Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Information Management in UK-Based Architectureand Engineering Organizations: Drivers,
Constraining Factors, and BarriersAbdullahi Sheriff1; Dino Bouchlaghem2; Ashraf El-Hamalawi, M.ASCE3; and Steven Yeomans4
Abstract: The need to improve collaborative working, knowledge sharing, and operational effectiveness has made effective InformationManagement a growing priority for Architecture and Engineering (A & E) organizations in the UK construction industry. While significantresearch has been carried out in the construction industry on project Information Management, limited work has been carried out to under-stand Information Management from an organisational paradigm. This paper presents the findings of an investigation into the nature ofInformation Management within A & E organizations in the UK construction industry. Interviews were conducted with experts across ninelarge architectural and multidisciplinary consultancies, the outputs of which were analysed using thematic analysis. From this, 26 themesacross three core categories classed as drivers, constraining factors, and barriers which shape Information Management practices in con-struction organizations emerged. The findings show that Information Management is indeed of strategic significance to organizations and anorganizational dimension is necessary to better align information needs with an organisation’s operational processes. They also show thatcontext-dependent factors exist which shape the nature of Information Management in line with the specific needs of each organizations.Therefore, the effectiveness of an organisation’s Information Management practices is not absolute, but rather relative to its level of alignmentto the organisation’s chosen mode of operation. The findings provide a much needed practical view of the complexities of InformationManagement, highlighting that particularly within multidisciplinary organizations; a unifying approach is much more practical and appro-priate than a single approach to managing information. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000085. © 2012 American Society of CivilEngineers.
CE Database subject headings: Information management; Architecture; United Kingdom; Construction industry.
Author keywords: Information management; Content management; Document management; Information management strategy; Strategicmanagement.
Introduction
Information is the product of the contextual understanding andinterpretation of data. It is the essential medium through whichknowledge, expertise, judgment, emotions, and decisions heldby individuals is expressed, shared, and communicated with others(Davenport and Marchand 2000). Hicks et al. (2006) define Infor-mation Management (IM) from an organizational perspective toinclude the activities that support the information lifecycle fromcreation, representation, and maintenance through to communica-tion and reuse. An information-intelligent organization is one
which understands the value of information and can successfullysearch, find, assemble, analyze, use, and reuse all forms of infor-mation products required for any of its tasks (Evgeniou andCartwright 2005). This is particularly important as competitiveadvantage today makes information a core requirement for doingbusiness, improving organizational performance, and obtainingoperational efficiency (Christian 2002; Chaffey and Wood 2004;Hicks et al. 2002; Hicks et al. 2006; Laundon and Laundon2009). Being information intelligent requires a more strategic viewof information as a corporate asset, aligning the information needsof the organization to its business processes (Buchanan and Gibb1998; Brigl et al. 2005). It requires a fundamental rethink of infor-mation, its position within the organization, and its potency as ameans of securing long-term competitive advantage. It also requiresinformation to be viewed in a holistic manner, balancing an appre-ciation of technologies with the capabilities of people within thebusiness to harness and use the information to improve perfor-mance (Marchand 2000).
Holistic Approach to Information Management
A holistic approach to IM requires the integration of strategies,tools, processes, and skills within an organization to manage allforms of recorded information through its complete lifecycle fromcreation until deletion supported by necessary technological andadministrative infrastructures (Boiko 2002; Tyrvainen et al.2003; Nordheim and Paivarinta 2004; Munkvold et al. 2006;
1Research Engineer, Centre for Innovative and Collaborative Engineer-ing (CICE), Dept. of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough Univ.,Leicestershire, UK (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]
2Professor, CICE, Dept. of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughbor-ough Univ., Leicestershire, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
3Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughbor-ough Univ., Leicestershire, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
4Centre Manager, CICE, Dept. of Civil and Building Engineering,Loughborough Univ., Leicestershire, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 19, 2010; approved onAugust 18, 2011; published online on August 20, 2011. Discussion periodopen until September 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted forindividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management inEngineering, Vol. 28, No. 2, April 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/2012/2-170–180/$25.00.
170 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
HP 2007). Such an approach requires an appreciation of how theorganization can best use, structure, and exploit information toachieve desired results across its diverse processes (Marchand2000; HP 2007). Numerous technologies do exist which aim toenable this; however critical to the success of a holistic approachis emphasis on corporate-wide strategies and policies guiding theuse and implementation of the appropriate technology (Paivarintaand Munkvold 2005). A holistic approach to IM consists of fourkey components, a clear appreciation of which is essential to ensurethe approach is contextual, appropriate, and implemented effec-tively to support the organization (Marchand 2000; Paivarinta &Munkvold 2005; Bridges 2007). These are discussed in more detailby the authors in a previous publication (Sheriff et al. 2008). Inbrief, the components are:• The Content Model, denoting the nature of the content, its life-
cycle, structure, attributes, business applications, and its suit-ability for the organization. This also includes metadata andtaxonomy.
• The Enterprise Model, based on an analysis of the organization,its distinct operations, culture, partners, and supply chain basedon their interaction with information through time (also referredto as process).
• Systems and Technology, for implementing the predefinedstrategy.
• Implementation and Change Management, to manage the tran-sition and support the implementation of the strategy (alsoreferred to as people).Prior to presenting the findings, it is necessary to differentiate
between IM and other associated concepts in both research andpractice.
Information Management and Knowledge Management
Hicks et al. (2006) highlight significant research conducted intoKnowledge Management (KM) practices within organizations par-ticularly explicit KMas synonymous or indeed interchangeablewithIM. Davenport (2000) and Ghani (2009) relate this to KM being akeydriver for improving IM.This research does not focus onKMnordoes it attempt to analyze the different definitions put forth. Thereare a plethora of definitions for KM, including those by Webb(1998); Davenport and Prusak (1998); Carrillo and Chinowsky(2006) and Rezgui et al. (2010a). Robinson et al. (2001) defineKM as the means through which knowledge (in the broadest sense)is captured, exploited, and transformed for organizational use. Itscontinuous importance is predicated on the growing appreciationof the strategic significance of knowledge as a competitive resourcein a modern economy (Egbu 2004). Bishop et al. (2008) argue thatwhile knowledge can be codified, shared, and exchanged, the scopeof KM is much broader than IM, because not all knowledge can orneeds to be codified. Knowledge management is therefore not syn-onymous with IM, although similar processes, technologies, andpractices may be employed in both fields. Information managementcan enable KM and is a significant component of it, but does not initself represent a KM solution. Information management also ex-tends to the administration of content through its lifecycle, whichfalls outside the scope of KM. This research thus considers explicitknowledge as a type of information and therefore a part of IM, but thescope of this study, and indeed IM in general, is inherently differentfrom KM in both research and practice.
Information Management; Information Systems andInformation Technology
Also identified in the literature was the extensive research into In-formation Systems and technologies including Document Manage-ment Systems, as part of Information Management (IM) research.
