Construction Management and Economics (September 2005) 23, 747–756

Organizational learning: conceptual challenges from a

project perspective
PAUL CHAN1*, RACHEL COOPER2 and PATRICIA TZORTZOPOULOS2
1
School of the Built Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
2
Salford Centre for Research and Innovation (SCRI) in the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford,
Salford, UK

Received 13 May 2004; accepted 26 January 2005

Organizational learning has been widely acknowledged as holding the key for companies to survive and prosper
and has, in recent years, gained currency in construction management research. Much research centred upon
the study of organizational learning as a process, as well as the view and understanding of companies as learning
organizations. However, non-construction management researchers have recently begun to recognize the
incoherence of the concepts presented in the literature and identified a lack of a solid theoretical and empirical
foundation. To further exacerbate the challenge of embracing organizational learning in construction, the
industry is largely project-based, thus increasing the difficulties for organizational learning to occur. Past
research into organizational learning has also mainly concentrated on an intra-organizational perspective and
where construction is specifically concerned, on project partnering. However, we regard such a focus to be
myopic as a means of exploring organizational learning at the construction project level. As such, a number of
research challenges are recommended including the need to examine organizational learning beyond project
partnering; an emphasis on the inter-organizational dynamics involved in both the process and outcomes of
organizational learning and the investigation of construction projects as learning networks.

Keywords: Conceptual review, construction projects, learning organization, organizational learning

Introduction learning had hitherto focused on the study of compa-

nies, without paying attention to the project-based
Over the last decade, there has been a blossoming nature of the industry. Groák (1994) describes this
interest shown in the area of organizational learning inherent weakness as a ‘failure to recognise that the site
(e.g. Barlow and Jashapara, 1998; Holt et al., 2000; was the defining locus of production organization
Kululanga et al., 2001) within construction manage- (p. 288)’ and argued that analytic frameworks should
ment research. It has been widely recognised that appreciate that construction is ‘essentially organized
knowledge holds the key to success and that learning is around the project, not the firm’, and embrace the
vital for organizational survival and prosperity (e.g. legitimately ‘ad hoc’ nature of construction projects as
Argyris, 1991; Nonaka, 1991). Matching this rising ‘temporary coalitions in a turbulent environment
interest in organizational learning, however, is a requiring unpredictable (but inventable) configurations
growing dissatisfaction with the lack of clarity of the of supply industries and technical skills (p. 291)’. Yet,
concept of organizational learning and its often- by suggesting that ‘in aggregating projects up to ‘the
confusing association (and synonymy) with that of sector’… a technology paradigm may emerge, in
learning organization (e.g. Huysman, 2000; which concepts of… organizational learning take their
Lähteenmäki et al. 2001; Lipshitz et al., 2002). rightful place in our analyses’, Groák (1994) had
Furthermore, as the discussion of this paper unfolds, inadvertently raised the question as to whether organi-
it is felt that the research effort into organizational zational learning at the construction project level is
applicable. The fundamental aim of this paper, there-
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: [email protected] fore, is to review the salient points of the literature on
Construction Management and Economics
ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online # 2005 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/01446190500127021
748 Chan et al.

