Proceedings of the 2nd Specialty Conference on Leadership and Management in Construction May 4-6, 2006 Grand Bahama Island, Bahamas Editors Anthony Songer Paul Chinowsky Patricia Carrillo Organized by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University University of Colorado Loughborough University Sponsored by CIB – International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction Construction Research Council, Construction Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 ©2006 by PM Publishing, Louisville, Colorado, USA All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission from the authors The views expressed in the papers are of the individual authors The editors are not liable to anyone for any loss or damage caused by any error or omission in the papers, whether such error or omission is the result of negligence or any other cause All and such liability is disclaimed May 2006 Printed in the United States of America ISBN 0-9707869-1-3 ii 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 Committees Organizing Committee Paul Chinowsky, PhD, University of Colorado, USA Patricia Carrillo, PhD, Loughborough University, UK Tony Songer, PhD, Virginia Tech, USA Scientific Committee Kalle Kahkonen, PhD, VTT, Finland Shu-Ling Lu, PhD, NTUST, Taiwan / Salford, UK Bill Maloney, PhD, University of Kentucky, USA Clark Pace, PhD, University of Washington, USA Martin Sexton, PhD, University of Salford, UK Mike Toole, PhD, Bucknell University, USA iii 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 Message From The Organizing Committee On behalf of all the members of the organizing and scientific committees, let me welcome you to the 2nd Specialty Conference on Leadership and Management in Construction Building on the momentum of the 2004 Hilton Head conference, the 2006 conference has expanded significantly We are pleased to have CIB joining us as an official sponsor in addition to our ASCE sponsorship The global focus of this year’s conference is truly represented by delegates from Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America We are looking forward to great presentations, opportunities for discussion both formal in the conference and informal during afternoons on the beach Our conference format is once again focused on providing maximum presentation, discussion, and interaction time Please take the opportunity to make new friends, renew old friendships, and develop new collaborations The research community is small and collaboration is the key to advancing our agenda We need everybody to help in this pursuit We look forward to a great conference and building a foundation for many more successful conferences Thank you again for all of your participation and assistance Paul Chinowsky Tony Songer Patricia Carrillo Conference Co-Chairs iv 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 Table of Contents Thursday – May Session 1.1a: Education ASCE’s Raise the Bar Effort: Forward Progress J S Russell and T A Lenox An Integrated Construction Education Model at Virginia Tech Y J Beliveau and M Vorster Benefits of Industry Involvement in Construction Education 18 J Irizarry and W Adams Session 1.1b: Globalization The Competitiveness of International Construction Majors: Managing the Evolution 26 I I Zoiopoulos, P W.G Morris and H J Smyth Value-Based Management of Highly Dynamic Construction and Engineering Businesses 34 P Huovinen Embeddedness, Emergent Uncertainty and Strategies for Foreign Markets 42 R J Orr and R E Levitt Session 1.2a: Project Based Organization Project Information Management for Construction: Organizational Configurations T M Froese A Comprehensive Approach to Implement Simulation in Construction Sites 58 R Chahrour, J H Utsch and V Franz Project Management and Collaboration Tools on the Internet – 67 C S Dossick, M Sakagami, C Pace Road Construction Planning (Roadsim): A Knowledge-Based Simulation System 75 S Castro and N N Dawood 50 Session 1.1b: Knowledge Management Knowledge Management Systems: Their Benefits and Obstacles 83 T.M.A Ballal and T.M.S Elhag Capturing Construction Project Knowledge 92 P Carrillo, H C Tan, C Anumba and D Bouchlaghem Sharing Knowledge in a Contractor’s Team: A Case Study of Disney’s Adventureland Project P.S.W Fong and K Y Lee Network Organizations: Structural and Strategic Implications 108 C J Katsanis 100 Friday May Session 2.1a: Organization and Project Leadership What Makes An Effective Project Manager: Findings Of A Four-Year Program Of Research A.R.J Dainty, M-I Cheng and D.R Moore Leadership Development of Construction Project Managers 124 C Skipper and L Bell Incorporating Leadership Skill Development in Construction Training Programs 135 S M Bogus, and J L Rounds Session 2.1b: Education Building Leadership Skills and Traits: 141 v 116 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 W W Badger and J C Smith ASCE’s Raise the Bar Effort: Fulfillment and Validation of the Attainment of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge 158 J S Russell and G E Galloway Highlighting Workforce Issues in the Classroom: The Impact of Race, Gender, and Culture in the Construction Industry 167 C M Fiori and K Knutson Session 2.2a: Workforce Integrated Construction Labour Market Planning Using GIS 174 C E H Anumba, A R J Dainty, S G Ison and A Sergeant What are the Best Practices for Skilled Labor Recruitment and Retention? It Depends Upon Whom You Ask 185 C Fiori, G Brown and K Sadowski Recruitment and Retention of Women in the Skilled Trades 192 W F Maloney and A D Mitnick Session 2.2b: Project Based Organization Competencies to Facilitate Public Private Partnerships 200 M J Garvin and N Chiara Uncovering ‘Hidden’ Project Benefits through Program Management 208 S P Mulva An Agile Step Forward In Project Management 216 R.L Owen and L Koskela Session 2.3a: Knowledge Management Semantic Web-Based Knowledge Management In Construction 225 C J Anumba, P Carrillo and J Pan The Application of Communities of Practice (CoP) in UK Large Contracting Companies 234 A A Elmualim and K Govender Partnering as a Way to Stimulate Knowledge Sharing among Partnered Firms 242 P.S.W Fong and A.W.M Ko Session 2.3b: Organization and Project Leadership Emotional Intelligence And Leadership Behavior In Construction Executives 250 A Songer, P Chinowsky and C Butler The Role of Strategic Leadership in Creating Change for Construction Innovation: A North Cyprus Perspective 259 İ Yitmen and C Taneri Developing Skills to Manage Complex Projects 267 A D Chasey and J Robertson Saturday, May Session 3.1a: Organization and Project Leadership Facilitating A Value-Based Approach To Design And Construction