The three areas of IM, Information Systems (IS), and InformationTechnology (IT) are frequently used interchangeably, further am-plifying this apparent lack of clarity (King et al. 1988; Marchand2000). For example, Maddison and Darnton (1996) present an ap-proach to aligning Information Management with organizationalprocesses which puts emphasis on IS and IT, neglecting IM. Similarfindings are apparent in the works of Craig and Sommerville(2006), Dilnutt (2006), and Hicks (2007). The result is a largelytechnological view of IM that excludes the focus on informationand/or content and its role in enabling the wider organization’sbusiness strategy and processes. While all three areas focus oninformation, the emphasis placed on certain themes make each adistinct field of study with different requirements and focus areas.Marchand (2000) outlines these streams as:• IT is primarily concerned with the infrastructure of the organi-
zation, ranging from desktop-based infrastructure to servers andnetworks, with emphasis placed on reliability, responsiveness,flexibility, and ease of use of the various technologies;
• IS focuses on the applications and database software whichperform defined business functions ranging from design, man-ufacturing, and production to accounting, human resourcemanagement, and other associated processes within the organi-zation; and
• IM relates to the information required to carry out distinct tasks/processes. It is strategy- and process- driven, aligning with thevarious business units across the organizations. The emphasishere is on developing a suitable approach to managing andleveraging content to support business processes.Each stream, with its distinct paradigm, emphasizes that organ-
izations can choose to gain competitive advantage through technol-ogy (IT), software (IS), or information (IM) (King et al. 1988).Interrelationships and interdependencies do exist between all theabove streams, and often it is impossible to view one stream in iso-lation. A successful IM strategy must often be accompanied by suc-cessful IT and IS solutions, because they form the core mediathrough which information is created, shared, and stored. However,a focus on IT or indeed IS does not imply a focus on IM as neitherIT nor IS focus on the content or information which an organizationcreates or uses; its alignment with the organizations strategy or thebehavioral dimensions of managing information (all of which arethe focus of IM). Thus while appreciating the need for and impor-tance of IT and IS, this research focused on IM.
Information Management in UK Architecture andEngineering Organizations
The Design and Construction process is composed of numerousstakeholders and participants working together as a “temporaryenterprise” through a procurement process to develop and imple-ment unique solutions to meet client needs (Caldas 2003; Craig andSommerville 2006). The solutions resulting from this often com-plex interaction are developed through the creation and continuousexchange of information (Anumba et al. 2008). Due to the criticalnature of this information for executing the task at hand, managingit has been identified as crucial to effective project delivery (Bjork2001; Hicks et al. 2002). Research into IM in A & E organizationsfocuses on the project environment, frequently highlighting theneed for improved collaboration and coordination between stake-holders (Bjork 2001; Caldas 2003; Peansupap and Walker 2005;Yeomans 2005). Indeed, strides made in this area have given riseto emergent standards such as the BS1192:2007 (British StandardsInstitution 2007) standard for collaborative data environments.
While A & E organizations in the construction industry pri-marily work on projects, a merely project- centric view does notrepresent all the information created, shared, and managed within
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 171
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
organizations, nor does it enable organizations working on multipleprojects to manage cross-project information. Neglected are theinternal company-specific IM challenges posed by increaseddigitization of corporate information. Managers also lack an under-standing of the broader issues around IM, the type of informationvarious people within their organizations need and want, and criti-cally, how to develop and implement a suitable IM strategy to sup-port their respective organizations (Davenport 2000). Improvingthe effectiveness of IM in A & E organizations requires the man-agement of project information as well as the management ofcross-project information and information-based processes outsidespecific projects. Therefore, there exists a need to develop an ef-fective inter-project approach to support process within organiza-tions. This paper presents the findings from a detailed study into IMin A & E organizations. The specific methods employed and thefindings from the research are presented below.
Research Method
A thorough review of related literature established the state of theart in IM, KM, Content Management, Enterprise Content Manage-ment, and Document Management. Semistructured interviews werecarried out with IM experts from a sample of construction industry-based A & E organizations sourced from the annual constructionindustry ranking of the Building magazine (2008). As the samplesize sought was principally illustrative in line with the principle ofconducting case study research (Yin 2003), a non-probability pur-posive sampling approach was used. Twenty-five organizationswere selected based on their status (defined as being consultingorganizations) and size (defined as being medium to large consult-ancies). These consisted of architectural firms (14) and multidisci-plinary consultancies (11), all of which are headquartered in the UKand with all but one having significant international operations.Experts responsible for IM in each organization were specificallytargeted through e-mail requests, 11 of whom accepted. Due tologistical difficulties, only nine interviews were carried out.
In a study of sufficient sample sizes using non-probability pur-posive sampling, Guest et al. (2006) found that a sample of 12 wassufficient to establish a stable view of parameters, particularly if theresearch is aimed at describing perception or behavior among par-ticipants. Similarly, Romney et al. (1986) also explain that even asample of four may be sufficient to provide an accurate explanationof phenomena so long as these four were experts in their field. Nine
interviews were carried out with Senior Partners (2), Directors (2),Group Knowledge Managers (1), IT Systems professionals (3), anda Senior Business Analyst (1), all of whom were experts respon-sible for IM and/or KM within their respective organizations. Aspurposive samples were sought (where participants are selectedbased on the research criteria) not probabilistic sampling, the sam-ple size was considered sufficient to meet the research objectives.The organizations involved in the research are listed in Table 1below (note: the data on the number of employees was taken asof August 2008 when the sample was defined).
Semistructured interviews were deemed the most appropriatemedium of data collection in line with the type of data requiredand the paradigm adopted. To ensure the questions were clear,unambiguous, and appropriate, a three-page questionnaire was pre-pared and piloted with a sample of four individuals within a com-pany similar in context to the sampled companies. This was carriedout iteratively until the questionnaire was deemed suitable. Allinterviews were conducted face-to-face, with each lasting approx-imately 90 min, before being transcribed and analyzed.
The analysis was carried out following the thematic analysisprocess as outlined by Boyatzis (1998) and involved two stepsof identification and consolidation, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Theidentification process required the iterative reading (in detail) ofthe textual data to identify appropriate themes. This was carriedout by the lead author. From this, an initial list of 271 themesemerged. Based on the definitions of the codes for each theme,a number were observed to be repetitive, while several others wereinterrelated. Further iterative refinements were therefore carried outto aggregate and consolidate these into distinct selective codes.This consolidation process involved combining certain themesand grouping other associated themes together as categories. Forexample, the themes ‘improve collaborative working’, ‘save time’and ‘consistent working practices’ were all identified and definedas part of the initial 271 themes. Following the consolidation pro-cess, all of these were grouped into the theme ‘improve processes’under the category ‘driver for IM’ based on their definitions, thecontext within which the responses were provided and the particu-lar question asked. This consolidation process was carried out col-lectively by all four researchers to ensure that varied perspectiveswere taken into account.
The final consolidation carried out resulted in 33 themes acrossfour core categories, all of which define distinct areas of IM. Nofurther consolidations were apparent as the categories had becomesaturated. The four categories are Drivers, Constraining Factors,
Table 1. Organizations Interviewed
No. of employees Global offices Scope of operations Additional notes
Company 1 800 15 Multidisciplinary engineering Now part of a global company
with 8500 employees
Company 2 3500 35 Construction management and multidisciplinary
engineering consultancy
Company 3 10,000 92 Multidisciplinary Engineering; Architecture;
Planning and project management
Company 4 3000 30 Multidisciplinary engineering and
project management
Now part of a global company
with 35,000 employees
Company 5 1000 15 Architecture; Product design and planning
Company 6 420 6 Architecture; Project management and
Company 7 45 1 Architecture and planning
Company 8 2700 69 Consulting services; Project and cost management
Company 9 14000 150 Management consulting; Multidisciplinary
engineering and development consultancy
172 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
Barriers, and Lessons Learned. Only the findings from the firstthree categories (a total of 26 themes) are presented in this paper.The core variable in this research is organizational InformationManagement, with all the categories and themes aimed at explain-ing its meaning and its nature within A & E organizations. The final26 themes across the three categories are shown in Table 2.
