Knowledge Management in Real Estate Consultancy Firms:Breaking through the Barriers

Yasmin Mohd Ad rian, Anuar Ali as and Nor Azlina Sulaiman

Centre for Studies of Urban and Regiona l Rea l Estates (SURE)Department of Estate ManagementFaculty of the Built Environment

University of Malaya

Ab stractCorporate know ledge is we ll accepted as a decisive asset in mos t countries worldwide, The know­how an d expertise of the work-force is an important factor for the success of companies andstrongly influences the effectiveness and efficiency of the business processes and their ou tcome . Inreal estate consultancy firms, knowledge management (KM) is specifically relevant due to theknowledge in tensive character of de liveri ng the services to be rendered to clien ts, which calldemand innovative and non-repetitive processes. However, there are barr iers that need to beovercome so tha t the po tentials of KM are capitalized.

Key Wo rds: Knowledge Management, Barriers, Approaches, Real Esta te Consultancy Firms

IntroductionKnowledge management can be summarizedas the processes and tools that allow anorgan isation to efficiently capture, maintain,and utilise its in forma tion . By organisinginforma tion and keeping it current, anorganisation sig nificantly decreases timelost on the d readed "reinvention of thewheel". Organizations are now viewed asbodies of knowledge thus creating a newperspec tive on organizations (Nahapiet &Chos hal, 1998). It has been recognized tha tthe economic prosperity of an organizationdepends on the effec tive exp loita tion andreten tion of this organizational knowledge.Teece (1998)suggests that knowledge assetsunderpin competences and competcnccs inturn underpin the finn's produc t and serviceoffering to the market.

This pa per examines the barriers toKM,which can be said to mean the obstaclesin applying the individua l and collectiveknowledge and abilities o f the entireworkforce to achieve specific organizationalobject ives . But before barriers can be

identified, the concep t and principles of KMmus t firs t be understood. KM depends onboth the cultura l and technological processesof creation, storage, sharing and transfer.The goa l of KM is no t to manage allknowledge; rat her it is to manage theknowledge that is most important to theorganization. Efficiencies occur when theright knowledge gets to the right people atthe right time. Bell (2001) indica ted that KMis crucia l because it poin ts the way tocomprehensive and clearly understandablemanagemen t ini tiatives and procedures. Itis be lieved th at success in today 'scompetitive marke tplace depends on thequality of the kno wledge and knowledgeprocesses those organizations apply to keybusiness activities. Therefo re it is significantto identify the barriers that may hinder thesuccess or s lower the success rate inorganiza tions, par ticula rly real es ta teproper ty consultancy firms which has beenidentified in this study.

23

jOIlTJInJ of DL'Sigu n"d lIll' Built Enuircnsnent

Objectives of the StudyIt has been recognised tha t professio na lservice bus inesses, such as proper ty~onsultancy and valuation surveyingindustry.dif fer significantlv from traditiona lma nu fac turing orga nizations (Eccles &Crane, 1988; Mills, 1986; Thomas, 1978).Despite the acknowl edged difference, muchof the derived from trad itional industrializedorga n iza tio ns ca n be o f q ues t io nab lepertinen ce. By ap p ly ing the emergingknowledge-based view of these finns andinve stigating the current status and thepractices of know ledge management inPCVS(Propert)' Consultancy, Valuation andSurveying) firms, the study will provide aninsight for the future directions of thismanagement approach in this sector.

In add ition, knowledge mana gem enthas three basic elements: people, technologyand the process (UNFPA, 2002; 2003). Basedon the characteristics of the professional,identities of the people, and the progressiveimpleme.ntation of information technologyIII these firms, this s tudy a ttempts to explainth e he terogeneity o f the p rocesses ofknowl ed ge man agem en t. Therefore, theobjectives of the s tudy are as follow:

i. To ascerta in the awareness ofknowledge managem ent in PropertyConsultan cy and Valuation Surveying(PCVS)finns in selected towns/cities inPeninsular Malaysia

ii. To investigate the current practices andbarriers faced in managing knowledgein these firms

Principles of KnowledgeManagementKnow ledge manage men t (KM) fir stes tablishe d i tself as a d is tinct area ofmanagement science in the early 1990s(Prusak, 2001) . KM is an amalgam o fconcepts borrowed from the artificialin telligence/knowledge-based systems,so ftware engineering, business processreen gineer ing, human resource