Through Informal Leadership: 274 S Emmitt Engineering Leadership for High Performance Green Buildings 282 M J Horman, D R Riley, L Klotz, P K Dahl, A F Phelps, and Y Luo Preparing Contractor Organizations For Implementing Lean Construction 290 vi 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 L F Alarcón, I Pavez, S Diethelm and O Rojo Session 3.1b: Project Based Organization A Primer on Social Science Research Methods in Construction 300 T.M Toole A Construction Sociological Systems Model to Relational Contracting 310 D W Martin, A D Songer and J Hawdon Program Renewal: A New Approach to Project Development 318 S P Mulva Session 3.2a: Education Integrating Sustainable Construction Research and Education: 326 D Riley, C Thatcher and S Korkmaz Empowering PowerPoints — Using Mind Maps in Construction Education 334 A Wiezel Student-Centered Learning Environment During Undergraduate Education in CEM G Lucko Construction Industry Craft Training: Experience to Date and the Path Forward350 R W Glover, P M Goodrum and C T Haas 341 Session 3.2b: Organization and Strategic Management (Fr)agile Innovation in Small Professional Service Firms 357 M Sexton and S.-L Lu A Move from Project-Based Organisation to Integrated Supply Chain 366 M M A Khalfan, and P McDermott Critical Success Factors (CSFs) In A Multidisciplinary Engineering Practice 373 D Koutsikouri, A R J Dainty, S A Austin Contextual Platform for Advancing Management of Construction and Engineering Businesses: 52 Concepts Published between 1990-2005 381 P Huovinen Papers Not Presented The Leadership Profile Of Nigerian Construction Project Leaders K T Odusami and O.J Ameh Leadership In Construction Industry: Learning From The Past 399 W Tijhuis A Review of Frameworks for Analyzing International Construction I Dikmen and M T Birgonul Learning Organizations In Construction 418 P Chinowsky, K Molenaar and A Realph Author Index 389 409 427 vii 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 ASCE’s Raise the Bar Effort: Forward Progress American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (CAP^3) J S Russell1 and T A Lenox2 Professor and Chair, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2205 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706; PH (608) 262-7244; email: russell@engr.wisc.edu Managing Director, ASCE, World Headquarters, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191; PH (703) 295-6025; email: tlenox@asce.org Abstract In October 2001, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) approved Policy Statement 465 entitled “Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice.” The underlying purpose of ASCE Policy Statement 465 is to prepare the civil engineering professional of the future The Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice (CAP^3) has been working to implement the policy for the past four years The purpose of this paper is to describe the progress over the last year and the next steps for the implementation of Policy Statement 465 Introduction In October 2001, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Board of Direction unanimously approved Policy Statement 465, entitled “Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice.” In October 2004, the policy was unanimously revised This policy supports “the attainment of the Body of Knowledge (BOK) for the entry into the practice of civil engineering at the professional level.” Under girding this policy is the belief that the BOK necessary to enter the practice of civil engineering at the professional level in the future will be beyond the scope of a traditional 4-year bachelor’s degree and required practical experience While ASCE recognizes that implementation of Policy Statement 465 will not occur overnight, this policy has the potential to transform the practice of civil engineering, and positively influence the safety, quality, efficiency, and sustainability of the built environment in the 21st Century The purpose of this paper is to describe the progress over the last year and the next steps for the implementation of Policy Statement 465 Background The last four years have seen major progress in ASCE’s “Raise the Bar” initiative, from the creation of a Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge (BOK), to a sea change in the reaction towards this initiative The CAP ^3 Body of Knowledge committee formulated and published the first edition of the Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century in early 2004 This effort moved the focus of ASCE’s initiative from one principally referencing degrees to a 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 new focus on the requisite areas of knowledge necessary for the professional practice of engineering in the future The overarching goal of CAP^3 is to develop, organize, and implement ASCE’s “Raise the Bar” initiative To accomplish this multi-phased objective, CAP^3 has spread its efforts over several fronts including curricula, accreditation, licensure, and BOK fulfillment and validation, and levels of achievement Efforts in each of these five fronts were carried out by a constituent committee There were face-to-face meetings and 93 conference calls during Fiscal Year 2005 Through these engagements, the overall efforts and accomplishments of the five committees in Fiscal Year 2005 were as follows: The Curricula Design Committee has been working in earnest for the past two years The Curriculum Committee is evaluating the BOK, mapping the BOK against the curricula of 25 participating undergraduate programs, and making suggestions on inconsistencies and how to improve the BOK The Curriculum Committee regularly corresponds with a wide group of stakeholders, and is leading the charge to engage CEE faculty and administrators The Accreditation Committee has been formulating revised civil engineering program criteria, in concert with the ASCE accreditation community, for submission to the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET, Inc The goal of this endeavor is to incorporate primary elements of the BOK into civil engineering curricula via the basic level civil engineering program criteria and the advanced level general criteria In general, flexibility is being sought to allow universities to efficiently obtain accreditation of both undergraduate and graduate programs of the same engineering discipline Such flexibility does not exist within current interpretations of ABET policies The Licensure Committee has continued to provide input to CAP^3 and to each of its committees from a licensure perspective The Licensure Committee has closely monitored the activities of