Research Findings
The following section is divided into four parts. First, a generaloverview of the current state of IM practices within all the organ-izations is presented to put the results in the appropriate context.This is then followed by details of all three categories.
General Information Management Practices
Scope. The organizations differed in their overall perception of IM.For three organizations, it is not considered ‘important enough’ tofocus on at an enterprise level. Instead the focus is on finding pointsolutions to address specific problems (mainly on projects). Theother six interviewees, however, stated that IM was “very impor-tant” and sponsored at a strategic level across their companies. Inthe words of one interviewee “Yes, Information Management isfundamental to what this business is about. That’s what we’redealing with. We design buildings and the output of that for ourbusiness is information. How we manage that is critical to whatwe do, and so it’s certainly core to what we’re doing”. Anotherinterviewee added “Our company doesn’t build anything, we area pure consultancy so what we deliver to our client is informationand that could be documents, drawings, reports, data, presentations,etc., a variety of media but it's all about what we deliver to our clientbeing information”. Seven of the organizations also have a standardapproach to structuring information to enable consistency acrosstheir project teams such that “if one project team member movesprojects, they land in another project that is broadly organized in asimilar way”. The extent of this, however, varied. In six of the or-ganizations, it is firmly established practice, i.e., routinely carriedout and accepted across the company, whereas for one organizationit is an emergent practice, i.e., currently being developed and imple-mented with varying levels of maturity across the company.
Differences were also apparent in the relationship between IMand KM practices. All but one organization has distinct teams foreach, with limited mutual lines of reporting. For all however, thereis a significant working relationship between both teams in agree-ing, implementing, and pursuing a collective vision for improvingcompany performance. Information Management strategy andoverall corporate strategy were also found to be linked in all theorganizations. The nature and extent of this link, however, variedconsiderably from one organization to the other. For four of theorganizations it is a very direct link, with the Information manage-ment strategy modeled to support their long-term aspirations. Forexample, one interviewee explained “All the reasons that we’redoing this relate back to the company five year plan, which isthe operational strategy, so all of the rationale and hence the re-quirements support the corporate strategy”. For the other five, there
Fig. 1. The data analysis process
Table 2. Summary of IM Factors in A & E Organizations
DriversConstraining factors BarriersOrganizational factors Organizational barriers
1 Improve product 1 Size and structure of the organization 1 Project needs take precedence
2 Improve processes 2 Number of disciplines 2 Leadership
3 Transfer of learning 3 Corporate strategy 3 Limited resources
4 Legal and regulatory requirements Project factors Content and technological barriers
5 Mitigate risk 1 Scope of project services 1 Complicated taxonomies
2 Diversity of projects 2 New forms of content
3 Diversity of operating markets 3 Inconsistencies in the use of metadata
4 Poor performing technology
Future innovation factors Construction industry wide barriers
1 Processes and practices 1 Lack of guidance
2 Content and technology 2 Skills shortages
3 Organizational structure 3 Nature of construction projects
Cultural barriers
1 Resistance to change
2 Fear of being driven by technology
3 Poor sharing culture
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 173
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
is no conscious link but a more general organisational need to bettermanage information to improve front-line project delivery proc-esses. As one interviewee put it, “It’s never really been thoughtthrough in quite those clinical terms”.
Use of Technology. Multiple technological platforms ratherthan a single enterprisewide solution are used by eight of the nineorganizations to suit various needs. For example, five organizationsuse a web-based Content Management System to capture and dis-seminate knowledge around the company, whereas four organiza-tions have a Document Management System for managing projectdocuments. As an interviewee explained “there isn’t one tool,there’s CAD, GIS, documents, and e-mail management, and soon. It’s a suite of systems”. All the organizations regularly deployextranets and ftp sites to meet project needs such as facilitating theexchange of information between project teams. However, evenwhere these are used, the primary storage medium in all but oneof the organizations is the network drive.
The organizations also differed in the extent to which technol-ogy was used for managing electronic content. One intervieweeexplained that a decision was made to minimize the use oftechnology as they found few solutions that add value to theirchosen methods of operation. Within five organizations howevertechnology is extensively used to support core processes includingenterprisewide Knowledge Management Systems, Document Man-agement Systems, and Extranets. Generally, the following factorswere identified as impacting on the selection of appropriate tools tomeet company needs.• The nature of the company’s projects (either generally or
specific demands of each project);• The geographical distribution of projects and offices;• Skill sets available to support the technology through its
lifecycle;• Previous experiences in using a similar technology;• The distinct task or series of tasks to be carried out either across
the enterprise or on projects (or both) which the technology isexpected to support;
• The robustness and usability of the system; and• The cumulative cost of procuring and maintaining the technol-
ogy over time.Use of Metadata, Taxonomies, and Naming Conventions.
Naming conventions and not metadata are exclusively used in threeorganizations. Five organizations while also using naming conven-tions for projects, confirmed having a metadata and taxonomy stan-dard either being developed or currently being implemented acrossthe company. For one organization however, a conscious decisionwas made to not use metadata. The interviewee explained “I don’tthink that many people have found that categorising things is help-ing them a great deal in the design process if I’m being honest”. Thenaming conventions used in the eight organizations were observedto be either entirely customized or variants of the BS1192:2007(British Standards Institution 2007) standard. Similarly, six organ-izations who anticipate a move toward the use of standard metadataenterprisewide explained that any standard they will use will becustomized. As one interviewee explained “yes, it’ll be designedto fit our internal needs but certainly fits within ISO 9001”.
Details of the three categories identified, drivers, constrainingfactors, and barriers, are presented below.
Category 1: Drivers
The drivers are defined as those themes which form the principalimpetus for developing a holistic approach to IM. The themesinclude:
Improve Product
Improving IM is perceived as being necessary for improving thequality of products offered to clients and building/sustaining com-petitive advantage. In the context of consulting organizations,‘product’ was defined as the knowledge and information necessaryto create a building, a form of infrastructure and/or advisory serv-ices. Emphasizing this priority one interviewee explained “cer-tainly a core principle of what our company is about is that wewe’re passionate about engineering and we want to drive our en-gineers and give them the tools to move the business forward andmove forward as engineers, and therefore giving them access to thebest practice that we developed on other projects”.
Improve Processes
Another significant driver identified was the need for improve-ments in operations. The most prevalent reasons cited for this wereto increase the efficiency of processes, ensure consistency of prac-tices, and enable collaborative working across the organization andon projects. Efficiency was defined as “saving time”, “reducingduplication”, and “not having to reinvent the wheel every time atask is to be carried out” where such tasks have been previouslyconducted in other parts of the organization. Other reasons citedinclude the need to standardize processes, increase global acces-sibility to recorded knowledge/information, and enable continuousimprovement within their respective organizations. As captured inthe words of one interviewee, this is necessary because “the size ofthe firm implies that ad hoc processes cannot be sustainably carriedout in a cost effective manner”.
Process improvement also aims to ensure consistent workingpractices across the organization, a critical need highlighted byall interviewees. For example, one expert explained “Better quality,better management of our product that goes out the door, requiresbetter consistency. So if you deal with the London office, or if youdeal with the Glasgow office, you get the same and I think that’simportant as well so that as a brand people say we always deliverthis type of product and it’s excellent”. Corroborating this point,another interviewee added “we’ve got 50 offices in the UK andprobably 100 offices worldwide, so if everyone’s working in theirown little way it’s going to cause you some sort of issues in terms ofInformation Management”. Consistency also makes collaborativeworking across the different disciplines much easier and more ef-fective. Such collaboration can be vertical, by “enabling peoplewho are senior help people who are junior so you get that exchangeof information and knowledge” or horizontal, to support multidis-ciplinary often non colocated project teams. As an interviewee ex-plained “what’s happening now is that the firm is 10,000 peopleand you’ve got a project where you bring together people workingin the Madrid office, the San Francisco Office, the Doha office, andNewcastle office”. Problems also get solved quicker as a holisticapproach enables quicker access to the people and the resourcesneeded to solve them.