organizational learning, identify the gaps and seek to conceptual challenges particularly where construction
address the relevant issues surrounding the nature of projects are concerned.
construction projects. Our frustration stems from three areas: the abstract
and ambiguous nature of organizational learning, a lack
of empirical evidence and the impetus of learning as
Organizational learning and/or learning suggested by the literature.
organization
Nature of the concept
Organizational learning research has been taking two
main streams. The first views organizations as anthro- Lipshitz et al. (2002) acknowledged that ‘literature on
pomorphic entities that actually integrate individual organizational learning has not necessarily led to a
learning and translate it into action for the organiza- clearer understanding of what it means to be a learning
tion’s benefit; the second is concerned with the organization’ and suggested that ‘as with many issues in
identification of behaviours which inhibit or disable the social sciences, the more closely the phenomenon of
individual learning (Phillips, 2003). Examples of work organizational learning has been observed and studied,
dealing with the former include Kolb (1984) who the more complex and ambiguous it has become
(p. 79)’. Indeed, metaphors (e.g. organizational mem-
developed the oft-quoted experiential learning model;
ory) and analogies (e.g. Argyris’s (1991) use of a
Schön (1983/1991) who proposed moving from tech-
thermostat to explain the idea of single and double-loop
nical rationality to reflection-in-action; Argyris (1991)
learning) are commonly used in the ever-increasing
who examined the way professionals learn as indivi-
quest to expand the definition of the concept. While
duals and subsequently distinguished between
this may be necessary in developing the concept in the
espoused theory of action and theory-in-use; and
abstract sense, Armstrong (2000) feared that by
Dixon (1994) who charted the five categories of
concentrating on the abstract written language, we
organizational learning, namely information acquisi-
take ourselves away from the ‘sensual collaboration
tion, information distribution and interpretation,
with our world, essentially, and to our detriment,
making meaning out of information, organizational
letting the most of it fall out of focus (or ‘pincush-
memory and retrieval. On the other hand, contributors
ioned’) (p. 355)’.
towards understanding the conditions that influence Unsurprisingly, several commentators from the non-
learning include Senge (1990) whose five disciplines of construction field have recently called for conceptual
mental models, team learning, systems thinking, shared clarifications. Huysman (2000), for instance, indicated,
vision and personal mastery elevated the field of ‘in order to create a learning organization that is good
organizational learning both in the industrial and in organizational learning, we first need to have more
academic world; and Garvin (1993) who suggested conceptual understandings about processes of organi-
that fostering a conducive learning environment zational learning’, but accused the literature for being
meant that time was needed for reflection and analysis, too conceptual and insights ‘scattered and unordered’.
and that boundaries should be opened up to establish She went on to stress that ‘despite the growing number
a supportive environment strengthened by core of process-related publications, it still seems to be
learning skills. difficult to gain a solid understanding of the details of
According to Lähteenmäki et al. (2001), therefore, learning processes (p. 134)’. Armstrong (2000) sup-
‘the emphasis on organizational learning and learning ports this view by stating that ‘before we lobby for such
organization research has clearly been based on either an organization and begin construction… it would be
individual process research or on the organizational good to know just what it is we are building (ibid.)’.
conditions for learning (p. 114)’. They, however, Sun (2003) lamented, ‘unfortunately, in theory as well
postulated, ‘the aim of making a clear-cut separation as in practice, some people… are rather careless in
between an organizational learning process and the using the concepts of ‘organizational learning’, ‘learn-
elements of a learning organization (and vice versa), ing organizations’ and ‘a learning organization’’. Sun’s
and thus studying them whilst disconnected from each (2003) interesting methodology used language to seek
other has not… furthered the building of a holistic clarifications as he concluded ‘organizational learning
picture. Instead it has only led to the oversimpli- refers to the learning process of an organization and by
fication of a complex phenomenon (p. 115)’. This the organization in a collective (organizational) way’. In
oversimplication, we believe, represents the underlying this sense, Lähteenmäki et al. (2001) were appropriate
assumption that organizational learning should lead to in identifying their first conceptual gap by stating ‘too
the creation of a learning organization. Thus, we strive much emphasis on the learning of individuals instead of
to debate this link so as to put forward a number of on the learning of organizations’. Lipshitz et al. (2002)
Organizational learning 749

share this criticism as they recognised that there is still a products of their reflections are stored and dissemi-
gap to be reconciled, that of attributing ‘a human nated throughout an organization… consequently,
capacity (i.e. learning) to a non-human entity (i.e. an organizational learning cannot be properly understood
organization)’, for ‘while individual learning is primar- without using social, political and cultural lenses in
ily a cognitive process that occurs ‘inside people’s addition to cognitive lenses (p. 93; emphasis added)’.
heads’ and can be fairly well understood through Through synthesising organizational learning literature,
cognitive conceptual lenses, organization learning is a practitioner accounts and past experiences, Lipshitz
complex interpersonal process occurring through et al. (2002) came up with the five facets of organiza-
structural mechanisms in a social arena’. Put tional learning, namely contextual, policy, psychologi-
another way, both Lähteenmäki’s et al. (2001) and cal, cultural and structural facets, which are briefly
Lipshitz’s et al. (2002) concerns indicate the fact that explained below:
research has not yet achieved Sun’s (2003) clarification
of organizational learning as a collective learning N Contextual facet – refers to exogenous factors
process. that management either control indirectly or
Sun’s (2003) further clarification on ‘learning have no control at all. This includes what
organization’ is to unveil yet a more useful revelation. Lipshitz et al. (2002) term as error criticality
Accordingly, the term ‘learning organization’ can be (i.e. the immediacy and seriousness of the effects
viewed as either dynamic or static: the former being of errors), environmental uncertainty (i.e. the
an organization that is continually learning and the rate of change), task structure that is linked to the
latter being an organization that is for learning. feasibility of obtaining valid information and
This claim is in congruence with Lipshitz’s et al. people’s motivation to cooperate with colleagues
(2002) distinction between learning by the organization in learning, proximity to the organization’s core
and learning in the organization as they propose a mission, and leadership commitment to change
multifacet model of organizational learning to marry resulting from learning.
the two (see Figure 1). Lipshitz et al. (2002) posit that N Policy facet – distinguishes between formal and
‘learning by organizations occurs when individual informal steps taken by senior management to
learning in occurs within the context of Organizational promote organizational learning, and include
Learning Mechanisms (OLMs)1 that ensure that such measures as recognition and reward and
people get the information they need and that the the installation of OLMs.

