processes which in turn will encourage active involvement of employees across the company.

In order to motivate employees communicate and share knowledge and expertise with their colleagues and across supply chain instead of working in “silos", the client organisation should maximize access to knowledge internally and across the megaproject via “improved

4 Arrows denote the direction of causality between a cause and its effect, and the signs “+” and “-” at the arrowhead represent “same” and “opposite” directions of causality. The “=” sign denotes time delays.

8

communication among project managers and engineers” and discipline-based communities of practice led by experts. Best-in-class organisations create communities of practice, use blogs, yellow pages, upload success stories, how-to-videos on a corporate ‘WiKi’ and create knowledge maps (APQC, 2014). Communities of practice are one of the most powerful and efficient ways to facilitate innovation and knowledge sharing among likeminded individuals and to welcome new members into the organisation (Dalkir, 2005). This is echoed in the project literature (Bresnen et al., 2003). Communities of practice can be mobilized quickly and become dynamic using WiKis and social media in contrast the current low levels of engagement found with more traditional IT platforms and knowledge software packages.

It is generally accepted that in order to facilitate knowledge sharing an organisation needs to sustain a blame-free culture where calculated risk of failures is acceptable and expected, creative solutions are always encouraged and rewarded, and people are given time and resources to try new things.

The interviewees mentioned that the lessons learnt are captured in an ad-hoc way at the close-out project meetings. There should be a dedicated team in the client organisation that will follow a structured agenda and will hold review sessions at the end of each milestone of a megaproject. The team should study what worked well, what didn’t and why, what should be changed. The key lessons learnt after each project should be documented and critical lessons learnt should be disseminated through established communities of practice of all organisations involved.

The knowledge sharing should become a part of a daily routine and be regarded as a natural norm on a job. Employees should be able to contribute content and knowledge through the same applications they use for other duties.

The respondents emphasized the importance of sound planning and keeping it dynamic. It is crucial to involve the design groups at early stages of planning before it is too late to influence the targets. Their early involvement will help them understand where they can add value. Thus lessons learnt have strategic input and are not confined to tactical responses during execution, suggesting a layered and structured approach to the forms of lessons and knowledge for sharing and application, which has been insufficiently addressed to date, yet beyond the scope of the reporting here.

The complexity of the megaprojects is increased by the fact that there are many different stakeholders, including owners, managers, sponsors, and local communities, and they all have different perspectives. The lack of common language with organisations involved in megaproject can cause big problems for knowledge transfer. It is crucial to establish a knowledge taxonomy and knowledge dictionary for knowledge content. The client organisation must set up a knowledge repository, comprising project and supplier information, lessons learnt and pre-bid material.

CONCLUSIONDue to their complexity, high level of resource uncertainty and political pressure, organisational learning in megaprojects is essential. One of the key factors for success can be learning from already established and proven practices, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

9

It is important to transfer knowledge within and between projects to be aware about good practices to avoid unnecessary mistakes and minimize the risk of time and cost overruns. In early design organisations of megaprojects socially oriented practices and routines should be developed in addition to formal processes and documentation.

Culture creates norms regarding what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the organisation and influences how people communicate and share knowledge. The importance of a knowledge sharing culture as an enabler for the creation and transfer of knowledge should not be underestimated.

The objectives of this research were to study how learning from projects is transferred around the organisation that manages a €5bn euro infrastructure programme and to identify the role culture plays in transferring lessons learnt among multiple projects. The findings highlight the importance of understanding cultural barriers to sharing and reusing lessons learnt in megaprojects.

CM technique stimulated new thoughts and ideas around the key issues and helped merging diverse viewpoints into a single representation. The maps has helped reaching a consensus and managing disagreements during the focus group discussions. Their analysis revealed the key areas of concern and possible solutions as perceived by the respondents.

The megaproject management client team emphasised the importance of having dedicated staff to administer and manage knowledge creation, revision, storage and dissemination. The fragmented and unique nature of the megaproject managed by the organisation under the scrutiny makes it difficult to form a culture of continuous knowledge flowing system. At the end of each project, employees are often moved on to the next project before the analysis of lessons. This limits the flow of information, creates barriers to learning and often leads to wastage and poor performance. For the organisation under scrutiny to capitalise on the “know-how” acquired in previous and current projects the company needs to look at managing knowledge more holistically and purposefully combining techniques from executive management, human resource management, KM, content management, and the technical disciplines themselves. The organisation does not have to reinvent the wheel every time it starts a project if it incorporates lessons learnt into organisational standards and processes and disseminates them among all stakeholders involved.