Transfer of Learning
A critical need for organizations is to effectively disseminate solu-tions, including innovations and lessons learned across the organi-zation. Learning is essential for improving the competencies ofemployees as (in the words of one interviewee) it is only “by look-ing back at what we’ve done in the past and building on that tomake it better in the future”. Here, transfer of learning is focusedon all solutions, which improve the competency of employees byproviding access to the global pool of knowledge and experienceexisting within the organization. This category was greatly empha-sized by interviewees from the larger organizations where diverse
174 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
disciplines and non-colocated teams are prevalent. For example,one expert explained “in our parent company, we’ve got 35,000people across the world who have got an awful lot of knowledgeand you’ve got to remember that, these are assets, these people andevery day when they walk out at 5 or 6, all that knowledge walkswith them”. This organizations need to enable diverse employeesleverage their collective expertise prompted a move toward a holis-tic strategy. The themes highlighted emphasize organizations per-ception that their competitive advantage lay in the generation ofnew ideas and the emergence of new knowledge and making itavailable to staff. This was also found to be an integral part ofone organizations strategic positioning as a center of knowledgefor external clients and partners. As the interviewee explained“we want to be seen to be a learned organization and a learningorganization which go together I suppose. It is quite a key thingfor this company”.
Legal and Regulatory Requirements
Legislation and regulatory requirements within operating marketsoften require organizations to improve IM practice. Two of the in-terviewed organizations had already faced legal challenges inwhich IM has proved critical. As one explained “Previously wehave had issues where we have needed to rely on something, a pieceof information in the past and if we can’t find it then we’re in trou-ble. It’s becoming more important now that we take care of thatinformation”. The direct impact of this was even more apparentin another organization where the interviewee explained “at theboard level they are more aware of that now. They are more awarethat we need a proper Information Management strategy…they’veseen other companies in our sector that have fallen foul on legalthings”. Organizations also seek to attain quality management ac-creditations such as the ISO 90001, which are increasingly beingrequired for winning new work. In the words of another interviewee“as a team we are also very closely tied in with the quality man-agement side of things. So the ISO 9001, 14001 which are specificquality management issues surrounding how you manage informa-tion. Once you get to a certain size the only way you’re going to winwork is if you have these accreditations. This is way you have got todo business”.
Mitigate Risks
Improving IM practices is also seen as essential to reducingbusiness risks. The risks identified here are process-related mainlyarising from misinformation, developing wrong solutions, andpotentially poor project/design management. These illustrationsmay be representative of the fact that all the samples are consultingorganizations. On this, one expert explained “risk is a big fact be-cause it obviously drives a lot of what we’re doing at the moment”.Developing a holistic strategy was therefore seen as a means toaddress this business risk as another interviewee explained “unlessyou have rigorous processes, you can’t have that level of confi-dence, so it was about addressing the risk”. These themes werehighlighted by all the interviewees.
Category 2: Constraining Factors
Constraining factors (unlike drivers) are the factors which shape orinfluence the exact nature of the IM strategy developed and/orimplemented within organizations. These are grouped under threeprincipal subcategories as explained below.
Organizational Factors
Nature of the Organization. The relative size of the organization,with its number of employees and distribution of offices, impactson the perceived need, approaches to, and implementation and gov-ernance of a holistic IM strategy. For example, implementation andgovernance is identified as being “easier across the smaller organ-izations in comparison to other larger, geographically dispersedcompanies”. Similarly, single offices (even large ones) were saidto be “significantly easier to develop solutions for” than multipleoffices even where those offices were within the same country.
In single-discipline organizations undergoing similar processesacross various teams, the structures and solutions required areconsistently similar. In multidisciplinary organizations however,different ways of working are often required to suit the diversityof work/products. Emphasizing this, one interviewee explained“This organization is broken down into separate businesses. Whilewe do operate as a group, each business has its own quality man-agement system that is not a technical system (i.e., not a technol-ogy) but it’s like a procedural thing written down”. Each disciplinewithin a multidisciplinary organization with its unique client deliv-erables; unique specialism on a project and unique tasks thereforehave unique information needs.
Corporate Strategy of the Company. The wider corporatestrategy of the company also influences the nature, appropriateness,and/or evolution of the IM strategy. One interviewee explained, “Ifwe want to be double the size we are over the next X years, we haveto factor that decision to the procedures and technology we have inplace. In some ways this starts from the size of the business, thesectors we want to work in and the disciplines we want to operatein. That gives a general feel of the overall business and the directionwe are heading in. Key to achieving this is Information Manage-ment”. Thus the corporate strategy can serve to define the mostappropriate IM strategy to support it. While this theme was consis-tent across all the interviewees, the extent of its influences was un-clear because, for example, it was unclear whether project-specificrequirements were a bigger influence than the broader corporatestrategy.
Project Factors. The project based structure of A & E organ-izations also impacts IM practices. As one interviewee put it,“we’re very much project based and everything the company doesis project by project literally and that very much relates to how wemanage the information as well”. Three factors identified hereinclude:• Scope of Project Services. The scope of services offered by an
organization impacts on the feasibility of having a singularapproach for managing information. For example, one organi-zation (a global architectural practice) focuses on conceptual de-sign. The interviewee explained, “What our clients are lookingfor is as many great ideas that we can possibly come up with in ashort space of time, then present those ideas and develop thatwith them. So there is a general feeling that 90% of the infor-mation we create becomes abandoned quite quickly”. He furtheradded “but another organization might wish to store all of thatinformation in a repository; support that by a database, tag andreference that information, and publish that through some kindof publishing portal. And although we do have the technology todo that, it (i.e., our information) is not structured in that way. Soit's not as if we are a manufacturer of widgets and we discovereda new way to take a penny off the cost of a widget and thereforewe make that knowledge known”. The fluid nature of work here,the speed at which information is created (and discarded),and the very limited need to reuse project information impliesthat the strategy adopted here will be different to that adopted by
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 175
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
an architectural practice focused on say detailed design. Thistheme resonated across all the other interviewees, suggestingan association between the tasks carried out within an organiza-tion, its inherent processes, and the way the organization eithermanages or needs information to be managed.
• Diversity of Projects. A similarly influencing factor is the vari-ety of projects an organization engages in. With building designas an example, projects can range from large multipurpose com-plexes to single building components such as staircases. As oneinterviewee explains it, “we do such a varying and wide range ofthings that to get some kind of commonality is very difficultand perhaps too difficult”. This diversity is reflected in thebespoke nature of A & E projects, with each project potentiallyinvolving unique thoughts, actions, solutions, delivery mechan-ism, partners, etc. Another interviewee explained “Being a pro-ject based organization we are very much influenced by thespecifics of any given project and the strategy of our clientand particularly the design team that might build up aroundthat”. Within a multidisciplinary company, this distinctioncan create more marked variations in practices as working inone sector may differ from another and thus impact on a singleholistic strategy.