Figure 1 Multifacet model of organisational learning (adapted from Lipshitz et al., 2002)
750 Chan et al.

N Psychological facet – encompasses psycho- more useful in analysing organization learning at the
construction project level. This would also be in line
logical safety, without which it would inhibit
personnel from taking the risk of learning; and with Groák’s (1994) remarks that ‘different sectors of
organizational commitment, without which it construction use fundamentally distinct resource and
would lead to reluctance of personnel to share skill bases’ as he reinforced the need to move away from
information and knowledge. ‘the idea of ‘one technology, one industry’ (p. 291)’.
N Cultural facet –defined as the norms that are Furthermore, placing the structural facet as the ends
as compared to the means is thought to be appropriate
likely to produce valid information and a
commitment to corrective action. This includes since it is noticed that much emphasis has thus far been
transparency (i.e. openness of one’s thoughts and focussed on the ‘systems-structured approach’ (noted
actions in order to receive feedback), integrity by Holt, 2000). Following Lipshitz’s et al. (2002) line
(i.e. collecting and providing information regard- of argument, this is deemed to be myopic. We
less of implications), issue orientation (i.e. incidentally observe that the academic discourse in
focussing on relevance of information regardless knowledge management, which is often associated with
of the social standing or rank of the recipient or organizational learning, tends to accentuate a struc-
the source), inquiry (i.e. persistence of investiga- tured approach. For instance, Stiles and Kulvisaechana
tion until full understanding is achieved) and (2003), when reviewing the link between human capital
accountability (i.e. assuming responsibility of and performance, began by stating that organizations
learning and implementation of lessons learnt). have ‘to leverage the skills and capabilities of its
N Structural facet – refers to the organizational employees by encouraging individual and organiza-
tional learning and creating a supportive environment
learning mechanisms that could either be inte-
grative (i.e. the person learning is also the person in which knowledge can be created, shared and applied
performing the task) or non-integrative (i.e. the (emphasis added)’. The distinction between organiza-
person learning is not the person performing a tional learning and knowledge management is even less
particular task). clear in a recent skills review by Bloom et al. (2004),
where they enmeshed ‘organizational learning, and
It is worth emphasising that the structural facet has knowledge creation, sharing, retention and management
been intentionally placed as the last of the five, not (emphasis added)’ when discussing knowledge manage-
because it is not important, but rather to follow the way ment systems. We prefer to take the view that knowl-
Lipshitz et al. (2002) mapped the five facets in their edge management is a subset of the holy grail of
original model, which was presented as a linear path organizational learning. By this token, the study of
(somewhat similar to a process map) starting with the organizational learning should encompass much more
contextual facet, connected by the policy, psychological than the structural underpinnings of knowledge man-
and cultural facets and culminating in the structural agement. Indeed, we share Wild’s (forthcoming)
facet. We have, however abandoned the ‘process’ insight that ‘the diffuseness of construction requires a
approach in favour of the one depicted in Figure 1 significant tacit order (emphasis added)’, but questions
above since, in our opinion, it is more useful to use the the assumption of knowledge management that ‘this is
conceptual framework to understand the attributes that (only) accessible to structured inquiry’. Therefore, it is
result in the ideals of learning organization as opposed believed the Lipshitz’s et al. (2002) Model offers, for
to defining and proving the causal links between the the first time, a holistic conceptual framework that
facets. Moreover, Lipshitz’s et al. (2002) conclusions could potentially explicate the links between organiza-
appear to support this point as they qualified that tional learning and learning organization beyond the
although ‘the cultural, psychological, policy and con- dominance of the structural approach.
textual facets mapped represent a step toward an
integrative theory of organizational learning, they do
Lack of empirical evidence
not denote a set of necessary conditions for learning;
that is, we do not hypothesise that all causal links in the Huysman (2000) emphasised ‘despite its popularity,
map must be realised in order for learning to occur. the ideas concerning the learning organization more
Rather, we assume that represents an ideal whereby often than not lack a solid theoretical as well as
each positive link increases the likelihood of organiza- empirical foundation (p. 133)’. Yet, the shortage of
tional learning (p. 93)’. They went on to suggest empirical evidence seems only natural. Lähteenmäki
‘different organizations can manage to learn et al. (2001: 114) exuded ‘the feeling that little has been
productively while enacting very different configura- done to develop valid measures for organizational
tions of the facets’. We therefore recommend that an learning’ and ascribed this to be ‘the reason for a
understanding of what these configurations might be striking lack of comprehensive empirical research in
Organizational learning 751

