Criteria for Interpreting Data
119
H3: By specifying the entity of the required knowledge during conceptual
design phase, performance of building project improves due to explicitness of entity of knowledge. The study expects the FRI and PRI to be less than 0.5.
Nissen 2006 identified six activities associated with the life cycle of a knowledge flow within an organization. These activities include creating, organizing,
formalizing, and sharing, applying, and refining the knowledge. Nissen’s work provides discrete qualitative categories for potential operationalization of knowledge
flow in an enterprise. His four knowledge flow dimensions were 1 type of knowledge tacit or explicit, 2 level of socialization associated with the knowledge
individual, group, organization, and inter-organization, 3 activities of the knowledge work create, organize, formalize, etc., and flow time Nissen 2006.
Nissen’s model 2006 presents flow of knowledge through three dimensions: 1 x- axis which spreads from individual to group, project team, and organization and
beyond, 2 y-axis which presents knowledge type, and 3 z-axis which presents the phase within the knowledge life cycle. In this model, the speed of knowledge
movement is determined by the type of knowledge Figure 3.8.
120
Figure 3.8. Multidimensional Knowledge Flow Visualization Source: Nissen, 2006
In this diagram, the y-axis designates the explicitness of the knowledge type. By using this diagram, Nissen attempted to explain that the first step of knowledge flow
lifecycle KFLC begins with tacit knowledge which is created by an individual. Then, the movement of tacit knowledge across the reach dimension occurs From A
to B-thick arrow representing the flow of knowledge from the individual to group level Socialization. According to Nissen, this kind of flow is classified as the best
“share” in terms of the lifecycle dimension and for Nonaka 1998 it is “shared experience”. Then a movement from tacit to explicit in group level Externalization
121
happens which corresponds to the formalization stage in KFLC dimension From B to C- thick arrow. Then, the knowledge which moves from group to organization is
from explicit type From C to D – thin arrow.
By means of this diagram, Nissen claimed that the explicit knowledge corresponds to relatively “light mass” in the context of knowledge dynamics showed by thin
arrows, contributing to rapid flows which will cause short flow time. In contrast, tacit knowledge corresponds comparatively to “heavy mass” in the context of
knowledge flows showed by thick arrows, contributing to slow flows which will lead to long flow time accordingly Figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9. Knowledge Flow Time
Source: Nissen, 2006
According to Nissen’s model, the created knowledge will move from individual to group through the shared experience. If the individual’s skill matches the required
experience for the related task, it means that a responsible person knows the accurate and complete knowledge which has to be transferred. Hence, the completeness and
accuracy of the obtained knowledge by a receiver depends on the skill of a sender. The receiver will use this knowledge to perform hisher own task. In contrast, explicit
122
knowledge does not depend on its owner’s skill Table 3.4. In this condition, explicitness of the knowledge leads to faster movement of the knowledge for
subsequent task. As a result, explicitness of knowledge can affect performance of individual task FRI, and also project performance PRI. Therefore, this study
hypothesizes that:
H1: A building project team member who has sufficient knowledge which is
required for other team members’ tasks can improve performance of the receiver’s task. The study expects the FRI and PRI to be less than 0.5.
H2: A building project team member who does not have sufficient knowledge
which has to be considered by other team members to do their task, by transferring incomplete knowledge can increase the risk involved in the
receiver’s task. The study expects the FRI and PRI to be less than 0.5.
Table 3.4. Comparing skill set and required experience
Knowledge Skill Level
Architects Mechanical
engineer Electrical
engineer
Sufficient High
High High
Insufficient Medium
High High
123
This study, for example, intends to compare the results when an architect does not possess the required skill matching the required experience to participate in a project.
In a tacit dominated area, the next task performance relies on the received knowledge which has been sent by a provider. Now, considering the Nissen’s theory, this study
establishes one more hypothesis:
H3: By specifying the entity of the required knowledge during conceptual
design phase, performance of building project improves due to explicitness of entity of knowledge. The study expects the FRI and PRI to be less than 0.5.
For instance, an architect obtains the knowledge about the project requirements by attending a meeting with the owners. In this condition, the architect can transfer the
sufficient knowledge about the project requirements to the mechanicalelectrical engineers. Then, mechanicalelectrical engineers return back to the architects the
considerations required for the conceptual design purpose.
To address the research hypotheses, the effects of dealing with tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge are compared through the simulation process. In dealing with tacit
knowledge, project performance relies on the experience of experts; the higher the skill of the experts, the more complete knowledge is transferredretrieved, and vice
versa. In the tacit dominant area, completeness of the tacit knowledge movement relies on the skill of the experts involved. Therefore, work duration is affected by
changing the skill level of the experts. On the other hand, in dealing with explicit
124
knowledge, the entity of the required knowledge has already been specified. Therefore, the skill of experts cannot affect the completeness of the required
knowledge to transferretrieve. In other words, in explicit dominant area, a given knowledge has to be transferredretrieved and the activities for specifying the entity
of the required knowledge are deducted. Such activities mostly belong to the tacit dominant area. According to Nissen 2006, tacit knowledge is of a heavy mass and
results in long flow time while in the explicit dominant area, flow time is shorter. Therefore, the work duration of Macmillan 2001 framework for conceptual design
phase and the framework proposed by this study are compared.
To validate the proposed framework, this study will test the workflow for conceptual design stage before and after assigning the required mechanicalelectrical knowledge
to the activities, using SimVision software. Ibrahim and Nissen 2005 had earlier employed this software as an agent-based tool that allows evaluation of multiple
workflows in a single process. Using SimVision Jin Levitt, 2002, this study compares the results coming from simulation of these two frameworks. In this way,
the study compares PRI Project Risk Index and FRI Functional Risk Index for both models. According to PM 2005, Project Risk Index PRI represents this
likelihood that the components produced by this project will not be integrated at the end of the project, or that the integration will have defects based on rework and
exception handling.
125
In general, rework occurs when an exception in one task requires redoing an already completed work. The driver task is usually upstream of, or roughly parallel with the
dependent task in the chain of task precedence. Exceptions are errors that are localized to a task and cause rework only in that task. When project exceptions arise
in a task, a certain volume of rework can be scheduled in the dependent task. For instance, in the conceptual design phase, FRI refers to the specifying and transferring
the required knowledge about mechanicalelectrical by engineers to architects. When the required knowledge fails to be transferred to architects, they do not consider those
requirements.
Functional Risk Index ePM, 2005 represents the likelihood that the components produced by this facility development have defects based on rework and exception
handling. Therefore, PRI and FRI are related to the risk of incomplete rework according to which FRI stems from performance of individual task and PRI stems
from integration of the individual task. Both of these two factors have to be under 0.5. Otherwise, the likelihood of project component and task quality failure will be high.
After simulating the proposed framework of this study, the researcher uses values of FRI and PRI for the following reasons:
1- To compare the value of FRI and PRI for existing framework and the proposed framework of this study and to inspect the effects of adding the
required knowledge to the Macmillan framework.
126
2- To ensure that their values are acceptable FRI0.5; PRI0.5. In other words, to ensure that the addition of the required knowledge to the existing work
flow does not have negative effects on the results.