24

management and organizational behaviorfields. Know ledge can be broad ly groupedinto two types: tacit knowledge and codifiedknO\~ledge. Tacit knowledge is usuallyunwntten and embodied in individual. It isaccumulated through education, trainingand general working experience involving,say apprenticeship and how market works.~od i f!ed knowl edge unlike tacit knowledgeIS written down. Scientific formulae andsoftware programs are examples ofcod ifiedknowled ge. Cod ified knowled ge is moreeasily diffused and tra nsferr ed (15[5, 2002).Codified kn owled ge is a lso termed asexplicit know le dge (Ke rmally, 2002) .:,>ccording to Alavi and Leidner (1999),information beco mes knowledge once it isprocessed in the mind of the individual.This know ledge then becomes informat ionagain once it is articulated or communicatedto others in the form of text, computer output,spoke n orwritten words or o ther means. Inmoving towards Knowledge-based economy,the Organization for Econom ic Coopera­tion and Development (GECD, 2001) hasconsidered the know ledge-based (K-based)ind ust ri es w ith in the medium-hightechnol ogy indus tries to incl ud epro fess ional, scientific, measuring andcon tro lling equipment. Thus thep rofessiona l se rvices rendered by PCVSfirm s fall within the K-base d indust riesidentified by GECD.

~~rke tplaces are increasinglycompetitive and the rate of innovation isrising, and organizations compete on thebasis of know ledge. KM is an import antso urce for co mpe ti tive ad va ntage fororganizations (Ginsburg & Kambi l, 1999).Know ledge embedded in the organizations'business processes and the employees' skillsprovid es the organization w ith uniquecapabilities to deliver cus tomer s with aproduct or se rvice.

In cap turing the knowl ed ge from theemployees within an organization,Sarnuclls (2001) has highligh ted thateffec tive KM programmes can help toImprove the efficiency of know ledge­intensive organizations such as real estate

Knotolcdge Mallagement ill Real Estate Consultaucu Firms

organizations. pevs firms are comparableto practices of law firms that are heavilyservice- intensive. Terret (1998) indicatesthat significant hurdles have to be overcomein order to embed successful knowledgemanagement. In the law firm context, allthese hurdles may be categorized under theheading of firm culture: individuality, lime,success and lack of incentives. In a survey of431 US and European organize tions, culturewas found to be the biggest impediment toknowledge transfer (Ruggles, 1998). Inaddition, Ruggles (1998) mentions that theother impediments were the failure of topmanagement to set priorities, and the lack ofshared understanding of business strategymodel.

Barriers to KnowledgeManagementAlong with the processes of knowledgemanagement, many barriers exist, whichthus turn the management of knowledge intoa very challenging task as illustrated inFigure 1. A barrier is said to be as everythingrelated to human, organizational and/ortechnological issues that obstruct the intra­and inter-organizational management ofknowledge (Pawar et. al., 2000). Accordingto Brandt and Hartmann (1999), thesebarriers can be categorized as the TOP(Technology, Organization, People)categories of socio technical systemsclassification. Bonfield (1999) identifies fourarea s as potential organizational barrierswhen implementing a knowledgemanagement ini ti a ti ve: cultural;technological: economical and, marketplacebarriers.

Foodbncl< [. I<nowledge AssessmentIKnowledge Gools 1..- - - - -

,~

Figure 1: Knowledge Management ChallengesSource: Wunrarn ct.al ., (2001 : p.lO)

• Barriere related toTechnology that relatesto software systems. The possibilities toovercome this barrier are either theidentification of a system that satisfiesthe needs of the organisation.

• Barriers related fa Organisation whichrelates to the lack of awareness ofknowledge management strategies and

.instruments, high investments inrelation to the requirement of significant

25

jOllYllal of Design and the Built Environment

amo unts of t ime and mo ney,unav ail ability of get ting the rightindividuals a t the right tim e.

• Barriers related to People which rela te todifferent langu ages, fear of pena lty / fcarof losin g profile, idea robbery which canimpli es the need for the p ro tection ofproprie ta ry knowle d g e amo nge m p loyees, es ta blish me n t ofco m m u n ication channe ls and goodrelationshi ps amongst staff.