• Diversity of operating markets. Metadata standards, operationalrequirements, regulations and practices may also differ in thevarious global markets some organizations operate in. Thiswas particularly highlighted by all of the multinational, multi-disciplinary organizations, one of whom explained workingpractices “need to vary according to their local market”. Somesuch differences are in terminology and thus internal differenceswhile others may be regulatory differences for which entirelydifferent approaches may be required. For example, one respon-dent explained “we’ve got highways in the UK which meanssomething different in America. As highways mean somethingdifferent, transportation also means different things. So that isquite challenging”. Another interviewee observed “differentparts of the world have different cultures and you have to respectthat …. So again, it is difficult”. Similar challenges emergewhere organizations operate in diverse sectors and also differenttime zones even within the same market. One interviewee ex-plained “the problem our organization has is that because we’requite a large organization, we work off so many different sectorsand clients all of whom have very differing requirements. Thestandards which we work to are just too complex, too varied forour enterprise content management system’s CAD managementtool (alone) to cater for”. This invariably influences the nature ofthe IM solution required in the organization.Future Innovation Factors. Emerging innovations in three key
areas were identified as potentially impacting on the nature of IMstrategy within organizations.
Processes and Practices. Changes will invariably emerge in thefuture in the way tasks are carried out and people collaborate witheach other both internally as well as across organizations. Organ-izations will also be driven to leverage the increasing capabilitiestechnology will offer to streamline processes and make work easierfor their staff. As an expert explained “certainly for us now andlooking into the future, one of the key challenges that I see we faceis further streamlining our procedural things by just making it morestraightforward continually. I think technology has moved on thereand we have to kind of use that”.
Content and Technology. Evolving technologies and newtypes of content will also impact on current approaches to IM. Par-ticularly highlighted by the interviewees were innovations in Build-ing Information Modeling (BIM), Geographical InformationSystems (GIS) and cloud computing with its enhancement of
Software-as-a-Service (SAAS). As one interviewee explained,the emergence of software as a service is particularly appealingto organizations “because there is not a big upfront investmentand perhaps somebody else is worrying about how do I keep thatSQL database stable and do I have some redundancy in my designfor this system? Whereas at the moment individual companies ontheir own have to solve all of those problems within their own ITdepartments, requiring their staff to become big and knowledgeableto be able to facilitate that”. This method of working is already beenapplied to the use of Extranets and increasingly Enterprise ContentManagement Solutions.
Organizational Structure. A challenge for IM is to remaincontinually malleable to support ongoing changes to the organi-zational structure. In the words of one interviewee “The system isgoing to have to react to the business whichever way they change.For example we find that parts of the business merge each year.All these kind of things happen and will continue to happen. Weacquire new companies on a regular basis to join the group”. Sim-ilarly, as organizations continue to work in or source project teamsfrom different parts of the world, the current approaches and strat-egies employed may not be adequate to support them. Onerespondent highlighted that “certainly within our company, wehave global groups and obviously with the sort of night/day sit-uation around the globe, we can actually start to do never endingwork if you like. Yes this will have a big impact”. Another added“As we consolidate the business in the future, more and morepeople are going to collaborate and use each other’s information.I think it’s just going to be a natural progression”. Just as the cur-rent approaches to IM were designed to support the current proc-esses and structures of organizations, future evolution of the saidmanagement structures will invariably require an evolution of IMpractices.
Category 3: Barriers
A number of barriers were identified which impact on a holisticapproach to IM in A & E Organizations grouped under the foursubcategories below.
Organizational Barriers
Project-Specific Needs Take Precedence. Any procedure outsideof project procedures is perceived as an unnecessary task with oneinterviewee observing “they see the organizational way of doingthings as needless red tape, where as the project is for client thenof course I’ll do that”. This strictly project-to-project view impliesthat a holistic project agnostic approach, while adding value to thecompany in the long term, is seen as an immediate hindrance andtherefore is not as easily justified or adopted. Tight project dead-lines also create very little room for additional tasks that fall outsidethe specific needs of a specific project. This, experts explained, lim-its both the risk tolerance of employees in identifying/complying tonew processes and also the rate at which process related innova-tions are adopted within the organization. In the words of one inter-viewee “You will naturally get barriers because everybody whenthey get a project is on shorter time frames to deliver it than before.So naturally the resistance is, I know how to do stuff now andyou’re telling me to reinvent it. That leaves me feeling exposedand that feels like too much risk”.
Leadership. Senior leaders in some organizations whileacknowledging the necessity of improved IM (mainly in responseto increasing regulatory requirements) still don’t understand whatit actually means and how to develop/implement it. Describingthis, one interviewee explained “They see the importance of it
176 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
but I don’t think they fully understand it”. Similarly, the diverseareas that need to be accommodated in understanding the com-plexity of the construction process, organizational needs/proc-esses, IM and the right technology tool sets to support theserequire a different skill set which interviewees identified as un-common in their organizations.
Limited Resources. The size of the implementation team rel-ative to the task at hand can also limit the rate at which appropriatesolutions are identified, developed and implemented. For example,in one organization “because the team was quite small, if you’vegot a problem it takes 95% of your effort [to solve], that’s whatyou’re focussed on”. Similarly, another interviewee explained“And certainly the hardest thing for us is that we can only deliverso much. The team is only so big and we can only do so muchwork”. Resource constraints and the magnitude of work requiresorganizations to prioritize areas of importance as in the wordsof another respondent “there is only so much time in the dayyou can work on these things so I have to prioritize them so againthat is quite challenging”.
Content and Technological Barriers
Complicated Taxonomies. The complexity of projects can resultin any taxonomy structure becoming complicated and difficult touse. For example, referring to their taxonomy, an interviewee ex-plained “there are a few areas where it’s not entirely intuitive be-cause our business is quite complicated. This means our taxonomycovers an awful lot of things from building control to where do I fileinformation about bricks? etc”. In response to the diversity of theirbusiness offerings, elaborate taxonomies are designed to accommo-date all the possible known scenarios are developed. These taxono-mies while appropriate at the time pose a challenge with the growthin the volume of content; number of employees and the types ofcontent managed. The result as one expert explained is that “I spendall day kind of in and out of enormously deep folder structure sys-tem thinking there must be a better way of doing this”. It can alsoaffect the willingness to procure fit for purpose technology as itcreates the fear that any enterprise system may not be able to copewith the company’s specific requirements. On this, an intervieweeexplained “It does have to be quite complicated or quite rich. It’spartly why I feel quite nervous to going to someone like UnionSquare (a software provider). Its all just put it in the dust binthe tags will get you to it”.
New Forms of Content. The continuous emergence of newforms of content such as BIM and GIS create challenges in theway content is currently structured in organizations. A lack of aclear understanding on the structure of these new forms of contentand how to develop appropriate taxonomies, technologies andsolutions to support them also hinders improved IM practices.A respondent explained “Increasingly we’re using 3D at an earlystage and at the moment our folder structure and naming conven-tion isn’t quite rich enough to capture all of the 3D stuff”. The cur-rent taxonomies are created to manage documents each of which istreated as a single instance of content. The emergence of singleintegrated models however makes the taxonomy previously devel-oped no longer sufficient. This creates a problem for organizationsunable to grasp how to restructure taxonomies to support this newcontent type as one interviewee explained “Drawing in 3D, youhave got the power to do cuts here or there. So how do you managethe outputs for that? We haven’t really thought through that”.This also impacts on the use of single enterprisewide solutionsto manage all types of data as specialist applications were foundto be incapable of being supported by general Document Manage-ment solutions.
