Can we learn from the past to improve our future performance?

A large number of construction activities are considered repetitive, mimicking the characteristics of activities in the manufacturing industry. It is therefore not uncommon to see many studies advocate considering construction of a project as a manufacturing process.

With this approach, Koskela (1992) argues that in spite of the individualities of construction, namely, 1) uniqueness of construction projects, 2) on-site production, and 3) temporary organization, principles of manufacturing such as flow design, control, and improvement are very much applicable and relevant.

Tynjälä (1999) argues that learning as a direct outcome of experience would necessarily constitute continuous learning. But without the proper tools, learning from past experience in the construction industry remains a front that is not properly addressed.

1. Problems in project learning

It is evidently difficult to preserve different individual experiences arising from a single project, let alone in an organization that relies on different projects such as the contractor organization. Efforts in this perspective aim to methodically document knowledge using lessons learned, experience factories, final project reports, project debriefings, and project appraisals (Jugdev, 2012; Schindler and Eppler, 2003).

This brings a new set of problems in learning from a project. Table 1 elaborates different studies by Schindler and Eppler (2003) and Harteis et al. (2008) to identify obstacles in learning from projects.

Learning from past projects is highly dependent on individuals positively contributing in the effort to capture their knowledge. For clarity, knowledge has two classes:

1. The first is tacit knowledge; the type of knowledge related to subjective intuitions and personal perceptions.
2. The second is explicit knowledge; the type of knowledge related to objective and factual aspect of information.

Some researchers consider the very nature of tacit and explicit knowledge to originate the problem. Newell et al., (2006) for instance argue that knowledge is not only the result of personal experience, but also related to the organization culture as well, rendering knowledge obtained in such environments as nontransferable. Others consider that all knowledge can be labeled, sorted, and stored for access in knowledge repositories, regardless of its classes (Kleiner et al., 2012).

Learning from previous construction projects often fail due to improper presentation of the learning outcome, specifically limiting the lessons learned to “what was done” instead of stating “why?” and “how?” (Dikmen et al., 2008; Pemsel and Wiewiora, 2013).

But irrespective of the shortcomings of learning in construction projects, both tacit and explicit classes of knowledge can be simplified to data and information, and knowledge is the result of understating this array of data and information to for the benefit of future projects.

Systematic learning from completed projects enables the contractors to develop project competencies and attain a sustainable competitive advantage (Schindler and Eppler, 2003). One therefore can consider complications in a project as a positive if project reviews are done regularly as the project is completed.

Project evaluation post completion is an important tool for competent project management (McAvoy, 2006). It assists contractors in their endeavor to resolve recurring problems and to avoid causing the same in new projects.

These are important aspects that help attain the contractor’s internal success on the project. Such include 1) measuring and enhancing performance (Epstein and Roy, 2001), 2) lean construction through utilizing proper resources (Ballard and Howell, 1998), 3) plan and mitigate possible risks, and 4) reduce the effects of the learning-forgetting phenomenon.

2. Learning and forgetting phenomenon

It takes a longer duration for new activities to be carried out at the beginning of project. But over a period of time, the duration required to carry out these activities tends to be shortened as experience is obtained in repeating the activity multiple of times.

In the late 1930s, Theodore Paul Wright came about a mathematical model related to learning from iteration. His model described the positive effect of learning on performance in aircraft manufacturing. Since, there has been many applications of the Wright Learning Model (WLM) on other industries that share the repetitive processes; one such is the construction of projects (Howick and Eden, 2007).

But as delivery of construction projects has its own set of characteristics and limitations related to cost, time, and quality, the classical Wright Learning Model is too broad to reflect the true nature and validity of learning curves on construction activities.

To resolve this concern, Jaber and Guiffrida (2008) acknowledged the need to incorporate construction-specific characteristics into the Wright Learning Model and produced a mathematical model very much applicable to the construction of projects as a production process; where there exists repetitive cycles to produce a multiple number of activities.

One also cannot eliminate the constant interruptions in the construction industry. An activity might be interrupted for a short period for instance stoppage due to client instruction, or a long period such as carrying out of a single activity in different areas with different planned start dates using different teams.

A further longer period of interruption can exist in the case of carrying out these repetitive activities on a completely new project. Figure 1 elaborates such example where the duration of the invariable Activity A is longer in Project No. 2 compared to duration on Project No. 1.