this area (see also Huber, 1991)’. They suggested that abound and include Barlow and Jashapara (1998)
since ‘the very concept itself still is vague… it is of who explored the role of partnering in fostering
course impossible to measure the phenomenon without organizational learning on construction projects; while
knowing what is’. Prencipe and Tell (2001) investigated inter-project
Indeed, much empirical research really represents learning processes and outcomes in project-based
the conduct of surveys (questionnaires, interviews) that firms. Szymczak and Walker (2003) also focussed on
are constructed to confirm a specific aspect of the organizational learning from a project perspective by
researcher’s chosen terms to understand the real world. studying the impact and potential of the Boeing
For instance, Martin (2001) used results from a series Company to better leverage knowledge from their
of interviews to show that female-owned/managed portfolio of projects. However, these studies have
firms are better at organizational learning than their largely been based on looking at organizational learning
male counterparts; Hodgkinson (2002) explored the from an intra-organizational perspective. With the
existence of shared strategic vision through focus group exception of Barlow and Jashapara (1998), the other
discussions with sixty middle managers over three two studies were merely extending the study of an
years; and Phillips (2003) utilised a questionnaire organization as a singleton to investigate learning at the
survey, administered to four functional employee levels, project level. Again, while the recommendations of
to investigate his ideal learning organization model Prencipe’s and Tell’s (2001) learning landscape (or the
comprising ten key characteristics, and so on. In spite mix of project-to-project learning mechanisms that a
of the value of these results in challenging the frontier firm can adopt and implement) and Szymczak’s and
of existing knowledge, it can surely be argued that Walker’s (2003) call for an enterprise project manage-
without a grounded conceptual framework, these ment culture may be insightful, they do not address the
observations merely contribute to the increased ambi- temporary multi-organizational nature of construction
guity and pincushioning mentioned earlier. projects since the focus was on a particular firm in the
Studies that appear to delve deeply into the concept design of their studies.
within organizations bear yet another major weakness – Barlow and Jashapara (1998), on the other hand,
the study of organizations as singletons. Sun (2003), in identified four key characteristics of construction
distinguishing between ‘learning organization’ and ‘a partnering projects that make organizational learning
learning organization’, construed the former ‘as a difficult to occur. They include (i) the inherent tensions
subject of scientific study and research’ and the latter and conflicts between clients and suppliers; (ii) the
being ‘a ‘living’ representative of the image of ‘learning ability to codify knowledge dependent on how long-
organization’ (p. 158)’ and established that of the term the partnering relationships are; (iii) the way
eleven principal definitions available on the concepts, knowledge is retained and distributed; and (iv) internal
he could not find any that categorically fall into the political and cultural environments that enable or
‘learning organization’ group. He rightly argued that inhibit communication structures. It is, however,
researchers have merely paid attention to ‘a learning disappointing that they did not go beyond this
organization’. Henderson and McAdam (2003), for identification to analyse the interorganizational per-
example, focussed on the internal communication spective that is most needed in construction projects.
process through an organizational learning perspective Rather, the manner of their reporting seem to place a
of a large electrical utility company in Northern greater emphasis on the portrayal of the client’s role in
Ireland. Whilst their research acknowledged the impor- organizational learning, as they observed ‘in the case
tance of change in the view of the external competitive studies, it was clear that most individual interviewees
environment, and consequent need for organizational claimed they had learned substantially from their
learning, it is regrettable that the researchers did not experiences’ and noted ‘arguably, however, this was
observe the effect the external environment had on the not always harnessed, especially in the smaller con-
learning and communication process. Despite having tractors and suppliers (p. 94)’. It is noticeable that their
clearly identified such external stakeholder relation- analysis has leaned towards the view of clients
ships as the link between power-generating bodies and spearheading organizational learning. However, it is
the company’s power procurement business unit, felt that the danger of such conclusions, without
Henderson and McAdam (2003) went no further than necessarily exploring much deeper into the issue of
to stick closely to an intra-organizational perspective. leadership of learning (i.e. who, if any, is responsible?)
This approach, we argue, is not appropriate for the on construction projects, is to deny construction
research challenge of looking at construction projects. firms the opportunity to aspire to become learning
It would, however, be naı̈ve to think that project- organizations. As far as it is known, Holmqvist (2003)
based organizational learning has never taken a foot- is the only one who has compared empirically the
hold in organizational learning research. Examples unique dynamics of interorganizational learning
752 Chan et al.

