Knowledge Value Chain' Framework For Tendering in Construction Organisations: Quantity Surveying Perspective

‘KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN’ FRAMEWORK FOR
TENDERING IN CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATIONS:

QUANTITY SURVEYING PERSPECTIVE
Kaveesha Gihani Dewagoda
(142618 F)
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

Honours Degree of Bachelor of Science in Quantity Surveying
Department of Building Economics
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
November 2018
DECLARATION
I declare that this is my own work and this dissertation does not incorporate without
acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a Degree or Diploma in any
other University or institute of higher learning and to the best of my knowledge and
belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another
person except where the acknowledgement is made in the text.
Further, I acknowledge the intellectual contribution of my research supervisor

Chartered Quantity Surveyor Professor (Mrs.) Kanchana Perera for the successful
completion of this research dissertation. I affirm that I will not make any publication
from this research without the name of my research supervisor as contributing author
unless otherwise I have obtained written consent from my supervisor.
Also, I hereby grant to University of Moratuwa the non-exclusive right to reproduce

and distribute my dissertation, in whole or in part in print, electronic or other medium.
I retain the right to use this content in whole or part in future works such as articles or
books.
…………………………….. ………………….……...
Dewagoda K.G. Date
I hereby acknowledge that Kaveesha Gihani Dewagoda has followed the dissertation
process for the Bachelors Dissertation set by the Department of Building Economics
under my supervision.
…………………………….. ………………………...
Ch. QS Prof. (Mrs.) Kanchana Perera Date
Dissertation Supervisor
i
‘Knowledge Value Chain’ Framework for Tendering in Construction
Organisations: Quantity Surveying Perspective
ABSTRACT
‘Knowledge’ is considered as a crucial organisational asset stimulating competitive advantage.
Henceforth, Knowledge Management (KM) is a critical element in organisations to drive
towards the competitive edge. Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) is a derivative of KM,
based on Porter’s value chain, to facilitate the outright exploitation of competitive potential of
KM. A KVCM constitutes of a series of value adding knowledge related actions or stages,
processed in order to yield competitive advantage. Besides, construction industry is a
knowledge-intensive industry associated with knowledge-intensive professionals such as
Quantity Surveyors (QSs). Tendering is a paramount undertaking in construction, via which
construction organisations win jobs. Nevertheless, a proper mechanism to employ
organisational knowledge to attain competitive advantage at competitive tendering is lacking
within the extant literature, despite its industrial requirement. Thus, the study aimed at
developing a KVC framework for the tendering process in construction organisations through
quantity surveying perspective, in order to gain competitive advantage. The research
apprehends a qualitative approach inclusive of ten (10) expert interviews (Phase I) and three
(03) case studies (Phase II), analysed manoeuvring manual content analysis.
The literature review and Phase I interviews established the knowledge-intensiveness of the
construction industry and QSs and further emphasising the need for such a model for
construction organisations, along with formulating the foundation for the framework
development. Subsequently, the formulated KVC framework based on case studies at Phase II
elaborates three (03) options based on organisational specifics of the cases, via which the
framework can propagate. Improvement of the technological capacity, assigning
knowledgeable personnel for model operation, encouraging practical implementation of
framework at organisational level, along with research and development are recommended in
advance for the study.
Key Words: Knowledge, Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM), Construction, Tendering,
Quantity Surveyor (QS)
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation

to my beloved parents
for their immense love
and endless sacrifices
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
On this moment of submission of my dissertation, I would like to express my sincere

gratitude to all the individuals who supported me throughout my journey, inspiring
and encouraging myself.
First and foremost, I express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Chartered Quantity

Surveyor Professor (Mrs.) Kanchana Perera for her utmost guidance, assistance and
confidence towards me in succeeding the research. I am indebted to my supervisor for
steering me in the right the direction throughout the process. Further, I extend my
heartiest gratitude to Ms. Abiramy Sivakumar for her assistance.
I would also like to acknowledge the Head of the department, Dr. (Mrs.) Yasangika
Sandanayake and all the staff members of the Department of Building Economics,
University of Moratuwa for the immense assistance and guidance during the course of
this research and throughout the four years of my academic career. My sincere
gratitude is also extended towards all the members of non-academic staff of the
Department of Building Economics for their support.
Furthermore, I express my indebtedness to all the experts who were involved in Phase
I and Phase II of the data collection process, sharing their valuable knowledge and
experience. Without their passionate participation and input, the study could not have
been successfully conducted.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my beloved parents, my family, my friends
and all my well-wishers for supporting me in countless ways throughout this
dissertation and my life.
Dewagoda K.G.
November 2018
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .......................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................ iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ........................................................................................... xiii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Aim and Objectives ............................................................................................ 3
1.3.1 Aim ............................................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Objectives ................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 4
1.4.1 Literature review ......................................................................................... 4
1.4.2 Phase I: Expert interviews .......................................................................... 4
1.4.3 Phase II: Case studies.................................................................................. 4
1.4.4 Discussion ................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Scope and Limitations........................................................................................ 5
1.6 Chapter Breakdown ........................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 02 .............................................................................................................. 6
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 6
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6
v
2.2 Knowledge and Knowledge Management (KM) ............................................... 6
2.2.1 Knowledge .................................................................................................. 6
2.2.2 Classification of knowledge ........................................................................ 8
2.2.3 Knowledge as an organisational asset ......................................................... 8
2.2.4 Knowledge Management (KM) .................................................................. 9
2.3 Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) ....................................................... 10
2.3.1 Porter’s value chain model and competitive advantage ............................ 11
2.3.2 Concept of Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) ............................. 12
2.3.3 Gaining competitive advantage via Knowledge Value Chain (KVC) ...... 12
2.4 Different Types of Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) ..................... 14
2.4.1 Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) based on Knowledge