Inconsistencies in the Use of Metadata. Obtaining consis-tency in the definitions of certain attributes within a metadata/taxonomy structure particularly in large multidisciplinary organ-izations can be difficult. This, five of the interviewees explainedreflects the diversity of tasks; cultures; clients and marketstheir respective organizations worked in (all of which areconstraining factors). For example, one expert explained “what’scertainly quite interesting in our organization is that when we’retalking about sectors, we have the idea that it’s sort of commercial,residential, healthcare, that’s what sectors mean to us. And if youtalk to the holding company, sectors mean something completelydifferent. So there could be that difference already existing and ifyou’re trying to implement a metadata standard that is going tosuit a company that is 7,000 strong, then yes you’re going todefinitely run into that problem”.
Poor Performing Technology. Even where the solution hasbeen implemented, interviewees explained that technologiesimplemented often end up “not doing exactly what they wantedit to do”. It remained unclear to the researcher if this was due tothe organizations not being clear about their original require-ments; limitations in the ability of the technology to do what itsaid it would do; or expectations not being effectively managedthrough the procurement process, all of which can affect the per-ception of adequacy. Implicit in this is also an apparent lack ofconfidence from end users in the ability of the IT systems to sup-port defined strategies. This was reinforced by a respondent whostated “I think another thing is that we’re talking about an IT sys-tem at the end of the day. Its never going to be perfect, you’realways going to have down time; you’re always going to havea server over heating or something”. While for this organizationnone of these problems have actually materialised, it was ob-served that all interviewees anticipated failure or inadequacy inthe performance of IT systems, impacting on their confidenceto implement a holistic strategy. Some problems however do ma-terialise and as one interviewee explained, it is to be expected.“We hit some real technical problems and I think you’re alwaysgoing to find that with a new IT system when a company is new toit, even though we’ve got a very skilled set of technical IT staffhere”. Similar challenges were highlighted by another respondentwho explained “we certainly had I think every technical issue youcould throw in. We’ve just been absolutely besieged by technicalissues”.
Construction Industry-wide Barriers
Lack of Guidance. There is limited clear usable guidance on theprocess of developing and implementing an Information Manage-ment Strategy in A & E organizations. While clear standards suchas the BS 1192:2007 have emerged that provide guidance on man-aging information through the project lifecycle, no similar solutionshave been proposed for how IM can be aligned to organizationalprocesses or how context specific metadata standards can be devel-oped and implemented to suit an organizations needs. As an inter-viewee explained “people have started to get hold of the fact that tomake this work we’re going to need things like standards. There arebeen precious few, either British or European or global standardsaround”. The responses indicate that guidance is required becausenoncontent specific standards, particularly metadata standards maynot be suited to an organizations needs without requiring someform of modification. This does not include content standards suchas Industry Foundation Classes (IFC).
Skills Shortage. There is a shortage of professionals with therequisite skill sets to enable organizations develop and implementthe required strategies. Emphasizing this, one expert stated that “itis difficult to find the right people to fill these boxes. People that
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 177
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
have the breadth of knowledge and interest in this area are quitehard to come across with the right personal and project manage-ment skills as well”. This hinders the ability of organizationsto make the necessary transition, as captured in the words ofone interviewee who while acknowledging their challenges ex-claimed “I can’t really see how we can; I can’t see the transitionat the moment”.
Nature of Construction Projects. The nomadic project basednature of the construction industry, its resultant ways of workingand the project specific standards that inevitably emerge, is oftenat conflict with the solutions developed to be applied internallywithin organizations. As one interviewee explained, organizationspartnering on a project are faced with this challenge because “theyall have their own different dynamics and while we have our owninternal standards, so do all of those organizations”. This is particu-larly the case in the use of naming conventions and folder structures(or taxonomies) where as one expert put it, they often “just have togo with the flow” and by so doing undermine any established com-pany procedures.
Cultural Barriers
Resistance to Change. Where new solutions have been developedand introduced, a recurring theme is the difficulty in getting peopleto change their ways of working and adopt new methods. The chal-lenge here was summed up by one respondent who explained “get-ting information on the system, capturing it at source and allowingpeople to view it in different forms isn’t that difficult once you putthe initial systems in place. What is difficult is getting people to useit. That’s what our primary role at the moment is, it’s people”. Oneexpert stressed that resistance to change is a difficult challenge be-cause “you can’t avoid it. You can mitigate it but you can’t avoid it.People feel they know exactly what their doing. And you can’t tellthem how to do it differently because they feel they are very intel-ligent”. Similarly challenging is getting users to add/use the rel-evant metadata when introduced. On this an expert explained “ifyou filled massive amounts of information for each document,yes you’re going to be able to search for those documents, you’regoing to find them easily but you’re only going to end up with 10documents because people just won’t do it”.
Fear of Being Driven by Technology. Similarly organizationssometimes fear that adopting an enterprise system may alter com-pany processes to suit the way the system operates. The themeshere highlight a certain wariness of enterprise systems amongorganizations. For example, a respondent elucidated “There havebeen systems that we’ve looked at that have seemed exceptionallywell. We’ve spoken to people who suggest that they worked wellbut quite often the companies have adapted to use the systems andwe don’t particularly want to do that. We much prefer the systemsbeing adapted to suit the people, hence the preference for a bespokesolution”. This does not imply a dependence on bespoke techno-logical solutions but instead the need for solutions which alignwith and conform to the specific needs and business model ofthe organization.
Poor Sharing Culture. The uptake of such an integrated visionis dependent on a willingness to share information, a culture whichsometimes can be lacking within organizations. According to onerespondent “I think the problem we had was sharing information.You always get this knowledge is power and I quite like to sharewith other people around me, but I’m not going to put it out there”.This was similarly echoed by others, one of whom explained themindset of those who resist collaborative working to be that “theythink that they’re bits of information is the most important bit andno one else can possibly understand it”.
Discussion
This research presents the findings from a detailed review of IMwithin A & E organizations in the UK construction industry.The findings demonstrate that for consulting organizations, infor-mation includes explicit knowledge. It also shows that KM and IMinitiatives are aligned (the extent of this alignment however was notinvestigated). Indeed, improving the sharing and the exchange ofknowledge is a key driver for improving IM within consulting or-ganizations. With respect to the drivers, while all the organizationswere driven by the same five themes it was observed that organ-izations placed greater emphasis on some themes above others re-sulting in a different type of strategy for each company. Forexample, one organization was driven more by the need to mitigaterisks and conform to legal/regulatory requirements than it was bythe need to transfer learning. Thus a workflow based DocumentManagement System is currently being implemented. Two otherorganizations, with distinctly architectural leanings however, putmore emphasis on improving the product and transfer of learning,thus making knowledge sharing a priority with little or no workflowrelated defined processes. These approaches are reflective of eachcompany’s business strategy. Consciously or unconsciously, allhave placed emphasis on areas of strategic significance. No attemptwas made to compare the findings across the organizations as theresearch did not aim to measure the relative maturity of IM and/orKM practices within A & E organizations. This is also reflective ofthe fact that strategies developed are likely to be so context specificthat maturity is not a measure of appropriateness but a measure ofhow aligned the strategies are to the core strategic drivers for eachorganization.
The Constraining Factors also affect each organization in a dif-ferent way resulting in differences in the type of solutions requiredand the modes of implementation (also making a like for like com-parison inappropriate). Context specific factors often need to beaccounted for in developing and implementing an IM strategy.These factors could range from the Constraining Factors whichshape the exact nature of the strategy vis-à-vis the strategic needsof the organizations, to include solutions developed in responseto specific barriers. For example, organizations which deployedEnterprise Content Management (ECM) solutions were not extend-ing its use to CAD files (both 2D and 3D models) due to theperceived inability of standard ECM systems to adequately managelarge CAD files. Similarly, the barriers show that the project basednature of the construction industry result in project specificapproaches to managing information which organizations(as part of wider cross-organizational project teams) are requiredto adopt. These may often be at odds with and signficantly limitthe development/adoption of an organizational approach.