Accor d ing to Ndela and Du Toit (2001),people-rela ted iss ues such as p eople 'sunwillingness to share their knowledge andlack of leadership commitment, as we ll astime and resou rce cons traints cou ld bebarriers to implementing a KM programme.Ano ther core barrier emp has ised innumerous st udies is the cu lture of anorganisatio n . Sve iby (1997) comparedcorpo rate culture to a company 's 'spirit'reflec ted in its goa l ori enta tion anddominated by, forinstance, financial figures,innova tions based on R&D, or a strongmarketing culture with a strong cus tomerfocus. Corpora te culture det ermines thedegree of interaction used to accomplishwork, on ve rtica l o r hori zontal level.McDermo tt and O'Dell (2001)emphasise theimportance o f int egrating kn owled gesharing into existing values and the overallsty le of an organisa tion to reach a highin terac tion on both level s, rather thancha ng ing the cor porate culture to suitknowledge sha ring.

Pragma tic A pproaches toOvercoming the Barriers

Malhotra (1998) have repor ted the di fferents tud ies in which no d irect co rrelationbe tween IT investmen ts and businessperformance or knowledge managemen twe re identified . H e emp hasises that theorganisa tional processes and the way theemp loyees communica te and operatethrough the socia l processes of collabo ratingneed moreattention. Davenportand Prusak(1998) repor ted that some Japanesecompanies have installed "Talk Rooms" inwhich scientists come together to have a cupof tea and talk to each othe r for about half anhour. There is neither an agenda no rschedule and the on ly targe t is to bring thesepeople toge ther to evoke a discussion abou ttheir current work and to exchange ideas .

The following cases (Tables 1 to 3) as quo tedfrom Ma lhotra (1998) show how pragmaticapproaches we re implemented in variouslevels of organisa tion. These are commonprob le ms id enti fi ed and prag ma ticap proach is sugges ted fo r each of th efollowing problems. Perhaps this can beapplied to PCVS firms as wel l.

Tab le 1: Managing knowl edge w ithin a process chain

Problem Pragmatic Approach

Insufficien tcommunica tion and Specificatio n of rough but commonlycoordination along the process chain agreed docume ntation forms.caused by the applica tion of the so -called Incremental Approach: From an ea rly"Throw it over the wall" approach. implemented paper based solution to

a database app lication. Forms we remade accessible for all emp loyeesinvolved in the process chain byan Intranet applicat ion.

26

KIlDwledge Management in Real Estate Coneutmncu Firms

Table 2: Managemen t of design knowledge be tween des ign and assembly

Problem Pragmatic Approach

Insufficient feedback of problems and Easy to use technologiesexperiences identified in the assembly (d igita l cameras and In trane t)area to design department for a quick doc umentation of p rob lems

and failures.

Table 3: Approaches to KM in an R&D depar tment

Pro blem Pragmatic Approach

Flat learning curve of novices Personnel coachesLack of communica tion of non project Programmers Round Tab lespecific in formation and knowledge

Ide ntification of knowledge "hidden" in Specification of identical di rectoryother projects structures up to the fourth level for all

types of projects. Further detailing of thestruc ture would have generated to highefforts

Time consuming no value ad d ing tasks Documentation and provision of "Howrela ted to project management activi ties. tos" on tFrequent dis turbance of experts related totips and tricks requested by colleagues

Source: Modified from Malhotra (1998: p.12)

Barrie rs to KM in Real EstateConsultancy FirmsThe surveying industry has a long historyand is kn owledge-in tensive in nature. Thechallenge of managi ng knowledge hasalways been the key issue underpinning theexistence, growth and further developmentof surveying firms. New cha llenges andopportunities in a high ly competitiveenvironment have provided furtherincentives forsurveying firms to acquireandmain tain a unique base of knowledge, bo thexp lic it and tacit, ga thered from theiremp loyees and associates.

General practice surveying firms disp lay thetyp ical charac teristics of professiona lservices firms (PSFs) (Fong,2003) . PSFs arefreq uen tly classified as ' knowledge­intensive' firms, the latter being defined as'companies where most work can be said tobe of an intellectual nature and where we ll­educa ted, qualified employees form themajor part of the wor kforce' (Alvesson, 2000).In Malaysia, the surveying sector has as trong and u nifying id en tit y re flect ingthe status of the ma in professional body,and the resu lting high lev e l ofprofessionalization, which may so metimesact as a barrier to KM (Ma tzdorf & Pr ice,2000). The identified barriers to theorganiza tiona l learning in the chartered

27

jOllmnl of Design and the Built En ulronment

surveying profess ion as identified byMatzdorf & Price (2000) are: emphasis onindi vidual learning; 'le arn ing equalstra ining'; learning equals lack of knowledgeattitude; an imprecisely defined but allpervading notion of professionalism;competition; and the complex or evencon tradictory nature of the professionalbodies. Those unwritten rules with in theprofession that work against organiza tionallearni ng , the trad itional hierarchicalstru cture within the profession and in thesurve ying firms, learning as a cost factorrather than an investment: and individuals'prior experiences of learning. It is furtherfound that those barriers stop individuals,groups and en tire or ganizations fromdeveloping their potential. According toDawson ct al, (2000), technology is a criticalfactor in the effective delivery of professiona lservice. Similar to the situation in otherindustries, the existence of an advancedinformation technology infrastructure hashelped surveying firms to collaborateinternall y and externally mu ch moreefficiently.