Management (KM) frameworks ........................................................................ 15
2.4.2 Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) based on Data-Information-

Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy............................................................ 18
2.4.3 Other Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) ................................... 22
2.5 Knowledge and Construction ........................................................................... 25
2.5.1 Role of knowledge in the construction industry ....................................... 25
2.5.2 Significance of tacit knowledge in construction organisations ................. 27
2.5.3 Significance of project knowledge in construction organisations ............ 28
2.5.4 Lessons learned practices in construction organisations........................... 28
2.5.5 Role of knowledge in the tendering process ............................................. 29
2.6 Knowledge and Quantity Surveying ................................................................ 30
2.6.1 Role of a quantity surveying in the tendering process .............................. 30
2.6.2 Role of knowledge in quantity surveying ................................................. 31
2.7 Novelty of the Research ................................................................................... 32
vi
2.8 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................... 33
2.9 Summary .......................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER 03 ............................................................................................................ 36
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 36
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Research Paradigms ......................................................................................... 36
3.3 Research Approach .......................................................................................... 36
3.4 Research Method ............................................................................................. 37
3.4.1 Data collection techniques ........................................................................ 37
3.4.2 Data analysis techniques ........................................................................... 38
3.5 Research Validation ......................................................................................... 39
3.5.1 Construct validity ...................................................................................... 39
3.5.2 Internal validity ......................................................................................... 39
3.5.3 External validity ........................................................................................ 39
3.5.4 Reliability .................................................................................................. 39
3.6 Research Process .............................................................................................. 40
3.7 Summary .......................................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 04 ............................................................................................................ 41
4.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ....................................................... 41
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 41
4.2 Phase I: Expert Interviews ............................................................................... 41
4.2.1 Objectives of Phase I (Expert interviews)................................................. 41
4.2.2 Interviewee details of Phase I (Expert interviews) ................................... 42
4.2.3 Findings and analysis of Phase I (Expert interviews) ............................... 43
4.2.4 Knowledge-intensiveness of the construction industry ............................ 43
vii
4.2.5 Competitive strategies of construction organisations at tendering ........... 44
4.2.6 Knowledge as a key asset in construction organisations .......................... 45
4.2.7 Importance of tacit knowledge in construction organisations .................. 46
4.2.8 Importance of project knowledge in construction organisations .............. 46
4.2.9 Construction organisations as learning organisations ............................... 47
4.2.10 Contribution of Quantity Surveyors (QSs) to competitive advantage .... 47
4.2.11 Impact of knowledge on quantity surveying and competitive advantage 48
4.2.12 Mapping Quantity Surveyors (QSs) with Knowledge Worker (KW) and
Decision Maker (DM) classification .................................................................. 49
4.2.13 Applicability of Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) for the