The findings therefore illustrate that defining a single approachto managing information using a single enterprisewide systemacross multidisciplinary organizations can be both impracticaland undesirable. As the Constraining Factors show, certain organi-zational, technological and environmental factors emerge whichwill require an approach focussed enough to align/support the over-all corporate business strategy yet flexible enough to accommodatethe differing needs of specific discipline groups. This also reflectsthe fact that despite often differing needs which make standardisa-tion difficult, there are sufficient commonalities between diversedisciplines and processes within organizations which create botha need for and the basis of a holistic approach. Thus rather thana single approach, organizations instead require a ‘unifiedapproach’ which focusses on integration while remaining tailorableto the distinct tasks, projects, sectors, countries and products acrossthe organization.
178 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
The themes identified here are similarly identified in existingliterature on IM albeit in diverse publications not particularly aimedat A & E organizations in the construction industry. In a study ofengineering SMEs Hicks et al (2006) identified a number of issueswhich impact on IM. The study focused on the barriers to IM anddid not include constraining factors or drivers. The barriers werealso focused more on IS and IT rather than purely IM or its organi-zational dimension. Similarly, Earl & Feeny (1998) identify thefour strategic imperatives (drivers) for Strategic Information Man-agement within organizations (particularly global organizations) asglobal efficiency; enable local responsiveness; transfer learning andenable external alliances (collaborative working across multiple or-ganizations). While the drivers identified in that study are similar tothe findings here, new themes have been identified here which areabsent from that study such as Improve product; Legal and regu-latory requirements and mitigate risk. These findings are also con-text specific reflecting the peculiarities of the UK A & E Industry.
The themes which emerged from this study are organizationalwith limited technology related drivers, barriers or constraining fac-tors. This reemphasises that IM unlike IS or IT is not a technologi-cal issue. Indeed the challenge for organizations is having the rightcapabilities to appraise their strategic information needs; developappropriate holistic solutions to support these; implement the strat-egy effectively and maintain it through its lifecycle. Appropriatetechnology can then be selected to best support the defined strategyas similarly observed by Gyampoh-Vidogah and Moreton (2003) aswell as Hjelt and Bjork (2006).
Limitations
This research presents a detailed investigation into IM in construc-tion industry based A & E organizations. Focussing on such aclearly defined sample within the wider industry enabled the con-cept of IM to be investigated in extensive detail. However, thescope of the research does not include other essential stakeholdersthat constitute the wider construction industry such as builders andcontractors. Thus the findings cannot be generalised as reflective ofthe wider construction industry. Further research is required to in-vestigate the organizational approaches to IM within these widerstakeholders and to identify similarities and/or differences betweenapproaches adopted by contractors and approaches adopted by con-sultants. Similarly, as the sample constituted of mainly large A & Eorganizations, further research is also required to investigate theapplicability of the findings to small and medium A & E organi-zations within the construction industry.
The survey method adopted and the focus on a sample of organ-izations creates the risk that interviewee responses may be influ-enced by the desire to present their organizations in a certainway. In order to reduce this, extensive care was taken to identifyexperts in the field of IM within the sample organizations thus en-suring that all the responses were obtained from informed partic-ipants. Anonymity was also guaranteed for both the interviweesand their parent organizations thus reducing potential anxiety aboutthe findings being attributed to them. Nonetheless, further researchfocussing on a larger sample may be required to further validatethese findings.
The themes identified emerged from the detailed thematicanalysis conducted on the interview data. Following this analysis,the findings were not presented back to the interviewees for followup reviews and feedback. This was in order to ensure the robustnessof the research findings, prevent post rationalisation and to preventundue postinterview influences to affect the data. It also ensuresthat the findings and the subsequent analysis conducted were based
on the intial context of the questions asked and the interviews con-ducted. The detailed discussion of the research findings presentedprovides a comparison of the findings with similar works withinthe field. Additionally, further research may be required to assessthe applicability of the findings in a larger sample of A & Eorganizations.
The ‘identification’ step of the thematic analysis (as explained inthe research method section) was conducted by a single researcherthus creating the risk that personal bias could subtly influence theanalysis process. Extensive care was taken to prevent this by con-ducting numerous iterations of the process. The data was alsowidely shared and analyzed with all the coauthors throughout. Fol-lowing each identification cycle, the ‘consolidation and refinement’step was conducted by all four researchers hence providing peerreview and ensuring robust analysis was carried out.
Conclusion
This paper presents the findings from an investigation into thenature of IM in A & E organizations in the UK construction indus-try. The findings highlight the significance of an organizational per-spective on IM and the increasing emphasis practitioners areplacing on how information can be better managed to support theircore processes. The findings also highlight that despite progress,organizations within the industry are hindered by the shortageof the right skills to effectively analyze and understand the variousfacets of a holistic approach to IM and hence develop appropriatesolutions to meet their needs. Clear interrelationships exist betweenthe various themes identified in this study. For example, the cost ofa solution is perceived as a barrier relative to the earning power ofthe organization; the functionality of the system being procured; thebusiness process for which the technology is intended and the per-ceived value of the innovation for the business. This interconnect-edness between the various themes provides a more completeunderstanding of the themes and their influence on IM.
The themes are also defined or influenced by external factors, inparticular, the wider industry in which the organizations are based.The construction industry, its people, structure and working prac-tices invariably influences the very nature and outcome of any strat-egy. For example, product improvement as a driver places emphasison the need to improve both the quality of services the organizationoffers as well as the final product or built form emanating fromactual construction activities. Thus, while all the themes providea better understanding of IM in A & E organizations in the con-struction industry, they are all in turn a product of the specific con-text of the organizations as being in the construction industry.
The findings highlight areas for which further research is re-quired. Despite a realisation of the need to improve IM, the findingsshow that A & E organizations within the UK construction industrydo not have the requisite capabilities to effectively develop wellaligned holistic IM strategies that support their overall operations.Further research is required to develop appropriate toolkits to en-able organizations appraise their needs vis-à-vis the drivers, under-stand their current context; and then translate the outcome intotargeted solutions that add value to their operations. Further re-search is also required to develop appropriate measurement criteriafor determining the effectiveness of IM strategies in organizations,not focused on the targeted implementation of technology but onassessing the ‘suitability’ of the strategy for supporting businessprocesses.
In the future, it is anticipated that information will continue toemerge as critical to innovation and operation in organizations.New types of content and technological innovations will also
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012 / 179
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
demand new ways of working. Organizations able to better struc-ture themselves to best leverage this information will emerge withgreater competitiveness. Thus a holistic approach, defined by thethemes identified in this study will undoubtedly be important inimproving collaborative working and the operational effectivenessof construction industry based A & E organizations.
References
Anumba, C. J., Issa, R. R. A., Pan, J., and Mutis, I. (2008). “Ontology-based information and knowledge management in construction.”Constr. Innovation, 8(3), 218–239.
Bishop, J., Bouchlaghem, D., Glass, J., and Matsumoto, I. (2008). “Ensur-ing the effectiveness of a knowledge management initiative.” J. Knowl.Manage., 12(4) 16–29.
Bjoerk, B. (2001). “Document management—a key IT technology for theconstruction industry.” European Council of Civil Engineers (ECCE)Symposium, ECCE, Athens, Greece.
