201
By assimilating the two abovementioned theories for the conceptual design phase by Macmillan, 2001 and the knowledge flow life cycle by Nissen, 2006, this study
proposed two propositions which are stated below:
Proposition 1: Knowledge capture can be improved when design
professionals know what the required knowledge are and when they are needed during conceptual design phase.
Proposition 2: With improved knowledge capture, design professionals can
improve their knowledge transfer and application during conceptual design phase.
6.3.2 Summary of Findings from Observation
The findings from the case study observation process were analyzed in chapter 4. This study needed to find the mechanicalelectrical knowledge which are required to
be considered during the conceptual design phase among professionals including BIPV, solar system, wind turbine, etc. This knowledge was identified through ITMA
project in the case study. At the same time, the required knowledge was linked to the activities of Macmillan framework for the conceptual design phase. For instance,
architects have to specify kind of building for mechanicalelectrical experts to enable them to decide about the required technologies. The complete matching is presented
in Table 6.1.
202
6.4 Knowledge-based Macmillan 2001 Framework for Conceptual Design
Phase
With the collected data from the case study, this research matched the activities performed during the case study with the activities from Macmillan framework. As a
result, a relationship was established between the required mechanicalelectrical knowledge and activities of the Macmillan framework for conceptual design phase.
These are presented in Table 6.1. For readers’ information, the empty cells in the proposed framework indicate that this study could not match any obtained knowledge
to the corresponding activity during the conceptual design phase. With the completed matching exercise, this study claims to have extended Macmillan 2001 activity-
based framework to a knowledge-based framework, thus combining both workflows and knowledge flows. The study posits that empty cells in Table 6.1 are evidences
which suggest that nil knowledge exchange occurred among experts for those activities. Going through Table 6.1, “Architects” column is for the information from
architects which has to be allocated to mechanicalelectrical experts, in return of effect on design. Similarly, “Mechanicalelectrical Engineers” column contains
mechanicalelectrical information which these experts must know to be allocated to architects.
Through some activities, the professionals perform their tasks based on the knowledge obtained from their previous activities. These observations supported
Ibrahim and Nissen’s 2007 study. They mentioned that team members would use their prior knowledge during the design phase. However, there is no reason to ensure