tendering process in construction organisations ................................................ 50
4.2.14 Summary of Phase I (Expert interviews) ................................................ 51
4.3 Development of the Intermediate Model ......................................................... 52
4.3.1 Allotting features from the literature and input from Phase I interviews . 52
4.3.2 Compilation of options list for case study purposes ................................. 55
4.3.3 Characteristics of the intermediate model ................................................. 56
4.3.4 Summary of intermediate model development ......................................... 56
4.4 Phase II: Case Studies ...................................................................................... 57
4.4.1 Objectives of Phase II (Case studies) ........................................................ 57
4.4.2 Background of case studies ....................................................................... 57
4.4.3 Interviewee details of Phase II (Case studies) .......................................... 59
4.4.4 Findings and analysis of Phase II (Case studies) ...................................... 60
4.4.5 Within case analysis: Case CS.01 ............................................................. 61
viii
4.4.8 Cross case analysis .................................................................................... 70
4.4.9 Summary of Phase II (Case studies) ......................................................... 78
4.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 78
4.5.1 Discussion of Phase I (Expert interview) findings ................................... 78
4.5.2 Discussion of Phase II (Case studies) findings ......................................... 79
4.6 Summary .......................................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER 05 ............................................................................................................ 82
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 82
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 82
5.2 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 82
5.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 85
5.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 85
5.5 Further Research .............................................................................................. 85
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX A: EXPERT INTERVIEW GUIDELINE ........................................... 111
APPENDIX B: INTERMEDIATE MODEL ........................................................... 121
APPENDIX C: ILLUSTRATION OF KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN MODEL
(KVCM) COMPONENTS ....................................................................................... 122
APPENDIX D: CASE STUDY INTERVIEW GUIDELINE ................................. 133
APPENDIX E: KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION (KP) SIDE OF CS.02 AND CS.03
.................................................................................................................................. 141
APPENDIX F: KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN MODEL (KVCM) OF CS.02 ... 142
APPENDIX G: KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN MODEL (KVCM) OF CS.03 .. 143
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1: DIKW hierarchy 7
Figure 2.2: Porter’s Generic Value Chain 11
Figure 2.3: Descriptive Model Interpretation of the Links between KM and Value
Creation 14
Figure 2.4: Weggeman’s KVCM 15
Figure 2.5: Ermine’s (2013) KVCM 18
Figure 2.6: T. Powell’s (2001) KVCM 19
Figure 2.7: King and Ko's (2001) KVCM 20
Figure 2.8: Spinello's (1998) KVCM 22
Figure 2.9: Eustace’s (2003) KVCM 23
Figure 2.10: Y. L. Chen et al.’s (2004) KVCM 23
Figure 2.11: Theoretical Framework 34
Figure 3.1: Research Process 40
Figure 4.1: Framework Development of the KP Side of CS.01 62
Figure 4.2: KVCM for CS.01 64
Figure 4.3: Proposed States in the DM Side by CS2.C in CS.02 66
Figure 4.4: KVC Framework 73
x
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1: Characteristics and Differences of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge 8
Table 2.2: Sources Identifying Knowledge as an Organisational Asset 9
Table 2.3: Definitions of KM 10
Table 2.4: Assumptions Formulated by Carlucci et al. (2004) 13
Table 2.5: Comparison of Porter Type KVCMs 16
Table 2.6: Summary of KVCMs Based on KM Frameworks 17
Table 2.7: Summary of KVCMs Based on DIKW Hierarchy 21
Table 2.8: Summary of Other KVCM Models 24
Table 2.9: Classification of Construction Knowledge 26
Table 4.1: Profile of Phase I (Expert Interviewees) 42
Table 4.2: Reasons for the Knowledge-Intensiveness of Construction Industry 43
Table 4.3: Types of Competitive Advantage Adopted by Construction Organisations

44
Table 4.4: Examples for the Importance of Project Knowledge 47
Table 4.5: ‘KW’ and ‘DM’ Classification of Quantity Surveying Levels 49
Table 4.6: Expert Opinion on the Application of KVCM to Construction Organisations

51
Table 4.7: Sources of Attributes included in the Intermediate Model 53
Table 4.8: Background of Cases 58
Table 4.9: Profile of Case Study Interviewees 60
Table 4.10: Organisational Attributes of the Cases 71
Table 4.11: Conclusions on Organisational Specifics 72
Table 4.12: Barriers and Challenges in Application of KVCM in the Construction

Industry 77
Table 4.13: Value Creation in Construction Organisations via Business performance
Models 80
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Description
CIDA Construction Industry Development Authority
COO Chief Operating Officer
CQS Chief Quantity Surveyor
DIKW Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom
DM Decision Maker
GQS Graduate Quantity Surveyor
KM Knowledge Management
KP Knowledge Production
KU Knowledge Utilization
KVC Knowledge Value Chain
KVCM Knowledge Value Chain Model
KW Knowledge Worker
PBO Project-Based Organisation
PM Project Manager
PMD Project Management Division
QS Quantity Surveyor
RBV Resource Based View
RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
SQS Senior Quantity Surveyor
VE Value Engineering
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Description Page
APPENDIX A Expert Interview Guideline 111
APPENDIX B Intermediate Model 121
APPENDIX C Illustration of Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM)