Research MethodologyIn the ini tial stage, a literature review wascarried out to identify secondary sources anddata to provide a broad and indicativeaccount of the KM field and to establish alinkage between KM and pevs firms. Inreference to an earlier s tudy conducted forgeneral practice surveying firms in Hon gKong and UK (Fong 2003), the relevant factorsidentified were adopted in this st udy due tosimilar environruen ta l and regulatorynature of those firms with Malaysian firms.Property co n s u lta n cy, valuation &surveying firms identified were ga theredthrough a list firm s registered with the Boardof Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents.Due to the geographical d istance, it wasdecided that a mixture of d istributi onapproaches were utilized i.e. hand deliveredand mail delivered questionnaires . Onehundred (100) questionnaires be distributed

28

to various firms throughout Malaysia, butonly 34 responded to the questionnaire. Thestudy focuses on the firms in major cities inPeninsu lar Malay sia , namely, in KualaLumpur and Shah Alam, [ohor Bahru,George town, Ipo h , Kuantan, KualaTerengganu and Kota Bahru, The responserate of 34% is considered appropriate basedon Ellhag & Boussabaine (1999) and Idrus& Newman (2002). Weightages are given forquestions that require respondents to ra tethe answer numerica lly . The weightagesused are:1= very im por tan t: 2= moderatelyimpor tant;3= important;4= least importantand 5= not importan t. The data gatheredfrom the survey were analysed by applyingdescriptive statistical techniques.

Analysis and Di scussion of th eFindings

Awarelless of Kno wledgeMan agement (KM)

Table 4 shows the general ranking of theawareness toward s KM.

The most important aspect of awa reness ofKM is 'major new strategic imperative forstaying competitive' as it received the lowestmean of 1.66 from the total score of survey .Marketplace s are increasingly competitiveand the rate of innovation is rising; andorganiza tions compete on the basis ofknowledge . As s u ch, the respondentsacknowledged that KM is the strategic wayto stay competitive.

The seco nd most im portant as pect ofKM with rating of 1.69 is valuable wa y toorganize and .use corporate information.New spin and technology, and other aspects,even though received lower ranking in thesurvey are still considered as important dueto the fact that each aspect needs to be treatedfor further understanding of KMimplementa tion ,

Kllowledgf? Mnllagf?111wt in Reel Estate COllS Il!tallc.II Firms

Table 4: Awareness of KM - Perception

Ranking Awal'elless of/(M Menu Scofe1 Major new strateg ic imperative fors taying competitive 1.662 Valuable way to organize and lise corporate information 1.69

3 Latest management fad 1.75

4 New spin and teclmology 2.33

Source: Field Survey, 2005

Goals of KM

As shown in Table 5, responden ts are of the opin ion that the main motivator for implementingKM is to improve work efficiency . It is perceived that the respondent s apprecia te that KM isa way to enhance the professionals' services rendered by the firms, It also indica ted that,improving knowledge sharing horizontal ly comes second rank in importance, followed byincreasing cus tome rsatisfaction and redu cing cos t. No factor shows the mean score of morethan 3.0. This mean s that the responde nts did not dispu te that all the motiva ting factorsgive n arc important.

Table 5:Goals of KM- the main motivators for implement ing KM

I1 allkillg Mo tiuating Factors Menu Score

1 To iml' rove work efficiency 1.43

2 To improve knowledge sharing horizontally 1.77

3 To increase cus tomer satisfaction 1.90

4 To reduce cost 2.06

5 To improve kno wledge shar ing vertically 2.12

6 To increase market share 2.27

7 To cncou ra_ge innov ation 2.31

8 To increase employee sa tis faction 2.40

9 To make up for loss of knowledge 2.76

Source : Field Survey, 2005

Barriers to l m plemen to tion of KMTable 6 itemi sed the nine listed bar riers to implemen tation of KM in organiza tion to bedetermined by the respondents.The respondent s were of the view tha t the ma in barriers toKMas being time consumi ng, lack of fund ing, dilution of resp onsibility.lack of lT skills,lackof senior management support are ranked 2nd to 5th respectively.The o ther identified barriers,KM and benefits un known; no incen tives to share; and possible downsizing factors are atlowest rank. However, the least influ enti al to KM's implement ation is problem associa tedwith other matters which arc not described by the respond ent s.The findings show that thecurren t culture of the firms does not facilitate KM as indica ted by the ide ntified factors.