processes, although not specifically directed at a project (Findlay et al., 2000). This not only contradicts the
level that is similar to that of construction. earlier recommendation by Burnes et al. (2003) that
Thus, having recognised the lack of thorough learning should be the responsibility of everyone, but
empirical research into organizational learning, we are also, if Argyris’s (1991) argument that professionals do
convinced that the Lipshitz’s et al. (2002) Model is not necessarily know how to learn well were to hold
again potentially valuable in providing the necessary true, then the integration of lower-level employees,
solid theoretical underpinning. Moreover, it is crucial which is currently lacking, would be a worthy cause to
that the pursuit of empirical evidence should transcend pursue. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that
the current prevalence of the intra-organizational whereas much of the literature seem to acknowledge
perspective to take into account the interorganiza- the benefits of organizational learning to ensure an
tional dynamics that is highly appropriate in the study organization’s survival and secure its competitive
of organizational learning at the construction project advantage, few have examined deeply the benefits to
level. the individual employee. Findlay et al. (2000) were one
of the few who accepted that the purpose of learning
should be for the mutual gains of both the organization
Impetus for organizational learning
and the individuals within. More recently, Nyhan et al.
The aspiration of organizational learning originates (2004) presented a European perspective on the
chiefly from change, particularly on strategic change, as concept of organizational learning and blamed modern
Burnes et al. (2003) illustrate that the four common management for ‘not paying a great deal of attention to
propositions of organizational learning relate to change ensuring personal learning benefits for employees and
and degree of instability of the environment and the workers’ and envisaged a repetition of the ‘reality for
need for, and ability of, the organization to cope with many workers, today, is a reincarnation of Taylorism in
such change. As Burnes et al. (2003) summarise ‘these the form of neo-Taylorism (p. 69)’. In fact, Thursfield
propositions are based on arguments put forward by (2001) maintained that Taylorism is still very much in
proponents of organizational learning that change is existence in today’s workplace and observed, through
now so fast and so prevalent that if organizations fail to three manufacturing case studies, that while companies
keep pace with it they will not survive, and the speed accept the need to develop the skills of workers
and prevalence of change is such that it cannot be (arguably a personal learning benefit), this is often
managed in the traditional manner by a few senior merely the payment of lip service for the companies
managers, but must become the responsibility of observed tend to put off training due to the pressures of
everyone in the organization (p. 453)’. Indeed, we meeting schedules. Indeed, it is felt that construction
observe the abundance of research aimed at learning to companies that claim to advocate organizational learn-
cope with change, so-called adaptive learning. ing could be labelled as hypocritical given the industry’s
However, several writers, e.g. Bennett (1998) have lacklustre attitude towards training in the first place.
noted that ‘learning can be adaptive or generative’ and Second, since change is accepted to be fast-paced
defined the former as ‘that which enables the organiza- and uncertain, the spotlight has mainly shone on the
tion to do better what the organization is currently process of learning, rather than the outcomes. The
doing’ and the latter as that which ‘challenges and resulting abstract notion of knowledge and the claim
redefines the basic requirements of the tasks and how that organizations should be knowledge-centred, with-
they should be undertaken (p. 7)’. See also Senge out saying what is that is specifically to be learnt, does
(1990), Argyris (1991) and Huemer and Östergren little in achieving the aspiration of a learning organiza-
(2000) among others. Murray (2002) went further to tion. It is here that we believe that there should be a link
suggest that there is currently an incomplete cycle of between (generative) organizational learning and skills
organizational learning as he coined the term and competencies (as learning outcomes). Yet, where
‘unbounded learning’ and demanded that ‘the culture skills and competencies are concerned, Scarbrough
of the business will need to change from one that is (1998) similarly puts forward another flaw, that the
established purely on adaptive learning to one accom- resource-based view of the firm results in a weak link
modating both adaptive and generative learning between competencies and performance, as he pur-
(p. 242)’. Nonetheless, it is felt that the focus placed ports, ‘little attempt to demonstrate the mechanical
on adaptive learning could lead to two detrimental links, between competencies and performance, other
outcomes. than in the broad terms of the root and branch
First, because the perceived cause for the need to metaphor propounded by Prahalad and Hamel
learn comes mainly from strategic change, much of the (1990) (p. 224, original emphasis)’. Consequently,
focus has inevitably been targeted on managers with ‘theorists attempt only the sketchiest account of the
very little studies on employees at the lower levels nature of resources and competencies, preferring to
Organizational learning 753