Components 122
APPENDIX D Case Study Interview Guideline 133
APPENDIX E Knowledge Production (KP) Side of CS.02 and CS.03 141
APPENDIX F Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) of CS.02 142
APPENDIX G Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) of CS.03 143
xiii
CHAPTER 01
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Knowledge is reality viewed from a specific perspective, which contributes towards

existence of multi-dimensions depending on the context (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003).
Hence, knowledge is ‘idiosyncratic’ in nature, wherein the value is closely related to
the context it is being used (Carlucci, Marr, & Schiuma, 2004). Knowledge is
recognized as a crucial organisational resource discerning competitive advantage
(Beijerse, 1999). Thus, organisations engage in Knowledge Management (KM) in
order to gear knowledge internally and externally to create value from intangible assets
of an organisation (Montano et al., 2001). KM reformed similar to ‘English language’,
abstracting vocabularies, concepts, models and approaches from other disciplines
(Lambe, 2011). KM is now being considered as a social process of knowledge creation
via discretionary inter-organisational and intra-organisational knowledge sharing
(Tzortzaki & Mihiotis, 2014).
Holsapple and Singh (2001) asserted the need of Knowledge Value Chain Model
(KVCM) as a KM framework, which enables the identification of value adding KM
activities to effect exploitation of competitive potential of KM. KVCM is a derivative
of the application of Porter’s value chain model to the knowledge context (King & Ko,
2001). Almarabeh, Abuali, Alsharrab, and Alkareem (2009), Carlucci et al. (2004),
Holsapple and Singh (2001), C. C. Lee and Yang (2000), L. C. Wang and Ahamed
(2005), and Weggeman (1997) have introduced KVCMs based on KM processes. On
the other hand, the authors; Ermine (2013), King and Ko (2001), and T. Powell (2001)
have initiated KVCMs based on Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW)
hierarchy. In addition, Y. L. Chen, Yang, and Lin (2004), Eustace (2003), Roper, Du,
and Love (2008), Spinello (1998), and Y. Xu and Bernard (2010) have also proposed
diversified frameworks for KVCM. Accordingly, every organisation constitutes of a
Knowledge Value Chain (KVC). Moreover, Spinello (1998) highlighted that KVC
1
symbolizes the cognitive capability of an organisation to embody the dynamic
knowledge flow in order to gain competitive advantage.
An organisation gains competitive advantage over competitors, when it is capable of

creating value for its customers at the expected quality but at a lower cost (Pellicer,
Yepes, & Rojas, 2010). Construction is a competitive industry (Ball, Farshchi, &
Grilli, 2000). Zhang, Mao, and Simaan (2009) elaborated the importance of knowledge
within the construction industry due to the project-based nature, which contributes to
a remarkable fragmentation. Moreover, the concept of Project-Based Organisation
(PBO) is customary in traditional industries such as the construction industry (Hobday,
2000). L. Chen and Fong (2013) characterized construction organisations as PBOs and
project-led organisations based on operational aspects.
Competitive tendering is widely used by construction organisations to win projects

and the profitability of the tendering strategy is governed by the accuracy of tender
pricing (Takano, Ishii, & Muraki, 2017). Kivrak, Arslan, Dikmen, and Birgonul
(2008) emphasised the importance of knowledge in order to prepare winnable
competitive tenders. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS, 2018)
recognized managing the tendering process as included in the work scope of a Quantity
Surveyor (QS) employed in a construction organisation. On the other hand, Betts and
Ofori (1994) recognized quantity surveying profession as an example of the
application of strategic planning in a construction organisation. QSs are characterized
within the construction industry as a knowledge-intensive profession (Fadeke,
Oluwaseyi, & Rufus, 2015). Owing to the complexity of construction industry, QSs
are required to furnish themselves with systematic KM strategies (Umar, 2014).
On this account, a systematic KM strategy is paramount for the exploitation of

knowledge in the tendering process in order to gain competitive advantage.
Consequently, developing a KVC framework for the tendering process of construction
organisations via quantity surveying perspective is discerned as an advancement of
KM to the value chain concept. The KVC framework thus formulated would be
momentous for the effective performing of quantity surveying roles in the tendering
process of construction organisations in order to gain competitive advantage.
2
1.2 Problem Statement
Numerous studies have been carried out on knowledge, KM and KVCM in

organisational perspective. The extant KVCMs are developed for a generic
organisation, in consideration for the entire organisation. Nevertheless, a literature gap
is perceived since the developed KVCMs do not embody the KVC of a tendering
process within a construction organisation in quantity surveying perspective.
Furthermore, based on the KM research trend in the construction industry, Yu and
Yang (2016) predicted that researches are to orient towards developing ‘integrative
KM models’ to be implemented in construction. Rezgui (2001) pinpointed the key
reason for the limitations in current approaches of KM within the construction
industry, as due to the tacit nature of construction knowledge. Specifically, tacit
knowledge tends to ‘corrode’ within professionals’ minds if not managed properly
(Asrarulhaq & Anwar, 2016). Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS, 2016)
has also addressed the individual and organisational issues related to the lessons
learned practices, which ultimately result in loss of captured lessons. According to
Kululanga and McCaffer (2001), even though the concept of KM is not novel to the
construction industry, an industrial gap exists for a methodology to implement KM
within construction organisations to gain competitive advantage. Henceforth,
developing a KVCM framework is to be carried out, to address the referred literature
gap and industrial need. Accordingly, the research question for the study is ‘How
KVCM concept to be adapted for the tendering process of construction organisations
in quantity surveying perspective, in order to gain competitive advantage?’.
1.3 Aim and Objectives