Therefore, the findings show organisational barriers that are essentially cultural. The cultural issues and specific norms need to be addressed in order to build the capabilities at organisational and project levels cited as necessary by others (e.g. Davies and Brady, 2000; Principe and Tell, 2001; Brady and Davies, 2004). Communities of practice around knowledge are found to facilitate learning in line with Bresnen and his colleagues (2003). The detailed analysis of cultural practices provides an additional insight derived from cognitive mapping to learning on megaprojects. This analysis is the critical first step in developing an intervention to align the culture of a client organisation in support of effective knowledge transfer among all the actors to support overall business goal of a megaproject.

REFERENCES

10

Ackermann, F., Eden, C. (2010), Strategic Options Development and Analysis. In: M. Reynolds, & S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide (pp. 135-190), London, UK: Springer.

APQC Best Practices Report (2013). Transferring and Applying Critical Knowledge. Retrieved from: https://www.apqc.org/knowledge-base/documents/transferring-and-applying-critical-knowledge-best-practices-report

APQC Report, (2014). Exploring APQC's Knowledge Flow Process. Retrieved from: https://www.apqc.org/knowledge-base/collections/exploring-apqcs-knowledge-flow-process-collection

Brady, T. and Davies, A. (2004). Building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning. Organisation Studies, 25 (9), 1601-1621.

Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International journal of project management, 21 (3), 157-166.

Churchman, C. W. (1972). The Design of Inquiring System: Basic Concepts of Systems andOrganisation. New York: Basic Books.

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Elsevier Butter worth–Heinemann, Oxford, UK.

Davies, A. and Brady, T. (2000). Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: Towards repeatable solutions. Research Policy, 29, 931–953.

Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., Beers, M. C. (1997). Building Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Center for Business Innovation. Ernst & Young LLP.

Davison, G., & Blackman, D. (2005). The Role of Mental Models in the Development of Knowledge. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 10 (6), 757-769.

De Long, D (1997). Building the knowledge-based organisation. How culture drives knowledge behaviors. Working Paper. Ernst & Young’s Centre for Business Innovation, Boston.

Drucker, P. (1998). Managing in a Time of Great Change. Penguin Putnam, NY.Duffield, S. and Whitty, S. (2016). How to apply the Systemic Lessons Learned Knowledge

Model to wire an organisation for the capability of storytelling. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 429-443.

Eden, C. (2004). Analysing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159, 673–686.

Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. and Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public worksprojects – Error or lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 279-295.

Flyberg, B. (2014). What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An Overview. Project Management Journal, 45 (2) 6-19.

Hartmann, A., Dorée, A. (2014). Learning between projects: More than sending messages in bottles. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 341–351.

Heisig, P. (2002). European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Management: Frameworks on Knowledge Management. Head of Competence Center Knowledge Management, Berlin, Germany.

Hertogh, M., Baker, S., Staal-Ong, P.L. and Westerveld, E. (2008). Managing Large Infrastructure Projects: Research on Best Practices and Lessons Learnt in Large Infrastructure Projects in Europe. Baarn: AT Osborne BV.

Kelly, G. A. (1955/1991). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton (Reprinted by Routledge, London, 1991).

Lane, D. (1994). With a little help from our friends: how system dynamics and soft OR can learn from each other. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 102-134.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press;

11

Prencipe, A. and Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30 (9), 1373-1394.

Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (Eds). (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. 2nd ed. Chicherster, UK: Wiley.

Rubenstein-Montano, B., Liebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B., and Rebeck, K. (2001). A Systems Thinking Framework for Knowledge Management.Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 5-16.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Bantam Doubleday, Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

Smyth, H. J. and Duryan, M. (2016). Knowledge Application in the Supply Network of Infrastructure Programme Management, Cobra 2016, 19th-22nd September, Toronto.

Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9-27.

Wiig, K. M. (2000). Knowledge Management; An emerging discipline rooted in a long history. In C. Despres and D. Chauvel (eds.), Knowledge Horizons: The Present and Promise of Knowledge Management. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 3-26.

Williams, T. (2008). How do organisations learn lessons from projects—and do they? IEEE Trans. Engineering Management. 55, 248–266.

Williams, T., Ackermann, F., Eden, C. and Howick, S. (2001). In, Project Management Institute Annual Symposium, Nashville, Tenessee.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

12