National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) regarding proposed modifications to the Model Law Additionally, the Licensure Committee continues to seek and identify states that may wish to consider early implementation of additional engineering education requirements as a prerequisite for licensure The BOK Fulfillment and Validation Committee began work in the fall of 2004 on two fronts They explored concepts to allow alternative education providers other than universities to provide credible post-graduate engineering education To become viable, such alternative education channels must be equivalent in academic rigor and individual performance assessment to upper level undergraduate and graduate level education at traditional universities This committee also addressed how to assure that the requisite BOK is fulfilled through a combination of a bachelor’s degree and approximately 30 credits of courses in technical and professional practice topics The committee was “sunsetted” on May 1, 2005 The Levels of Achievement Committee was formed as a result of input from the Curricula Design committee The proposed levels of competence (recognition, understanding, and 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 models that take into account of links between specific markets Actually, they form the basis of generalized double diamond model proposed by Moon et al.(1998) Discussion It is clear that national competitive advantage should be considered while assessing the competitiveness of construction companies in international markets but there is still no consensus on the structure of the framework which will be used for analyzing its level Figure demonstrates the unknowns associated with the variations of Porter’s model In order to design a framework applicable to international construction, the “determinants”, “exogenous variables”, “interrelations between variables and exogenous factors” and “number and structure of layers” have to be decided The shape of the model (diamond, hexagon etc.) is dependent on the number of determinants and the links between them Number of layers =? Chance Factor conditions Firm structure, strategy and rivalry Demand conditions Related and supporting industries Relations (arrows) =? Determinant? Shape of the layer =? Government Variable? Figure Unknowns in a framework for analyzing international competitiveness About the determinants and exogenous factors: As explained in the previous part, some of the researchers (e.g Ericsson et al 2005, Ofori 2003) argue that government should be a determinant of its own However, this is against the philosophy of diamond framework There is no doubt that government has a significant role in the construction industry, however, the reason why it is not a determinant in the original diamond is not underestimation of its importance Exogenous factors may be as important as or more important than the determinants, however they are not defined as such because their major impact is on the determinants rather than national competitive advantage Government policy can influence or can be influenced by each determinant either positively or negatively, however, its role is inevitably “partial” because it 414 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 lacks the power to create advantage itself (Porter, 1998) Due to its indirect impact on national competitive advantage, we argue that it should be considered as an exogenous variable Similarly, culture factors work through the determinants and have considerable impacts on the level of national competitive advantage Thus, we propose that culture should be incorporated into the model as an exogenous factor influencing the determinants We also propose that rather than increasing the number of determinants, each determinant in the original diamond should be divided into sub-groups that reflect the realities of the construction sector For example, as construction industry has got various sub-markets having different characteristics, demand conditions should be considered separately for each sub-sector The housing sector is very different from the infrastructure market due to existence of different clients, complexity of projects and required skills to gain competitive advantage Similarly, under firm strategy, structure and rivalry, project level activities/capabilities should be differentiated from those at the corporate level About the relationships between factors: The factors in the diamond framework are mutually dependent, thus effect of one variable depends on the state of others This feature of the framework makes it useful for analyzing the dynamics of national competitive advantage, understanding the “past competitive advantage” and predicting future industry evolution by creating scenarios about changes in different factors However, in many studies (e.g Ofori, 2003), determinants are classified as either strength or weakness factors isolated from each other and the essence of the dynamics between determinants is missed We argue that as well as the number of determinants, relationships between determinants have to be discussed by the researchers 3.About the layers: Although the home-market factors have the major role on competitive advantage of a nation, industry or a firm, it is clear that firm structure, strategy and rivalry, demand conditions, related and supporting industries and factor conditions are affected from the global market conditions For example, as a result of international experience, companies may gain new skills such as dealing with bureaucracy, management of political risk (valid for companies from advanced industrialized countries carrying out projects in developing or less developed countries) or developing efficient quality assurance systems, management of environmental risks (valid for companies from developing countries working with partners from advanced industrialized countries) which are not required in their home market Some of these newly acquired skills may have an impact on the home-market demand conditions, change the rules of competition and affect even the required human resources (factor conditions) One can argue that, especially for developing and underdeveloped countries, international construction experience of contractors may result in dramatic transformations in home-market conditions leading to higher competitive advantage internationally in the long run Thus, learning as a result of international activity should be incorporated into the model by adding another layer to the diamond Conclusion It is clear that proposing a framework for analyzing national competitive advantage in the global construction industry is a challenging