1.3.1 Aim
The aim of the research is to develop a KVC framework for the tendering process of
construction organisations via quantity surveying perspective, in order to gain
competitive advantage.
3
1.3.2 Objectives
1. To identify the concepts of knowledge, KM and KVCM

2. To analyse the different types of KVCMs existing
3. To determine the necessity and application of KVCM concept for the tendering
process in construction organisations
4. To discern the KVC for the tendering process of construction organisations to
gain competitive advantage
5. To ascertain the role of QSs within the KVC framework
1.4 Methodology
Research methodology adhered consisted of a literature review, expert interviewing,

case study analysis and pattern matching to conceptualize the KVC framework.
1.4.1 Literature review
A comprehensive literature survey conducted to identify the concepts of knowledge,

KM and KVCM; determine the generation of competitive advantage via KVCMs;
differentiate among existing KVCMs; articulate the involvement of knowledge within
the construction industry, construction organisations and tendering process in order to
gain competitive advantage; and ascertain the involvement of QSs in the process.
Accordingly, journal articles, conference proceedings, theses, dissertations, and books
were referred, in order to fabricate the theoretical background of the research topic.
1.4.2 Phase I: Expert interviews
Ten (10) expert interviews were performed with industry professionals for the
validation of literature findings, assessing the feasibility of the research topic, and
structuring the intermediate model.
1.4.3 Phase II: Case studies
Case study analysis was thereby conducted in order to improve the intermediate model
up to KVC framework. Three (03) case studies were carried out for the purpose.
4
1.4.4 Discussion
A discussion comprehending pattern matching was carried out for the Phase I
interview findings and Phase II case study derivations in order to compare the research
patterns against theoretical patterns and to furnish explanations as necessary.
1.5 Scope and Limitations
The research focuses on developing a KVC framework for the tendering process of a
typical construction organisation. Based on the frame of reference that KM initiatives are
critical and prominent in large-scale organisations, research analysis was limited to Sri
Lankan construction organisations of Construction Industry Development Authority
(CIDA) grade C1 or above. Moreover, the framework was developed for tender pricing
based on project knowledge acquainted, specifically in building projects.
1.6 Chapter Breakdown
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the research topic, research gap, aim, objectives,
scope and limitations, research methodology and the structure of the report.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 2 critically analyses the theoretical background of the research area by

conducting a comprehensive literature review.
Chapter 3: Methodology
Chapter 3 illustrates and justifies the research paradigm, research design, process of
data collection and data analysis adopted for the research in a detailed manner.
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
Chapter 4 reports the research findings from expert interviews and case studies and
further analyses the findings to develop the KVC framework.
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 5 concludes the research findings, addressing the limitations encountered and
further opportunities present for future researches in relation to the research area.
5
CHAPTER 02
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
First chapter gives an insight on the background of research topic including the
research gap. Whereabouts, the second chapter poises the extant literature on the
research area. Fundamentally, the theoretical backdrop of knowledge and Knowledge
Management (KM) in conventional terms would be discussed. Thereafter, literature
findings are to be focussed on the concept and types of Knowledge Value Chain Model
(KVCM). The approach is then anticipated towards construction industry, particularly
for construction organisations, tendering process and quantity surveying in terms of
knowledge.
2.2 Knowledge and Knowledge Management (KM)

2.2.1 Knowledge
Nonaka (1994) instigated a definition for knowledge as “Justified true belief” (p.15).
Although the definition was adopted from traditional epistemology, it focusses on
justification of knowledge and considers knowledge as a personal belief rather than
the attribute of truth (Nonaka, 1994). Subsequently, a comprehensive working
definition was forwarded by Davenport and Prusak (1998), for knowledge in
organisational context to be “a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual
information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and
incorporating new experiences and information” (p.4). For the research purpose,
Davenport and Prusak’s (1998) definition to be adopted as per the comprehensiveness
(Malhotra, 2004; Pham, 2008; Smirnova, 2014) and sustained appearance in the
subsequent literature (Chan, Pollard, & Puriveth, 2011; Faucher, Everett, & Lawson,
2008; Mcinerney, 2002; Ragsdell, 2009; Spiegler, 2000).
Knowledge has also been defined differentiating among knowledge, information, and
data (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). The distinction was advanced in the form of a hierarchy,
which is referred to as Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy
(Rowley, 2007). Figure 2.1 demonstrates the conventional DIKW hierarchy;
6
WISDOM
KNOWLEDGE
INFORMATION
DATA
Figure 2.1: DIKW hierarchy
Source: Rowley (2007)
The pyramid in Figure 2.1 exhibits the conceptual linear linkage between data,
information, knowledge, and wisdom. Nurulin and Skvortsova (2018) recognized data
to be observational results and measurements from both real and virtual worlds
whereas Y. Wang (2015) illustrated data as abstract representations of the real world.
As per Nurulin and Skvortsova (2018), information is data amalgamated with ample
descriptions. Meanwhile, Y. Wang (2015) defined information as “a general form of
abstract objects perceived by human brains and represented by symbolical,
mathematical, communication, computing, and cognitive systems” (p.773).
Furthermore, wisdom is the strategic perspective of decision-making, which
symbolizes the related cognitive capabilities of the Decision Maker (DM) (Nurulin &
Skvortsova, 2018).
Faucher et al. (2008) broadened the classical DIKW hierarchy by incorporating