identify them inductively from evidence on a firm’s consider the wider benefits of organizational learning to
functional outputs or competitive advantage (ibid.: the individual, which should extend to all employees,
223)’. In terms of organizational learning, it has been and not just the current linkages to white-collar
observed that the link between learning and perfor- professionals or firm performance. We recommend
mance tends to manifest chiefly in the name of that a connection between learning and the definition
continuous improvement (e.g. Kululanga et al., 2001; of skills and competencies might be a plausible way
Murray and Chapman, 2003). Yet, we share forward.
Scarbrough’s (1998) comment that the resultant
sketchy accounts from the plethora of studies sub-
sequently fails to gain a plausible consensus. We like to Challenges from a construction project
use the analogy of school education and argue that perspective
while it is important to consider continuous assessment
(continuous improvement in an organizational sense), This section highlights a number of gaps that could
it is equally important for the student to know what s/he potentially serve as drivers for further research, based
gets out at the end of the course (a school qualification, on the discussion so far; and relates to the issues
vocational qualification, degree, a certificate etc.). In surrounding construction projects.
the same fashion, to resolve Scarbrough’s (1998)
mechanical link or lack thereof, it seems reasonable The leadership dynamics of interorganizational
that learning is tied to its outcomes of defining the skills learning
and competencies base of the individual and thereby,
the organization. Sadly, we identify no studies so far Given the inherent interorganizational nature of con-
that attempt to tackle such definition in the under- struction projects, embarking on an empirical investi-
standing of organizational learning. gation raises a major issue of leadership and power.
Perhaps Garratt (1999) was right to alert us to the Holmqvist (2003) found that intra-organizational
fact that in his opinion, ‘I have never yet met a learning learning (i.e. learning within an organization) at a
organization’, as he pointed out that many companies software company appeared to occur much quicker at
want a quick fix, ‘often by the next month (p. 206)’. the outset than interorganizational learning (i.e. learn-
Armstrong (2000) resigned bluntly to the fact that ‘we ing across companies, as would be the case in
have pincushioned our attention on science and the construction projects). This was found to be a direct
intellect as that which exclusively will lead to increased consequence of the ability and dominance of manage-
performance and productivity, to organizational long- ment to direct employees’ working culture within a
evity, to the good life’ and accused the learning company, whereas there was a tendency for the same
organization for being ‘a pimp, and the employees, management personnel to avoid imposing their value
the hapless prostitutes (p. 359)’, striking a moral system on a project team made up of members from a
argument against organizational learning. It is our range of organizations other than their own. Although
intention to provoke further reflection on the impetus the study was limited to a single non-construction
for organizational learning and suggest that future case study, this finding bears significance for con-
research must place more emphasis on the fulfilment struction companies aspiring to be learning organiza-
that organizational learning might accrue to individual tions for construction projects are temporary
workers. It is our firm belief that the development of multi-organizations (Cherns and Bryant, 1984). At
individual skills and competencies exemplifies a core face value, the issue of leadership of learning in
learning benefit. construction projects could have implications on say,
This section has outlined organizational learning as the policy facet of the model proposed above. For
an elusive concept that, we believe, would continue to instance, as unlikely as it may be, would it be the client
be fuzzy without a solid theoretical basis. We accept who takes the lead in laying down the policy for
that the Lipshitz’s et al. (2002) Model could provide learning as Barlow’s and Jashapara’s (1998) findings
this basis. In using the model to understand the seem to suggest? Or would it be a case of distributed
attributes of the learning organization and the extent leadership running along the entire design and con-
of organizational learning, however, is insufficient to struction process, which then begs the question of how
claim the applicability of the concept in construction. such distributed leadership is going to be managed
We have established that there needs to be more smoothly, particularly at the interfaces? Also, if the
emphasis on projects as the unit of organizational result of organizational learning were to increase an
analysis, and consequently, a requirement for more organization’s competitive advantage, e.g. in terms of
research focus on the interorganizational dynamics cost advantage through leveraging a (presumably)
involved. Moreover, we call for future research to inimitable bundle of skills and expertise as intimated
754 Chan et al.