task Due to its project-based nature, establishment of joint ventures by firms having different nationalities and utilization of focus strategies by contractors rather than a global diversification strategy, it is difficult to define terms such as 415 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 national competitive advantage and global success Therefore, it may not be possible to design a “generalized framework” to be used by all firms and countries Ofori (2003) emphasises the need for collaborative work to construct analytical frameworks to investigate international competitiveness and argues that research which considers panels of countries would be more beneficial than the single-country approaches Similarly, we argue that rather than trying to create a broad theory, concrete examples may be collected from all over the world as a result of a world-wide effort of researchers to construct a construction-specific framework Otherwise, all proposed frameworks may stay as theoretical suggestions that can not be used in practice References Cho, D.S (1994) “A dynamic approach to international competitiveness: The case of Korea”, Journal of Far Eastern Business, 1(1), 17-36 Cuervo, J.C., and Pheng, L.S (2003) “Ownership advantages/disadvantages of Singapore transnational construction corporations.” Construction Management and Economics, 21(1), 81-94 Dunning, J.H (1993) “Internationalizing Porter’s diamond”, Management International Review, 33(2), 7-15 Dunning, J.H (2000) “The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity”, International Business Review, 9(2), 163-190 Ericsson, S., Henricsson, P., and Jewell, C (2005) “Understanding construction industry competitiveness: The introduction of the hexagon framework”, Proceedings of CIB Conference on Combining Forces, Vol 2, 186-202, Helsinki, Finland Huovinen, P (2005) “Applying Porter’s frameworks to managing a business in global construction markets”, Proceedings of CIB Conference on Combining Forces, Vol 2, 109-120, Helsinki, Finland Lall, S (2001) Competitiveness, technology and skills, Edward Elgar Publishing , UK Momaya, K., and Selby, K (1998) “International competitiveness of the Canadian construction industry: A comparison with Japan and the United States.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(4), 640-52 Moon, C.H., Rugman, A.M., and Verbeke, A (1998) “A generalized double diamond approach to the global competitiveness of Korea and Singapore”, International Business Review,7, 135-150 Ofori, G (1994) “Formulating a long-term strategy for developing the construction industry of Singapore.” Construction Management and Economics, 12, 219-31 416 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 Ofori, G (2003) “Frameworks for analysing international construction.” Construction Management and Economics, 21(4), 379-91 Oz, O (2001) “Sources of competitive advantage of Turkish construction companies in international markets.” Construction Management and Economics, 19, 135-44 Pheng, L S., and Hongbin, J (2003) “Internationalization of Chinese construction enterprises.” ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(6), 589-98 Pheng, L.S., and Hongbin, J (2004) “Estimation of international construction performance: Analysis at the country level.” Construction Management and Economics, 22(3), 27789 Porter, M E (1998) The competitive advantage of nations, Macmillan Business, UK Rugman, A., and d’Cruz, J.R (1993) “The double diamond model of international competitiveness: the Canadian experience ”, Management International Review, 33(2), 17-39 Seymour, H (1987) The multinational construction industry, Croom Helm, London Stopford, J M., and Strange, S (1991) Rival States, Rival Firms: Competition for world market shares, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 417 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 Learning Organizations In Construction Paul Chinowsky, Keith Molenaar, and Allison Realph Associate Professor, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428; PH (303) 735-1063; FAX (303) 665-3697; email: paul.chinowsky@colorado.edu Associate Professor, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428; PH (303) 735-4276; email: keith.molenaar@colorado.edu Research Assistant, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0428; email: Allison.realph@colorado.edu Abstract The transformation of organizations from production oriented entities to proactive learning entities that continuously leverage the knowledge of the workforce is a primary objective of management researchers This focus has significant relevance to the construction industry where production-related research has predominantly overshadowed organizational development research As one effort to change this emphasis, the authors present a research effort designed to study current organization learning techniques and technologies fielded by organizations both inside and outside of the construction industry Through a series of exploratory case studies, the authors developed a maturity model together with the Construction Industry Institute that provides construction organizations with a framework for developing a learning organization culture The maturity model focuses on learning organization characteristics of leadership, processes and infrastructure, communication/collaboration, education and culture at the organization, community and individual levels This paper introduces the results of that effort including a presentation of the learning organization maturity model, framework application, and the overall characteristics of a learning organization Introduction The construction industry of the 21st century is undergoing significant changes as it addresses issues such as the aging of the construction workforce, globalization, growth of the organization, and “better” client solutions These changes are initiating a looming crisis for the construction industry, the need to both retain knowledge within the organization and focus on continuous human resource development throughout all levels of the organization Specifically, it is imperative for construction, engineering and owner organizations to evolve into learning organizations where continuous knowledge enhancement and improvement of processes becomes a fundamental element of the construction business Although the concept of learning organizations may be new to construction organizations, the concept is well-established in the management domain The foundation of the concept is rooted in work conducted by Peter Senge in the organizational systems domain (Senge 1990a) In this work, Senge emphasizes that organizations must focus less on