‘Existence’ and ‘Enlightenment’ to each end of the hierarchy in a non-linear
configuration and the model was therefore named as ‘E2E’ model. In contradiction to
the classical DIKW model, Tuomi (1999) argued that the hierarchy should actually be
inversed. Another conceptualization forwarded was that the DIKW relationship to be
a cyclical model in the form of a double hierarchy wherein data transforms to
knowledge with information as the intermediate state and knowledge relapse to data
with time, volume, reuse, application and so on (Spiegler, 2000). Furthermore, Ye
(2016) attempted to quantify knowledge measurement by developing a mathematical
theory to link DIKW chain and to link explicit and tacit knowledge.
7
2.2.2 Classification of knowledge
Although different scholars inaugurated numerous classifications, most prevalent

classification encompasses knowledge to be either tacit or explicit by nature
(Smirnova, 2014). Polnyi (1966) perceived the tacit dimension of knowledge by
declaring the epigram, “we can know more than we can tell'' (p.4). Conventionally,
explicit knowledge is ‘know-what’, which is documented whereas tacit knowledge
refers to ‘know-how’, which is people or action oriented (Smith, 2001). Table 2.1
summarizes the key characteristics and differences among tacit and explicit
knowledge;
Table 2.1: Characteristics and Differences of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledge

Subjective Objective
Specific to a context Context free
Difficult to formalize or articulate Fixed and expressible in formal language
Perceived Elucidated
Transferred through conversation Codified or documented
Source: Adapted from Smirnova (2014) and Mcinerney (2002)
Accordingly, tacit knowledge is the medium by which explicit knowledge is explored

and exploited (Fahey & Prusak, 1998). According to Diefenbach’s (2006) illustration
of intangible resources; tacit knowledge is a resource linked to a particular person,
which includes expertise, skills and capabilities, whereas explicit knowledge is a
transferable intangible resource. On the other hand, organisational knowledge is
neither linked to a particular person nor transferable (Diefenbach, 2006).
2.2.3 Knowledge as an organisational asset
In an organisational perspective, knowledge is considered as one of the principal

aspects of an organisation, which could be infused into human, structural, and
technological capital of the organisation (Schiuma, 2012). W. W. Powell and Snellman
(2004) defined knowledge economy as an economy wherein goods and services are
based on knowledge-intensive processes. The world has already headed into a
knowledge-based economy and knowledge is to be recognized as a primary production
factor in such an economy, which determines the competitive advantage of the
8
particular organisation (Beijerse, 1999). The Table 2.2 below further reinforce the
notion of knowledge being employed as an organisational asset;
Table 2.2: Sources Identifying Knowledge as an Organisational Asset
Sources Identifying Knowledge

Significant Facts
as an Organisational Asset
Knowledge is emerging as the most crucial strategic asset

Zack (1999)
of business organisations
Organisational knowledge is a strategic asset and
Bollinger and Smith (2001) organisations have to develop an ample organisational
knowledge base
Chan et al. (2011) Knowledge is a prominent factor of differentiation in order

to gain competitive advantage
Han and Park (2009) Knowledge is a critical driving factor to accomplish

organisational goals
Dutta and Madalli (2015) Knowledge is a valuable organisational asset regardless of

the type of organisation
Millar, Lockett, and Mahon Specifically within knowledge-intensive organisations,
(2016) knowledge serves as the source of continuous innovation
Therefore, Table 2.2 above rationalizes knowledge being a critical organisational

asset. Henceforth, knowledge is the ‘lifeblood of an organisation’ to uplift
organisational survival within the dynamic and competitive environments (Asrarulhaq
& Anwar, 2016). Authors further affirmed that it establishes the requirement of
managing knowledge analogous to other resources within organisations.
2.2.4 Knowledge Management (KM)
KM materialized as a discipline in early 1990’s (Lambe, 2011) and flourished