by Walker (2002) and Walker et al. (2002), this raises of the fundamental motivating purpose should be the
issues as to which organization (the client, the desire to learn. Simons et al. (2003) added that one
contractor, the supply chain etc.) owns this competitive should distinguish between a community of practice
advantage? Or would it be safe to assume equal and a community of learning. This boils down to the
ownership, and if so, what happens to this advantage key question raised earlier on the output of learning.
during the likely event that organizations might We urge practitioners, therefore, to look beyond the
compete against each other for the next project? current emphasis on organizational performance and
Empirical studies, therefore, would help shed light on continuous improvement and embrace the vision of a
these dynamic interactions. community of learning. In so doing, we reiterate our
genuine concerns that the benefits of learning to
individual workers in the form of the development of
Organizational learning: a sine qua non for
skills and competencies as an outcome of learning
partnering or vice versa?
should be pondered upon.
Much of the construction-related studies into organiza-
tional learning have been centred on strategic partner-
ing alliances (e.g. Barlow and Jashapara, 1998; Holt Conclusions
et al., 2000; Kululanga et al., 2001; Cheng et al., 2004).
Does this mean, therefore, that for organizational In conclusion, this paper has offered a critical review of
learning to take place at the project level, that recent literature within the area of organizational
partnering should be a pre-requisite? Thence, does this learning and found that the concept remains abstract,
imply that companies that do not partner do not engage vague and incoherent. Further, it was discovered
in organizational learning? If so, Kululanga’s et al. that empirical foundation is lacking, especially in
(2001) claim that organizations that ‘stop learning stop terms of viewing from an organizational learning
living’ seem like a severe outcome, that even their perspective at a construction project level. It was
recommendation to move from a state of no organiza- proposed that Lipshitz’s et al. (2002) multifaceted
tional learning to one of learning would literally imply a model of organizational learning be adapted to seek
resurrection from the dead. Nonetheless, it is perhaps empirical evidence of organizational learning in
worthwhile to investigate the different degrees of construction projects. Finally, the paper puts forward
organizational learning on different project configura- a number of research challenges that is to be addressed
tions. This, we suggest, is what the proposed model in future work. These include the need to emphasise
stands to offer as a basis for comparison. the interorganizational dynamics involved in both the
process and outcomes of organizational learning, the
consideration of organizational learning beyond part-
Strategic or operational change?
nering and the shift towards viewing projects as
Earlier discussions on organizational learning research learning networks.
have revealed an emphasis on strategic change.
However, at a project level, it is perhaps more
accurate and appropriate to talk about operational Note
change rather than strategic change. What therefore, if
any, are the unique differences between strategic and 1. Lipshitz et al. (2002) locate Organizational Learning
operational change and so, what are the implications Mechanisms (OLMs) within the structural facet of their
for learning? model. They believe that both individual and organiza-
tional learning involve the processing of information.
However, while it is possible to study how individuals
Projects as ‘learnt’ organizations or ‘learning process information given the identifiable attributes of
networks’? the nervous systems in living organizms, OLMs there-
fore are observable organizational subsystems in which
Last, but not least, is organizational learning sustain- members interact for the purpose of learning. A
able from a project perspective? Or would the case be common OLM cited is the after-action or post-project
that projects become ‘learnt’ organizations, rather than review.
‘learning organizations’? Also, could projects be set up
as ‘learning networks’, similar to that of Wenger’s
(2000) community of practice? However, Coughlan References
et al. (2002) have observed, while reporting on such a
network as the National Action Learning Programme Amstrong, H. (2000) The learning organization: changed
(NALP), that to ensure success of these networks, one means to an unchanged end. Organization, 7(2), 355–61.
Organizational learning 755