29

Journal of Designand tile Built Environment

Table 6: Barriers to Implementation of KM

Ranking Barriers Mean Score

1 Time cons uming 1.72

2 Lack of funding 2.54

3 Dilu tion of responsibility 2.71

4 Lack of IT sk ills 2.80

5 Lack of senior management support 2.82

6 KM and be nefi ts unknown 2.91

7 No incentives to sha re 2.95

8 Possible downsi zing 3.31

Source: Field Survey, 2005

SO llrce of Kn ow ledgeAs shown in Table 7, the res po nden ts agreed tha t personal experience is the main so urce ofknowledge for KM.This was evidenced by mean score of 1.93. While "others" source achieved4.0 me an score, which can be cons idered as least im portan t, o the rs listed so urces achievedme an score of less than 3.0.This means that all sources av ailab le are important. Based on theabove data, mos t of them agree that listed sources of kno wledge for KM is based on human,mean ing that the staff need to acquire knowled ge through their persona l experience, linkagesw ith o thers, and interactions.

Table 7:Sources of Knowledge

Rank ing SOllrces OfKilowiedge Menu Score

1 Personal exp erience 1.93

2 Research and development dep t. 2.06

3 Colleagues' exp erience 2.11

4 Other resources, incl. internet, journal, books 2.13

5 Externa l co urses 2.25

6 In teraction wi th outside party 2.38

7 Internal co urses 2.41

8 Co mpany libr ary 2.91

Source: Field Survey, 2005

30

K'lOwledXt'Mallngt'mt'lIl ill Reel £slnh' COllsulta"cy Firms

Discussion s of FindingsThro ugh thestudy, it is noted that pevs firmshave ackno wledged that they viewed majornew s t.r~ tcg ic impcratlvs, for s tay ingcompe titive as the most important aspect ofKM. Therefo re these fi nns haveacknowledged the importance of KM andthat organiza tions must compete on the basisof knowledge.

The main motivator for implementingKMamongst pevs firms is to imp rove workefficiency a nd to imp ro ve knowledgesharing . It is in teresting to note that therespond en ts d id not disp u te tha t themoti va ting factors used to be of significantimp ortance revealing the awareness of theimportance of implemen tation of KM.However, in the implementation of KM, therespondents have viewed that time facto r asin time consuming to be the main barrier.Lack of funds and d ilu tion of responsibilitytha t posed as the o ther importan t barriersmay pl ace the use of IT as KM tools, whichwere perceived by the respond en ts as onestha t threat e n th e current pra ctice o fgenerating and sharing knowledge.

There is no direct correla tion existedbetween inves tments of time and money innew technologies and an increase ofproductivity of a company. According toMalhotra (1998), investing time and mo neysolely 111 techn ology has to be considered asshort ru n programme. es pe cia lly w he naim ing to o verco me th e barriers tok~low ledge man agement. As explore d byPicot (2000), the "prod uctivity para dox" canbe explained for the purpose of supportingthe concept of pragmatic approaches :

II/ SlIff icient reorgal/isatiol/ of CO li/POllYprocesses : the irn plemontnttm, of ne wtechnologies in companies merely for the~a ke ofmodernism will probably lead to highinvestments wit ho u t making use of the fullpotential of such technologies. Therefore,companies sho uld tend to better expl oitavailable resou rces. Further, the appli cationof teclmology, ind ependent from being newor old sho uld always be cons idered together

wi th human and organisa tional aspec ts.

Resistanceagai/lst renetoal:Employees usuallytend to have a natur al resistan ce aga instchanges. If too many aspect s in th eirenvi ronmen t are changed at the sa me timethey feel insecure and will p robably not co­operate wi th the cha nge ind ucing power. Inthe case of the p roductivity paradox theresi st~nce will arise when new technologiesa re intro duced a n d a lo ng wit h itorganisational changes. Thus, the au thorsconclude that ins tead of solely looking onthe in trod uc tion of ne w technologies tosolve problems in knowledge management,companies shou ld al so focus on si mpleorga nisatio nal or me thodical measures .Probably a smooth approach to KM is thekey for the in trod uction of furt her KMmeasures . In order to accustom theemployees to th e philosophy o f KMmanagers sho uld prefer 80% soluti ons forthe sake of acceptan ce an d the Willingnessto int rod uce further measures .