day-to-day events and more on the underlying trends and forces of change that cause day-to-day events to occur From this analysis, organizations can focus on learning new ways to address issues and adapting 418 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 behavior to improve processes This concept adopts the idea that both generative and adaptive learning must occur in a learning organization Specifically, generative learning focuses on an organization creating new knowledge, while adaptive learning focuses on how an organization changes processes to adapt to changing environments (Senge 1990b; Garvin 1993) Reflecting the need to move in this proactive, adaptive direction, the authors and the CII research team put forward the following learning organization definition based on work by others and a focus on the needs of the construction industry (Leadership 2006) A learning organization is skilled at creating, acquiring, sharing, and applying knowledge, embracing change and innovation at all levels resulting in optimum performance and maximum competitive advantage Research Methodology Given the potential benefits of moving to a learning organization, the authors focused on both the history and current thinking on learning organizations both within and outside the engineer-procure-construct (EPC) industry These perspectives were obtained through a methodology that emphasized both the analysis of existing research and the development of new knowledge based on the research findings The primary steps in the methodology were 1) Literature Review, 2) Survey, 3) Case Studies, 4) Maturity Model Development, and 5) Validation Additionally, the research team developed an automated assessment tool – Learning Organization Rapid Diagnostic (LEONARDO) – to assist in the assessment and implementation of the learning organization The literature review focused extensively on learning from prior research in related fields Specifically, work by Peter Senge, Peter Drucker and others was analyzed to determine how the management community has introduced learning concepts into corporate culture The results of this analysis provided the foundation for both the survey and the learning organization maturity model presented in this paper The next step was to survey CII member companies to determine where the membership currently stands in terms of achieving a learning organization culture was a primary objective of this research The CII membership is comprised the EPC industry leaders Membership includes both public and private owners, engineers, and contractors To achieve this objective, the CII membership was surveyed on topics relating to lessons-learned, knowledge management, learning, and organization commitment to developing a learning culture Thirty-five of the member companies responded to the survey, giving the project team a solid understanding of current learning organization implementation within CII The results of the survey illustrated that EPC organizations were in the early development stage of establishing learning organizations Therefore a case study approach was determined to be an appropriate method for collecting data and developing the maturity model Based upon the literature review and the survey findings, a case study protocol was developed and administered to ten organizations The case studies involved organizations both inside and outside the construction industry that had been documented as pursuing a learning culture The case studies focused on gaining an understanding of what was required to establish a learning organization culture The results of the case study effort led directly to the development of a learning organization maturity model The maturity model presents organizations with a path forward for achieving a learning organization culture Specifically, the model outlines the characteristics of a learning 419 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 organization and the levels of learning entities within an organization The researchers applied this maturity model to an automated assessment tool, LEONARDO, which also has decision support functionality While an explanation of the development and testing of this tool is beyond the scope of this paper, the model itself is explained in detail in the sections that follow The final step in the research methodology was to validate the maturity model with specific organizations and additionally to determine barriers to successfully implementing a learning organization Validation was done in a two step process The first step involved eight companies answering questions about each cell of the maturity model The research team assessed each company on the maturity model These results were then discussed with the company to determine their accuracy The second step of the validation was to conduct a second set of in depth case studies with three additional companies using the maturity model framework to identify barriers to achieving a learning organization CHARACTERISTICS LEARNING ORGANIZATION ENTITIES ORGANIZATION COMMUNITY INDIVIDUAL Leadership Processes and Infrastructure Communication/Collaboration Education Culture Figure 1: The Learning Organization Maturity Model The Learning Organization Maturity Model The primary outcome of this research is a learning organization maturity model The drivers motivating an organization to adopt such a learning organization culture were previously discussed As the next level of detail, the components of the learning organization maturity model are presented These components provide the foundation for an organization to move toward a learning organization through a series of planned activities that result in the maturing of the learning organization culture Figure is a matrix that illustrates the maturity model for learning organizations as developed through this research The learning organization entities form the horizontal axis of the matrix and the learning organization characteristics form the vertical axis of the matrix As an organization matures, it moves from the top right corner of the matrix to the bottom left corner – ultimately achieving a learning organization culture as explained in the following sections Learning Organization Entities The entities of learning across the top of the maturity model provide a reference point to the primary learning groups found within an organization Each of these groups is dependent on each other to facilitate the exchange, development, and evaluation of knowledge • Organization – The organization is the overall corporate entity including all levels of management and staff personnel The organization is a critical part