Argyris (1991) Teaching smart people how to learn, in Huber, G.P. (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing
Harvard Business School (ed.) (1998) Harvard Business processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1),
Review on Knowledge Management, 81–108. 88–115.
Barlow, J. and Jashapara, A. (1998) Organizational Huemer, K. and Östergren, K. (2000) Strategic change
learning and inter-firm ‘partnering’ in the UK construc- and organizational learning in two ‘Swedish’ construc-
tion industry. The Learning Organization, 5(2), tion firms. Construction Management and Economics, 18,
86–98. 635–42.
Bennett, R. (1998) Charities, organizational learning Huysman, M. (2000) An organizational learning approach to
and market orientation: a suggested measure of the the learning organization. European Journal of Work and
propensity to behave as a learning organization. Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 133–45.
Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: experience as the
4(1), 5–25. source of learning and development, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Bloom, N., Conway, N., Mole, K., Möslein, K., Neely, A. Cliffs, NJ.
and Frost, C. (2004) Solving the skills gap: summary report Kululanga, G.K., Edum-Fotwe, F.T. and McCaffer, R.
from a C.I.H.E./A.I.M. management research forum. (2001) Measuring construction contractors’ organi-
Burnes, B., Cooper, C. and West, P. (2003) Organizational zational learning. Building Research and Information, 29(1),
learning: the new management paradigm? Management 21–9.
Decision, 41(5), 452–64. Lähteenmäki, S., Toivonen, J. and Mattila, M. (2001)
Cheng, E.W.L., Li, H., Love, P. and Irani, Z. (2004) A Critical aspects of organizational learning research and
learning culture for strategic partnering in construction. proposals for its measurement. British Journal of
Construction Innovation, 4, 53–65. Management, 12, 113–29.
Cherns, A.B. and Bryant, D.T. (1984) Studying the client’s Lipshitz, R., Popper, M. and Friedman, V.J. (2002) A
role in construction. Construction Management and multifacet model of organizational learning. Journal of
Economics, 2, 177–84. Applied Behavioural Science, 38(1), 78–98.
Coughlan, P., Coghlan, D., Dromgoole, T., Duff, D., Martin, L. (2001) Are women better at organizational
Caffrey, R., Lynch, K., Rose, I., Stack, P., McGill, A. learning? An SME perspective. Women in Management
and Sheridan, P. (2002) Effecting operational Review, 16(6), 287–96.
improvement through inter-organizational action Murray, P. (2002) Cycles of organizational learning: a
learning. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(3), conceptual approach. Management Decision, 40(3), 239–47.
131–40. Murray, P. and Chapman, R. (2003) From continuous
Dixon, N. (1994) The Organizational Learning Cycle: how we improvement to organizational learning: developmental
can learn collectively, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead. theory. The Learning Organization, 10(5), 272–82.
Findlay, P., McKinlay, A., Marks, A. and Thompson, P. Nonaka, I. (1991) The knowledge creating company, in
(2000) Labouring to learn: organizational learning and Harvard Business School (ed.) (1998) Harvard Business
mutual gains. Employee Relations, 22(5), 485–502. Review on Knowledge Management, 21–45.
Garratt, B. (1999) The learning organization 15 years on: Nyhan, B., Cressey, P., Tomassini, M., Kelleher, M. and
some personal reflections. The Learning Organization, 6(5), Poell, R. (2004) European perspectives on the learning
202–6. organization. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(1),
Garvin, D.A. (1993) Building a learning organization, in 67–92.
Harvard Business School (ed.) (1998). Harvard Business Phillips, B.T. (2003) A four-level learning organization
Review on Knowledge Management, 47–80. benchmark implementation model. The Learning
Groák, S. (1994) Is construction an industry? Notes Organization, 10(2), 98–105.
towards a greater analytic emphasis on external Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990) The core competence
linkages. Construction Management and Economics, 12, of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, May–June,
287–93. 79–91.
Henderson, J. and McAdam, R. (2003) Adopting a Prencipe, A. and Tell, F. (2001) Inter-project learning:
learning-based approach to improve internal commu- processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in
nications: a large utility experience. International project-based firms. Research Policy, 30, 1373–94.
Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(7), Scarbrough, H. (1998) Path(ological) dependency? Core
774–94. competencies from an organizational perspective. British
Hodgkinson, M. (2002) A shared strategic vision: dream or Journal of Management, 9, 219–32.
reality? The Learning Organization, 9(2), 89–95. Schön, D.A. (1983/1991) The Reflective Practitioner: how profes-
Holmqvist, M. (2003) Intra- and interorganizational learning sionals think in action, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, Hants.
processes: an empirical comparison. Scandinavian Journal Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of
of Management, 19, 443–66. learning organization, Doubleday Dell, New York.
Holt, G.D., Love, P.E.D. and Li, H. (2000) The learning Simons, P.R.J., Germans, J. and Ruijters, M. (2003) Forum
organization: toward a paradigm for mutually beneficial for organizational learning: combined learning at work,
strategic construction alliances. International Journal of organizational learning and training in new ways. Journal of
Project Management, 18, 415–21. European Industrial Training, 27(1), 41–8.
756 Chan et al.

Stiles, P. and Kulvisaechana, S. (2003) Human Capital and Walker, D.H.T. (2002) Enthusiasm, commitment and
Performance: a literature review, Judge Institute of project alliancing: an Australian experience. Construction
Management, University of Cambridge. Innovation, 2, 15–31.
Sun, H.C. (2003) Conceptual clarifications for ‘organizational Walker, D.H.T., Hampson, K. and Peters, R. (2002) Project
learning’, ‘learning organization’ and ‘a learning organization’. alliancing vs project partnering: a case study of the
Human Resource Development International, 6(2), 153–66. Australian National Museum project. Supply Chain
Szymczak, C.C. and Walker, D.H.T. (2003) Boeing – a Management, 7(2), 83–91.
case study example of enterprise project management Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of practice and social
from a learning organization perspective. The Learning learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–46.
Organization, 10(3), 125–37. Wild, A. (2005) Uncertainty and information in construction:
Thursfield, D. (2001) Employees’ perceptions of skill and from the socio-technical perspective 1962–66 to knowledge
some implications for training in three UK manufacturing management. What have we learnt?, in Kazi, A.S. (ed.)
firms. Human Resource Development International, 4(4), Knowledge Management in the Construction Industry: a socio-
503–19. technical perspective, Idea Group Inc., Hershey, USA.