In in vestig a tin g th e so urces ofknowledge a vailable in these pevs firms, amajority of the respondents agreed thatpe rsonal experience is the main source of!'nowledge.TIley also agreed that knowledgeis shared through face-to- face/i nfo rmalcomm unica tio n. The respond ent s haveindicated that a proper support mechanismis n?eded to promote knowledgesharing andindividual performance review is the mainincentive given for sh aring of knowledge.

Th is s tudy shows th at the ma incha llenge regarding KM implementation inpevs firms stems from employees ' lack ofun ders tan ding of KM and the benefit s itoffers . Another p robl em is associated withkn o wled g e s hari ng. To facili tate orsmoothen the process, firms could developorganizationa l thrus t usi ng sanctions o rpol icies and s tro ng cu lture; alterna tively,they could promo te interpersonal trust suchas knowledge-based tru st , identification ­based trust and rela tional trus t (Das & Teng,1998).

31

Journal of Design and the Buill Ell yirommmt

Firms should strike a balance betweenpeople and technology elements of KM. Agood technology-based KM system need no tbe complica ted or capital-intensive, in so faras it cou ld se rve th e co re b usi ness byprovidi ng internal infor ma tion w ithin agroup and shari n g cus to me r-speci ficinformation with clients. The surve yingsector is characterized by a wide variety ofdifferent types of cons u ltancy se rvices .Careful a ttention needs to be paid to theselect ion of too ls that are appropria te fordifferent sectors, pa rticu larly those w ithsev ere reso urce cons traints . It sho uld befur the r no ted th a t the bes t too ls andproces ses alo ne canno t ac hieve a KMstrategy . Ult imately, KM aims to free upprofessiona l valuab le time to focus oncreating thoughtful a n d in nova tiv eapp roaches, rather th an-on data capturefrom disparate sources.

Th e results of this study sho uld becons idered as indica tors of the currentawa renes s and pract ices of KM in rcvsfirms, rather than as def initive findings.Theconvenience sample from w hich the da tawere der ived is too small for hard statementsin this regard. Results are also subject tolimitations arising from the time frame, useof questi onnaire and its di fferen t deliverymode. It was not possible to con tro l thesettings in which the questionnaires werecompleted, nor to identify potentia l factorsthat may ha ve had an impact on the results.Ho wever, these result s do sugges t certainn u mbe r of p ract ices in rcvs firms inselec ted towns /ci tie s in Malaysia withregard to KM and they serve as a foundationfor more refined inves tigation in the future.

ConclusionBy describing several barriers to knowl edgemanagement, the existence of the relevanceof barr iers rela ted to human aspects can beidentified. In contras t to usual approachesto knowledge management in which theimp lementation of ICT infrastructures playa cen tra l ro le, the concept of pragmaticap proaches for KM has been applied .

32

Generally, this s tudy s hows th atth e main chall enge regarding KMimplemen tation in rcvs firm s s tems fromemployees' lack of understandin g of KM andthe benefits it offers. Firms can address thischallenge by making tra ining, changingmanagementand processes and redesigningprimary components of the KM initiativ esthrou gh the support of the top managementand allocation of fund . Working w ith ratherthan against the barriers is an art required.

It can be conclud ed tha t a highlyp articipative approach (i. e. directinvolvement of concerned employees) is ofutmos t importance for Lhe acceptance of anysolution in this particular area. However,pragma tic approaches in ge ne ral also beara s trong risk. People may be tempted toimplement the firs t solution they see withoutcarefully reasoning its appropria teness andusability. If KM solutions aim to support abeller coope ra tion between d esign a ndmanufacturing fail, it ge ts more difficult tomotivate the users to participate in a secondapproach. Thus, in contrast to trial -and ­error so lutions, the po tentia l error must beavoided as far as possible. In order to exploitpragmatic approaches with a reduced risk,fu ture research shou ld aim to devel opmethods and tools for KM w hich allow forthe identification of the most relevant aspects10 be addressed by pragmatic solutions.