expeditiously ameliorating its key features (Donate & Guadamillas, 2011). Concept of
KM emerged in different regions spotlighting the aspects of knowledge creation;
measurement and exploiting, and thereupon the concepts united to forge a holistic
concept of KM (Pillania, 2009). Organisational KM practices can be elaborated in six
categories namely; knowledge economy, knowledge clusters and networks,
knowledge assets, knowledge spillover, continuity management, knowledge
organisations (Dalmarco, Maehler, Trevisan, &Schiavini, 2017). Numerous
definitions exist for KM (Bennett & Gabriel, 1999) and Table 2.3 tabulate several
definitions of KM such instigated;
9
Table 2.3: Definitions of KM
Source Definition
KM is “achieving organisational goals through the strategy driven
Beijerse motivation and facilitation of Knowledge Workers (KWs) to develop,
(1999) enhance, and use their capability to interpret data and information through
a process of giving meaning to these data and information” (p.102).
KM is a framework by which an organisation perceives its business
C. C. Lee and
processes as knowledge processes and concentrates on “doing the right
Yang (2000)
thing instead of doing things right” (p.785).
KM comprises of activities for the utilization and enhancement of
Carlucci et al.
organisational knowledge, for the organisational value creation, and
(2004)
achieving and sustaining competitive advantage.
Ermine KM is a set of strategies, methods, and tools to manage knowledge assets
(2013) of an organisation to enhance the organisational performance.
(Girard & KM is the management process of creating, sharing, and using
Girard, 2015) organisational knowledge.
Definitions tabulated above were extracted from existing literature sources in order to
exhibit the KM definitions over the period. A comprehensive definition for KM could
be deduced by escorting above definitions; “KM to be a set of activities for the
effective exploration and exploitation of knowledge resources of an organisation for
the value creation, enhancing organisational performance and gaining competitive
advantage”. According to Rastogi (2002), KM activities sustain the organisational
value proposition and henceforth the competitive capacity of the organisation. Hence,
value creation is ensued by the virtue of cause and effect chains stimulated by learning
mechanisms and knowledge processes (Schiuma, Carlucci, & Lerro 2012). Moreover,
Kivrak et al. (2008) emphasised that KM occupies a significant position within the
value chain of an organisation, which has the potential of enhancing the effectiveness
of primary activities via learning.
2.3 Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM)
The purpose of the section is to introduce the concept of KVCM and the mechanism
an organisation gains competitive advantage via KVCM. Henceforth Porter’s value
chain concept, by which the KVCM concept enrooted, is to be reviewed at the outset.
10
2.3.1 Porter’s value chain model and competitive advantage
Porter (1985) introduced value chain as a systematic approach to analyse the activities
performed by an organisation and the interplay between among those. Author defined
‘value’ as the amount which customers are keen to pay for the goods or services offered
to them by the organisation. Porter (1985) testified that value chain disaggregates an
organisation into strategic activities, which serve as “discrete building blocks of
competitive advantage” (p.38). Figure 2.2 manifests Porter’s generic value chain;
Firm Infrastructure
Human Resource Management
Technology Development
Procurement
Inbound Outbound Marketing Services

Operations
Logistics Logistics and Sales
Figure 2.2: Porter’s Generic Value Chain

Source: Porter (1985)
As demonstrated, Porter’s value chain consists of nine generic value activities, which
are discerned in terms of five primary activities (Inbound Logistics, Operations,
Outbound Logistics, Marketing and Sales, and Services) and four support activities
(Firm Infrastructure, Human Resource Management, Technology Development, and
Procurement). In the model, margin is the “difference between total value and the
collective cost of performing the value activities” (p.38). In addition, Porter (1985)
and Porter and Millar (1985) established that value chain activities are inter-dependent
and inter-related via linkages and each activity creates value and ultimately total value
flows along the value chain conglomerating the overall value, which is the margin.
In consonance with Pietersen (2010) and Porter (1985), competitive advantage

emerges out of the value generated by an organisation to its stakeholders. According
to Porter (1985), performance of value activities at a minimum expense relative to the
co-competitors results in differences in value chain, which ultimately infer competitive
advantage. Furthermore, Porter (1985) constituted two basic types of competitive
advantage as cost leadership and differentiation. Porter and Millar (1985) affirmed that
competitive advantage emanates via the two basic types of competitive advantage as a
11
function of organisational value chain. Moving onwards, Porter’s value chain model
could be substantiated to the knowledge sphere (King & Ko, 2001).
2.3.2 Concept of Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM)
Concurrently, knowledge is an organisational resource serving as a source of value

creation (Schiuma, 2012). Nevertheless, Y. Xu and Bernard (2010) characterized
knowledge to possess three traits deviating from traditional organisational resources,
which hinders the absolute measurement of ‘knowledge value’ as; reusability of
knowledge without being subjected to deterioration; incomparability of different types
of knowledge in terms of objective and value; complexity of estimating the future
value of knowledge. Yet for the purpose of studies, the authors designated the
capability of knowledge to improve the conditions, as the knowledge value based on
the principal definition of value. Knowledge Value Chain (KVC) implies the
accommodation of value chain concept to the knowledge sphere, which signifies the
data transformation to derive benefits in organisational context (T. Powell, 2001).
Accordingly, every organisation consists of a KVC (Spinello, 1998). Holsapple and