of the learning organization concept since a learning organization cannot exist without the encouragement and endorsement of top executives as well as the buy-in from staff personnel throughout the organization 420 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 • • Community – The community is the entity that represents a group of individuals who are engaged in similar technical activities – referred to as a Community of Practice (COP) The COP has the responsibility for both encouraging learning within the community as well as acting as a filter for the knowledge generated within the community In this filter role, the COP determines if the knowledge generated can be beneficial beyond the COP, if the knowledge should be translated into a new practice or procedure, and if all individuals are contributing to the sharing of knowledge Individual – The individual is the cornerstone of the learning organization since it is the individual that is responsible for actively seeking new knowledge and in turn disseminating knowledge to the organization However, it is also the individual that must be convinced that the learning organization concept has personal benefits Learning Organization Characteristics The overall definition of a learning organization is further can be further defined by a series of five characteristics as follows: • Leadership – The ability to lead the organization toward implementation of a learning organization Attributes include: o Championing the integration of new knowledge into the organization: o Encouraging experimentation: and o Taking proactive steps to achieve a shared vision • Processes and Infrastructure – The combination of the management processes and the technical infrastructure required to implement the learning organization vision within an organization Attributes include: o Facilitating the exchange and management of knowledge: o Institutionalizing new knowledge through new processes: and o Transferring a resource commitment from executive management to implementation plans and proper organization design • Communication – The interaction between both COPs and individuals within the organization that facilitates the free sharing of knowledge at all times and at all levels Attributes include: o The sharing of knowledge in pursuit of organization improvement; o Supporting the establishment and continuation of COPs; and o Eliminating of barriers to communication • Education – A commitment by both management and employees to continuous education opportunities is a foundation of the learning organization concept and the key to bringing new knowledge into the organization Attributes include: o Seeing education as a value to both the individual and the organization; o Developing a systematic approach to obtaining education and disseminating knowledge; and o Developing a structured approach to promoting education • Culture – The final characteristic of learning organizations is the development of a culture that supports, promotes, and rewards learning as a vital part of organization enhancement Attributes include; o A receptiveness to new ideas and cultural integration with a culture that is open to change; o A desire to seek, initiate, improve, and generate new ideas and concepts; and 421 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 o A belief that the individual is part of something larger is pursuing goals that are greater than the individual Maturity Model Responsibilities The combination of characteristics applied to each entity of learning generates the learning organization maturity model Specifically, each characteristic of a learning organization can be applied to a specific entity of learning through responsibilities and actions that are required at that level In contrast to job responsibilities, these responsibilities and actions are overall requirements that are placed on each member of the organization in an effort to establish a learning organization culture The requirements underlie specific project responsibilities to outline the expectations that a learning organization is placing on each employee For example, when the Leadership characteristic is applied to the Organization learning entity, several responsibilities are defined for the organization as follows; • Sets vision – responsible for setting a shared vision of learning that each member of the organization can adopt and follow • Creates proactive learning environment – establishes the environment that promotes the sharing, seeking, and adopting of knowledge • Empowers learning at all levels – promotes learning throughout the organization through resource commitment and reward • Allows/Encourages risk – creates an environment where risk taking is not only acceptable, but encouraged when managed properly and is focused on enhanced performance • Builds culture – responsible for establishing the underlying culture that places learning as a foundational element of the organization practice Similar responsibilities are defined for each cell in the matrix and provide guidelines for the organization to set expectations for each member of the organization as the move toward a learning organization is achieved (Leadership 2006) The development of a learning organization does not occur overnight or even in a single year Rather, this research effort discovered that the development of a full learning organization culture requires a series of steps that often takes at least five years or more to complete With this level of effort facing an organization, a structure is required to assist in determining the appropriate actions to take at each stage of the process To assist in this process, the matrix described above can be used to monitor the development of a learning organization throughout the process This monitoring is referred to as a maturity model and it evaluates where an organization is during the process from first started through the mature stage In this final stage, the organization is transformed into a learning organization complete with an associated learning culture Application of the Maturity Model The evolution to a learning organization is defined in this research as a five-level approach with each level representing a stage of development towards a mature learning organization concept Each level is defined as an organization having completed the implementation of specific concepts The learning organization maturity levels are described in Figure below As an organization achieves the complete range of implementation levels for each cell, the organization is considered to have achieved that level of learning organization maturity 422 