BibliographyAlvesson, M (2000). Social identit y and the

Problem of Loyalty in Knowledge IntensiveCo mpanies . Journa l of ManagementStudies, 37 (8),110\ -1123.

Alvcsson, M. & Karreman, D. (200\ )Odd couple:making se nse of the curious concep t ofknow ledge manageme nt. Jo urnal ofMal/agemel/t Studies,38(7), 995-\018.

Alavi M and Leidner, D E (\999), Knowledgemanagement sys tems: issu es, challenges,benefits, Coomun ications of AIS, Vol 1, No7, pp 2-41.

Baln & Compa ny (200 1) Ma1lagemeJl t tools .Boston, MA: Bain & Comp any . Availableat: h ttp:/ / w ww .bai n.com / bainweb/expertise/ tools/ overview .asp [Site visited\61h July 2002) (Note: this link is now 'dead'- for the 2003 report see: Rigby, D. (2003)

Kllowh'dge Mal Jagemellt ill Real Estnte COJlS llltmlCY Firms

i\'h11li.l~~ools, 2003, Boston, MA: Bainand Compa ny, Retrieved 25th October 2004from http:/ /www .ba in .com /management_tools / stra tegy_brief.pdf ]

Barson, R.j,; Foster, G,; Struc k, T.; Ratchev, S,;Pawar, K,; Weber, F,; Wunram, M" Inter­and Intra-Organisational Barriers to SharingKnowledge in the Extended Supply-Chain,In: Stanford -Smith, B. and Kidd , P.T. (Eds.).E-business: Key Issues, Applications andTechno logies. lOS Press, Amsterdam, Berlin,Oxford, Tokyo, Washington DC, 2000.

Beck er, M.e. (2001) Mana ging disp er sedkn owl ed ge : o rganizational problems,manageri al s tra tegi es, and theireffect iveness, [ourna! ofMn /lngemenf Studies,38(7),1037 -105l.

Bell, H (200 1), Mea s u ri ng a nd Ma nagin gKnowledge, McGraw Hill Co, Singapo re

Bonfield, P. (1999), Knowledge Managemen tStrategy of BT, Managing Information, Vol.6No.6.

Brandl, D., Hartmann, E., (Ed ito rial), (1999),Research Topics and Strateg ies in Socio­technical Sys tems, Huma n Factor andErgonomics in Manufacturing 9(3) 241­243,1999.

Brandt, D., Wunram, M.; Foster, G,; Mottaghian,S, Deli verab le D06 - Ide ntific a tio n ofBarriers, Result from the project CORMA ­Practical Methods and Too ls for CorporateKnowledge Manage ment. Projekt Nr. IST­1999-12685. Unpublished . 2000.

Dawson , L., Venn, M.L., & Gunter, P.L. (2000).The effects o f teacher versus compu terreading mod els, Behavioral Disorde rs, 25,105-113. .

Denning, S. (1998 ), WIJnI is knowl edgemanas emeut? fA backg round paper to theWorld De velo pme n t Report 1998l.www.steved enntng.com Available at:http:// ww w.stevede nning.com/ know ledge. htm[Site vis ited 16th October 2004)

Das, T & Teng. B.S (1998), Between Trust andControl: Developing confidence in partnerco o pe ra tio n in alliances , Academy o fMana gement Journal, 23 (3), 491-512.

Davenport, T., Prusak, L., Working Knowl edge- How Organizatio ns Mana ge what theyKnow, Harvard Business School Press,Boston, Massachusetts, 1998,

Eccles, R.G. & Crane, D.B., (1988), Doing Deals,Boston: Harvard Business School Press,

Elhag, T.M.S. and Boussaba ine, A. H. (1999)Evaluation of Construction Cost and TimeAttribu tes, in Proc. Of the 15th ARCOMConference, Vo1.2, Liverpool John MooresUniversity, PI" 473-480.

Pong, c.Y., (2003), Knowledge Stra tegies andPract ices in General Practi ce SurveyingFirm s (2003), proceedings of th e cmStude nts International Symposi um, TheHong Kong Polytechn ic University, 26th_27th

Sep tember 2003.Gottschalk P (1999), Know ledge managemen t

in the profess ions: lessons learned fromNorw egian law firm s , Journ al ofKnowledge Management, Vol 3, No 3, pp203-2t l.

ld ru s, A.B. and Ne w ma n, J.B. (200 2)Construction related factors influencing thecho ice o f co nc re te floor systems .Construction Management & Economics,20, PI" 13-19.