Boiko, B. (2002). Content management bible, Hungry Minds, New York.Boyatzis, E. R. (1998). Transforming qualitative Information: Thematic
analysis and code development, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Bridges, J. D. (2007). “Taking ECM from concept to reality.” Information
Resour. Manage. J., 41(6), 30–39.Brigl, B., Ammenwerth, E., Dujat, C., Graber, S., Grobe, A., and Haber, A.
(2005). “Preparing strategic Information Management plans for hospi-tals: A practical guideline SIM plans for hospitals: A guideline.” Int. J.Medical Informatics, 74(1), 51–65.
British Standards Institution (BS). (2007). “Collaborative production ofarchitectural, engineering and construction information—code of prac-tice.” BS 1192:2007, BSI, London.
Buchannan, S., and Gibb, F. (1998). “The information audit—an integratedstrategic approach.” Int. J. Inform. Manage., 18(1), 29–47.
Caldas, H. C., and Soibelman, L. (2003). “Automating hierarchical docu-ment classification for construction management information systems.”J. Autom. Constr., 12(4), 395–406.
Carrillo, P., and Chinowsky, P. (2006). “Exploiting knowledge manage-ment: the engineering and construction perspective.” J. Manage.Eng., 22(1), 2–10.
Chaffey, D., and Wood, S. (2004). “Business information management, im-proving performance using information systems.” Prentice-Hall, UpperSaddle River, NJ.
Christian, M. (2002). “Conquering business challenges with ECM: Theagile and efficient corporation.” Best Practices in Enterprise ContentManagement, KMWorld Magazine, Specialty Publishing Group, SpringLake Drive, Boca Raton, FL.
Craig, N., and Sommerville, J. (2006). “Information management systemson construction projects: Case reviews.” Records Manage. J., 16(3),131–148.
Davenport, T. (2000). “Putting the ‘I’ in IT.” Mastering information man-agement, D. A. Marchand, T. H. Davenport and T. Dickson, eds.,Financial Times, Prentice-Hall, London.
Davenport, T., and Marchand, D. (2000). “Is knowledge management justgood information management?.”Mastering Information Management,D. Marchand, T. Davenport and Dickson, eds., Financial Times,Prentice-Hall, London.
Davenport, T., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organisa-tions manage what they know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Dilnutt, R. (2006). “Surviving the information explosion.” IET Eng.Manage., 16(1), 39–45.
Earl, M. J., and Feeny, D. F. (1998). “Information systems in global busi-ness: Evidence from European multinationals.” Information manage-ment the organisational dimension, M. J. Earl, ed., OxfordUniversity Press, UK.
Egbu, C. (2004). “Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for im-proved organisational innovations in the construction industry: Anexamination of critical success factors.” Eng., Constr. Architect.Manage. J., 11(5), 301–315.
Evgeniou, T., and Cartwright, P. (2005). “Barriers to information manage-ment.” Euro. Manage. J., 23(3), 293–299.
Ghani, S. R. (2009). “Knowledge management: Tools and techniques.”J. Libr. Info. Technol., 29(6), 33–38.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L. (2006). “How many interviews areenough? An experiment with data saturation and variability.” FieldMethods, 18(1), 59–82.
Gyampoh-Vidogah, R., and Moreton, R. (2003). “Implementing informa-tion managemetn in construction: Establishing problems, concepts andpractice.” Constr. Innovation, 3(3), 157–173.
Hewlett Packard. (2007). “Managing data as a corporate asset: Three actionsteps towards successful data governance.”White paper ⟨www.hp.com⟩(Feb. 25, 2008).
Hicks, B. J. (2007). “Lean information management: Understanding andeliminating waste.” Int. J. Inform. Manage., 27(4), 233–249.
Hicks, B. J., Culley, S. J., Allen, R. D., andMullineux, G. (2002). “A frame-work for the requirements of capturing storing and reusing informationand knowledge in engineering design.” Int. J. Inform. Manage., 22(4),263–280.
Hicks, B. J., Culley, S. J., and McMahon, C. A. (2006). “A study of issuesrelating to information management across engineering smes.” Int. J.Inform. Manage., 26(4), 267–289.
Hjelt, M., and Bjork, B. (2006). “Experiences of EDM usage in construc-tion projects.” ITcon, 11, 113–125.
King, W., Hufnagel, E., and Grover, V. (1988). “Using information tech-nology for competitive advantage.” Information management: The stra-tegic dimension, M. Earl, Clarendon eds., Oxford, UK.
Laundon, K., and Laundon, J. (2009). Management information systems,11th ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Maddison, R., and Darnton, G. (1996). Information systems in organisa-tions: Improving business processes, Chapman and Hall, London.
Marchand, D. (2000). Competing with information—A manager’s guide tocreating business value with information content, Wiley, Oxford, UK.
Munkvold, B. E., Paivarinta, T., Hodne, K. A., and Stangeland, E. (2006).“Contemporary issues of enterprise content management.” Scand. J.Inform. Syst., 18(2), 69–100.
Nordheim, S., and Paivarinta, T. (2004). “Customisation of enterprise con-tent management systems: An exploratory case study.” Proc., 37th Int.Conf. on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC.
Paivarinta, T., andMunkvold, B. E. (2005). “Enterprise content management:An integrated perspective on information management.” Proc., 38th Int.Conf. on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC.
Peansupap, V., and Walker, D. H. T. (2005). “Factors enabling informationand communication technology diffusion and actual implementation inconstruction organisations.” ITcon, 10, 193–218.
Rezgui, Y., Hopfe, C. J., and Vorakulpipat, C. (2010). “Generations ofknowledge management in the architecture, engineering and construc-tion industry: an evolutionary perspective.” Adv. Eng. Inform., 24(2),219–228.
Robinson, H. S., Carrillo, P. M., Anumba, C. J., and Al-Ghassani, A. M.(2001). “Perceptions and barriers in implementing knowledge manage-ment strategies in large construction organisations.” Proc., RICS Foun-dation Construction and Building Research Conference (COBRA),Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Westminster, UK.
Romney, A., Batchelder, W., and Weller, S. (1986). “Culture as consensus: Atheory of culture and informant accuracy.” Amer. Anthro., 88(2), 313–338.
Sheriff, A., Bouchlaghem, D., EL-Hamalawi, A., and Yeomans, S. G.(2008). “An enterprise content management approach to organisationalinformation management.” Proc., CIB W65 Symposium, Transforma-tion through Construction, International Council for Research andInnovation in Building and Construction (CIB), Rotterdam, NE.
“Top 25 consultants.” (2010). BuildingMagazine ⟨http://www.building.co.uk/Journals/43/Files/2010/10/7/038_BUILDING40.pdf⟩ (Feb. 10, 2010).
Tyrvainen, P., Salminen, A., and Paivarinta, T. (2003). “Introduction to theenterprise content management mini-track.” Proc., 36th Int. Conf. onSystem Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC.
Webb, S. P. (1998). Knowledge management: Linchpin of change, TheAssociation for Information Management, London.
Yeomans, S. (2005). “ICT enabled collaborative working methodologies inconstruction.” Eng.D. thesis, Loughborough Univ., Leicestershire, UK.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research—Design and Methods, 3rd Ed.,Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, CA.
180 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2012
J. Manage. Eng. 2012.28:170-180.
Dow
nloa
ded
from
asc
elib
rary
.org
by
MA
RR
IOT
T L
IB-U
NIV
OF
UT
on
11/2
7/14
. Cop
yrig
ht A
SCE
. For
per
sona
l use
onl
y; a
ll ri
ghts
res
erve
d.