Lam et al. (2001) considered this notion in their study of the standard learning curve model. They studied the effects of interruptions on the learning model and elaborated that more resources will be required to attain the same levels of productivity on the same activity. Figure 2 presents the effect of this on the learning model.

It is therefore important to identify areas where performance can be enhanced. One mechanism to do so is by means of regular audits across the different project lifecycles. While contractors should be aware of such means, some fail to obtain the benefit of previous experience and the outcomes thereof simply due to the absence of these tools at hand. It is therefore important to note that knowledge management is always entailed when reviewing the topic of project closeout in literature (Dave and Koskela, 2009).

3. Knowledge management

The construction of a project produces a great amount of data as a byproduct. Contractors are able to enhance the communication on the project by enhancing the method in which to produce and communicate project data (Meredith et al., 2011). Data leads to information, information leads to knowledge, and knowledge leads to wisdom, in what is known as the Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom (DIKW) diagram, depicted in Figure 3.

It is of importance to note that for knowledge to be managed, it must be simplified beyond the tacit context. Knowledge that is beneficial for construction projects should record processes and outcomes of practice (the “Why?” and “How?”) rather than only the facts that are associated with the activity (Rennstam and Ashcraft, 2014).

Summary

Without doubt learning from past experience is important. This proves to be vital now for the construction industry as the complexity of constructing projects is ever increasing. While the manufacturing industry has long adopted the concept of learning from previous experience, the construction industry lags behind.

This is in part due to problems that are intrinsic in learning from projects, which relate to personal and corporate barriers. To overcome this, contractors must systematically review completed projects on a comprehensive basis.

Have you been involved in capturing knowledge on your construction project? I’d love to hear from you!

References

Dave, B., Koskela, L., 2009. Collaborative knowledge management—A construction case study. Automation in Construction 18, 894–902. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.03.015

Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M.T., Anac, C., Tah, J.H.M., Aouad, G., 2008. Learning from risks: A tool for post-project risk assessment. Automation in Construction 18, 42–50. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2008.04.008

Epstein, M.J., Roy, M.-J., 2001. Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers. Long Range Planning 34, 585–604. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00084-X

Harteis, C., Bauer, J., Gruber, H., 2008. The culture of learning from mistakes: How employees handle mistakes in everyday work. International Journal of Educational Research, Organisational and Personal Contributions to Workplace Learning Environments 47, 223–231. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2008.07.003

Howick, S., Eden, C., 2007. Learning in disrupted projects: on the nature of corporate and personal learning. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH 45, 2775–2797.

Jaber, M.Y., Guiffrida, A.L., 2008. Learning curves for imperfect production processes with reworks and process restoration interruptions. European Journal of Operational Research 189, 93–104. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.024

Jugdev, K., 2012. Learning from lessons learned: Project management research program. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration 4, 13.

Kleiner, M.M., Nickelsburg, J., Pilarski, A.M., 2012. Organizational and Individual Learning and Forgetting. Industrial & Labor Relations Review 65, 68–81.

Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Stanford university (Technical Report No. 72, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering). Stanford, CA.

Lam, K.., Lee, D., Hu, T., 2001. Understanding the effect of the learning–forgetting phenomenon to duration of projects construction. International Journal of Project Management 19, 411–420. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00025-9

McAvoy, J., 2006. Evaluating the Evaluations: Preconceptions of Project Post-Mortems. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation 9, 65–72.

Meredith, J.R., Steward, M.D., Lewis, B.R., 2011. Knowledge dissemination in operations management: Published perceptions versus academic reality. Omega 39, 435–446. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2010.10.003

Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., 2006. Sharing Knowledge Across Projects Limits to ICT-led Project Review Practices. Management Learning 37, 167–185. doi:10.1177/1350507606063441

Pemsel, S., Wiewiora, A., 2013. Project management office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations. International Journal of Project Management 31, 31–42. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.004

Rennstam, J., Ashcraft, K.L., 2014. Knowing work: Cultivating a practice-based epistemology of knowledge in organization studies. Human Relations 67, 3.

Schindler, M., Eppler, M.J., 2003. Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management 21, 219–228. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00096-0

Tynjälä, P., 1999. Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research 31, 357–442. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00012-9