Kermal ly, S., (2002), Effective Know ledgeManage ment, Jo hn Wiley & Son s Ltd,Eng land

Malhotra, Y., (1998), Knowledge Managementfor the N ew World of Bus iness. As ianStrategy Leadershi p Institute Review, Vol.6, t998.

Ma tzd o rf, F. & Price, 1., (2000) , Barriers toOrganisational Learning in the CharteredSu rveying Profess ion, Pro pert yMan agement, 18 (2), 92-113.

McD ermott, R. a nd O ' De ll, e. (2001 ),Overcoming Culture Barriers to SharingKnow ledge, journal o f Know ledgeManage ment, Vol.5 No,1.

Mills, P.K., (1986), Managing Service Industries,Cambridg e MA: Balling er .

Nahapiet, J., & Choshal, S. (1998). Social capi tal,intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage. Academy of Mnnagemellt Reuieto,23(2), 242- 266.

Nonaka, 1.& Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledgecreatingcompany:IIOW/npnllt'secompnuh'screatetile dynasth's of innouation. Oxford: OxfordUnive rsity Press.

Pareto, V" Cours d' Econono mie J'olltlquc . vol.2, 1897, Pl' .370-72. In: Nor th, Gary ; Priori tiesand Domin ion - An economic Commen taryon Ma tthew, WWW-si.te(1 5.01.2001)(h1lJtiI ww w Jreebooks.col11/docs/html/gnma/chap te r27.h tm#N 4). (Site v is ite d 24thOctober 2004)

Pawar, K; Horton, A .: Gupta, A; Wunram, M.;Barson, R.j.; Weber, F. Inter-OrganisationalKnowl edge Management: Focus on HumanBarri ers in the Te lecom munica tionsIndustry, In: Conference Proceedings of the8th ISPE Interna tio na l Co nference o nConc urrent Engi neering: Reserach andApp lications, 28th July - 1st Aug ust 2001,Californ ia, USA. ISBN: 0-9710461-0-7, 2000.

33

Journal ofDesignand tlu: Built Environment

Picot, J. (2000). Meeting the need for educationalstandards in the practice of telemedicine andteleheallh. J Telemed Tclecare 2000;6 Suppl2:559-62.

Pru sak, L. (200 1) Wh e re did knowled gemanagem ent co me from? IBM Systems[ournnl, 40(4), 1002-1007. Ava ilable at h ttp: // www.research.ibm.com / journal/ sj/404/prusak .html [Site visited 24th October 2004J

Ruggles , R (1998) , Research d irections forkn owl edge managem.ent , CaliforniaManagement Review , Vol 40, No 3, pp 80·9.

Sa rn uells , J (200 1), l' u lt ing Know ledgeManagement to wo rk for Rea l Esta teOrganisation s, Real Estate Issues, Chicago,Soring 2001, Vo126, Iss I, pp 35-39.

Scarborough, H., Knowledge Management: ALiterature Rev iew , Institute of Personneland Development, 1999.

Sveiby, KarlErik (1997), The New OrganizationWeal th, Berrett-Koehl er Publish ers, SanFrancisco, CA.

Svclby . Karl Eri k (2001a) Wlin t is kllowledgemU1lugement? Brisbane: Sveiby KnowledgeAssocia tes . Available at: http :/ /w ww .sveiby.cOln/faq .htmlffWhatis [Sitevisited 26th October 2004J

34

Terret, A. (1998), Knowledge management andthe law fi rm, Journal o f KnowledgeMana gement, Vol. 2, No 1, pp 67-76.

Thomas, D.R., (1978), Strategy is Different inSer vice Businesses , Ha rvard Bus inessReview, 56(4), 158·65.

Wunram, M., Thoben, K.-D., Weber, F., (2001),To wards Pragma tic Approaches fo rKnowledge Management in Engineering ­Theory and Indu strial Ap pli cations. In:ICED2001 , l'roceedi ngs of th e 13thInternational Conference on EngineeringDesign ICED 01, Glasgow, UK, Aug ust 21­23,200l.

Wil son, T.D . (200 2) " The nonsense of'know ledge manage rncnr ' " InfonnationResea rch, 8(1), paper no . 144 [Available athttp : //lnformationR .n e t / ir / 8 -1 /paperl qa .html] ww w.unfpa.org

ISIS Ma la ysia (200 0), Knowl ed ge basedEconomy Master Plan - Strateg ic InitiativeOne of the 2P' Century, Makin g theQuantum Leap to the K-Based Economy, ISISMalaysia .