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 CHARACTERISTICS Leadership Processes and Infrastructure Communication/Collaboration Education Culture LEARNING ORGANIZATION ENTITIES INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION COMMUNITY 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 2: Five Levels of the Learning Organization Maturity Model As illustrated in Figure 2, the maturity model progresses from the upper right corner of the matrix down to the lower left corner of the matrix This progression reflects the need for an organization to initially have individuals who are going to take the leadership of the learning organization and champion the cause within the organization Once the leadership is established, process can be developed, communication enhanced, education programs introduced, and finally, a culture established The failure to follow this path could lead an organization to expend significant resources without putting in place the foundation required for the learning organization The following descriptions provide an overview of the five maturity levels and the associated matrix levels that must be achieved Level 0: At Level it is assumed that the organization is just beginning the transformation to a learning organization concept It is thus considered the base layer where all organizations begin Although some activity may be occurring in individual maturity cells, the transition to a Level organization is still occurring Level 1: A Level learning organization is focused on establishing the leadership required to move the organization toward a learning organization concept The idea that leadership is required to move the organization forward, starting from an individual level is represented by the matrix completion evaluations Additionally at this level, the organization will begin addressing the processes and infrastructure that will be required to implement the knowledge sharing concept that is a key component of a learning organization Level 2: A Level organization has completed the leadership transformation as well as the individual and community levels of process and infrastructure development Additionally, the Level organization is actively addressing the communication aspects of learning and the initial stages of education and culture change at the individual and community levels At this stage, the organization is actively moving toward and supporting a new focus on knowledge sharing and open communication Level 3: A Level organization is distinguished by its full implementation of organization-wide processes to support learning as well as a new focus on the learning culture at the individual and community levels Learning is no longer viewed as a necessary human resources requirement, but is viewed as an integral part of an individual’s job and career A level organization is shown in Figure below 423 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 CHARACTERISTICS LEARNING ORGANIZATION ENTITIES INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION COMMUNITY Leadership Processes and Infrastructure Communication/Collaboration Education Culture Figure 3: Level Learning Organization Light gray - the organization is actively addressing specific concepts Dark Gray - complete implementation of specific concepts Level 4: The Level organization has almost achieved full learning organization maturity Communication and sharing are now part of the corporate culture and standard operating procedures Leadership is championing learning throughout the organization and at all levels Additionally, the culture now reflects the strong focus on learning at the community and individual levels with the organization now focusing on moving that culture throughout the organization Level 5: The Level organization has achieved maturity in the learning organization model Each level has adopted the complete range of learning organization characteristics and the learning organization culture now characterizes the organization Barriers to implementation The learning organization maturity model is intended to provide a path for organizations to follow while undertaking a learning culture transformation However, the path along this course contains barriers that every organization will be required to address To obtain an indication of these barriers, the authors conducted case studies of three organizations in the construction domain that were at various stages of learning organization implementation The focus of these case studies was to identify the barriers that were hindering or preventing the organizations from furthering the implementation of a learning organization culture Initially, interviews with a member of each company who was integrally involved with learning organization type initiatives were conducted These interviews were intended to establish what the company was attempting to in terms of creating a learning organization culture Following these interviews, interviews were conducted with management and project management personnel within each company The intent of these interviews was to determine if initiatives conceived at the company’s executive level were being translated to the project level effectively Prior to answering any questions relating to learning organizations, participants were asked to briefly describe their role in the company and provide any background information to the company that they thought may be helpful The learning organization questions were developed based on the learning organization characteristics and levels defined by the learning organization maturity model Participants were first asked how familiar they were with the concept of a learning organization and, if they were at all familiar with the concept, how they would describe a learning organization Following this, questions became more specific and 424 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 focused on actual programs that may or may not be in place at each organization and the barriers that were encountered while implementing the programs The result of this case study process was the identification of six primary barriers to the successful implementation of learning organizations: • Executive Support – The lack of support from senior executives prevented the organization from obtaining resources for the implementation effort and prevented employees from adopting a culture of learning • Employee Support – The lack of support from employees prevented the organization from achieving a broad base of effort from individual employees • Time – The lack of time prevented organization personnel from dedicating resources to obtain new knowledge • Money – Similar to time, the lack of money prevented organizations from investing in learning organization programs • Value Measurement – The lack of value measurements created doubts among senior personnel that value was obtained from investing in learning objectives • Knowledge Sharing Infrastructure – The lack of an infrastructure to support knowledge sharing significantly restricted individuals from exchanging knowledge and becoming a learning community Although these case studies represented a small sample of organizations pursuing learning objectives, they provide additional validation of the learning organization maturity model and an initial look at the barriers that organizations are facing in adopting a learning culture Of particular significance from these studies is the finding that executive support is the key first step to a successful implementation of a learning organization culture Similar to all change management efforts, this support is critical to both the allocation of resources and the continued support of the objective over an extended period of time Conclusion Organizations as diverse as Motorola and Accenture have transformed learning organizations from a concept to an integral component of their business success Researchers such as Peter Senge at MIT have written extensively of the benefits and challenges associated with adopting a learning organization culture However, the existence of these resources and success cases does not automatically translate into cross-industry adoption For the construction industry to adopt a learning organization culture the concept of continuous learning and personal advancement must become a fundamental operating concept within organizations at every level and throughout every project and business process Adopting this concept requires the construction industry to focus on a long-term outlook for learning This paper introduced a new maturity model for organizations to follow while adopting this long-term outlook The development of a learning organization culture requires investment at all three learning entity levels and in all five characteristics of the learning organization The organizations that can objectively evaluate where they currently stand in the culture change process and can strategically invest in appropriate maturity levels, will be the ones that achieve this culture in a successful manner 425 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 Acknowledgements This work was funded by CII and the University of Colorado The authors would like to recognize the significant efforts of the CII Research Team 201 including the research committee chair, Chris Parker and the research team members Bruce Bailie, Eskil Carlsson, Julius Chepey, Al Goethe, David Hammes, Randy Hendricks, Tom Land, Allan Reid, James Ross and Ted Thorpe The authors would also like to acknowledge the case study participants without which this research would not have been possible References Carrillo, P.M., Robinson, H.S., Al-Ghassani, A.M and Anumba, C.J., (2004) “Knowledge Management in UK Construction: Strategies, Resources and Barriers.” Project Management Journal, 35(1), 46-56 Garvin, D (1993) “Building Learning Organizations.” Harvard Business Review, 71(4),70-74 Goh, S C (1998) “Toward a Learning Organization: The Strategic Building Blocks.” Advanced Management Journal, 63(2) Leadership in a Knowledge Era: Achieving the Learning Organization (2006) Report RS-201-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX McGill, M E., Slocum, J W , and Lei, D (1992) “Management Practices in Learning Organizations.” Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 4-17 Modeling the Lessons Learned Process (1997) Report RS-123-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX Messner, J (2003) “An Architecture for Knowledge management in the AEC Industry.” Proc Of the 2003 ASCE Construction Research Congress, Molenaar, K and Chinowsky, P (eds.), Honolulu, HI, March 2003 Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company Oxford University Press, Oxford Senge, P M (1990a) The Fifth Discipline, Currency/Doubleday, New York Senge, P M (1990b) The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations.” Sloan Management Review, 32(1), 7-23 Stata, R (1989) “Organizational Learning the Key to Management Innovation,” Sloan Management Review, 31(1), 63-74 426 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 Author Index A Adams, W Alarcón, L.F Ameh, O.J Anumba, C.E.H Anumba, C.J Austin, S.A 18 291 390 174 92, 225 374 B Badger, W.W 141 Ballal, T.M.A 83 Beliveau, Y.J Bell, L 124 Birgonul, M.T 410 Bogus, S.M 135 Bouchlaghem, D 92 Brown, G 185 Butler, C 250 C Carrillo, P Castro, S Chahrour,R Chasey, A.D Cheng, M.I Chiara, N Chinowsky, P 92, 225 75 58 268 116 200 250, 418 D Dahl, P.K Dainty, A.R.J Dawood, N.N Diethelm, S Dikmen, I Dossick, C.S 282 116, 174, 374 75 291 410 67 E Elhag, T.M.S Elmualim,A.A Emmitt, S 83 234 275 F Fiori, C.M Fong, P.S.W Franz, V Froese, T.M 167, 185 100, 242 58 50 G Galloway, G.E Glover, R M Goodrum, P.M Garvin, M.J Govender, K 158 351 351 200 234 427 H Haas, C.T Hawdon, J Horman, M.J Huovinen, P 351 311 282 34, 382 I Irizarry, J Ison, S.G 18 174 K Katsanis, C.J Khalfan, M.M.A Klotz, L Knutson, K Ko, A.W.M Korkmaz, S Koskela, L Koutsikouri, D 108 367 282 167 242 327 216 374 L Lee, K.Y Lenox, T.A Levitt, R.E Lu, S.L Lucko, G Luo, Y 100 42 358 342 282 M Maloney, W.F Martin, D.W McDermott, P Mitnick, A.D Molenaar, K Moore, D.R Morris, P.W.G Mulva, S.P 192 311 367 192 419 116 26 208, 319 O Odusami, K.T Orr, R.J Owen, R.L 390 42 216 P Pace, C Pan, J Pavez, I Phelps, A.F 67 225 291 282 R Realph, A Riley, D.R Robertson, J Rojo, O 419 282, 327 268 291 2ND Specialty Conference on Leadership and management in Construction, 2006 Rounds, J.L Russell, J.S 135 2,158 S Sadowski, K Sakagami M Sergeant, A Sexton, M Skipper, C Smith, J.C Smyth, H.G Songer, A 185 67 174 358 124 141 26 250, 311 T Tan, H.C Taneri, C Thatcher, C Tijhuis, W Toole, T.M 92 260 327 400 301 U Utsch, J.H 58 V Vorster, M W Wiezel, A 335 Y Yitmen, I 260 Z Zoiopoulos, I.I 26 428 ... engineering discipline Such flexibility does not currently exist in engineering within current interpretations of ABET policies Finally, the Accreditation Committee is working on modifications... of Visitors on March 27th 2006 Vision, Mission and Guiding Principles It is difficult to underestimate the importance of establishing a common vision, mission and set of guiding principles for. .. administrators The Accreditation Committee has been formulating revised civil engineering program criteria, in concert with the ASCE accreditation community, for submission to the Engineering