Singh (2001) established the need for KVCM, by asserting that a model distinguishing
the value adding KM activities is vital for the fruitful exploitation of competitive
potential of KM. Moreover, according to Spinello (1998), KVC encapsulates the
dynamic nature of knowledge flow within an organisation representing its cognitive
competence to gain competitive advantage. On the other hand, Almarabeh et al. (2009)
defined KVC as “a sequence of intellectual tasks by which KWs build their employer's
unique competitive advantage and/or social and environmental benefit” (p.196).
2.3.3 Gaining competitive advantage via Knowledge Value Chain (KVC)
H. L. Wang (2014) listed Resource Based View (RBV) as one of the theories of
competitive advantage, and that it considers organisational resources. Barney
(1991,1995) enriched RBV, exclaiming that competitive advantage counts upon on the
value, rareness, and inimitability of organisational resources and capabilities and that
exploitation of such resources and capabilities paves the path to achieve the complete
potential. Omerzel and Gulev (2011) characterized knowledge to be a valuable, rare,
and inimitable resource. Furthermore, numerous authors have articulated knowledge
12
as a factor of competitive advantage to be exploited in manoeuvres aiding competitive
advantage (Abdullahi & Saif, 2015; Beijerse, 1999; Chan, et al., 2011; Hassan, Bakar,
Yusof, Tufail, & Virgiyanti, 2016; Pemberton & Stonehouse, 2000; Wu & Lin, 2009).
Newbert (2008) empirically tested the positive relationship between exploitation of

resource-capability combinations of an organisation namely; value and rareness to
yield competitive advantage, which in turn subsidize organisational performance. The
author distinguished between the terms competitive advantage and organisational
performance trailing T. C. Powell (2001), even though Porter (1985) asserted the terms
to be indistinguishable. Performance is rather an ambiguous concept to be defined
owing to its subjectivity, yet relates to parameters such as organisational objectives
and the intended versus achieved outcomes in terms of effectiveness, efficiency,
innovation, financial gains and quality (Ion & Criveanu, 2011). Thus, for the research
purpose, competitive advantage and organisational performance are considered as two
distinct concepts, which are inter-related and inter-dependent.
According to Spinello (1998), organisations that own strong and stable KVCs superior
in competition over whom do not own so. C. C. Lee and Yang (2000) established that
innovation constituent of KVCM aligns with differentiation strategy, whereas
knowledge reusing feature befits low cost strategy. Schiuma et al. (2012) revealed that
value creation occurs via cause and effect phenomena across the KVCM through
knowledge processes and learning mechanisms. Carlucci et al. (2004) contributed an
elaborative justification via postulation of four hypotheses as in Table 2.4;
Table 2.4: Assumptions Formulated by Carlucci et al. (2004)
No. Assumption
1 KM activities of KVCM enable flourishing of organisational competencies

2 Effectiveness and efficiency of organisational processes is based on competencies
3 Improvements in performance depend on effective and efficient processes
Improvements in organisational performance is equivalent to increase in value
4
generated for the stakeholders
Source: Carlucci et al. (2004)
Thereupon, authors testified KM implementation to be the foundation for developing

organisational competencies and the other assumptions were mandated utilizing three
13
business performance models; Balance Scorecard Model, Business Excellence Model,
and Performance Prism. Via the articulated assumptions, a descriptive model was
drafted to interpret the links among KM and value creation as in Figure 2.3;
Creation
Value
Knowledge Competence Process Performance
Processes Management Management Management
Assumption 1 Assumption 2 Assumption 3 Assumption 4
Figure 2.3: Descriptive Model Interpretation of the Links between KM and Value Creation
Source: Adapted from Carlucci et al. (2004)
Conclusively, KM processes are at the “heart of organisational performance”,

facilitating value creation via intellectual capacity of organisational competencies
(Carlucci et al., 2004). King and Ko (2001) interpreted value amplification of KVCM
in terms of improved knowledge status, improved organisational behaviours and
improved organisational performance. According to Ermine’s (2013), value addition
of a KVC corresponds to organisational learning. Holsapple and Singh (2001) and L.
C. Wang and Ahamed (2005) forwarded different outcomes of KVC value generation.
Both the sources incorporated organisational learning as a yield of KVCM. However,
Holsapple and Singh (2001) assimilated projections as the other outcome. In contrast,
L. C. Wang and Ahamed (2005) established responsiveness to customers, new product
development, and strategic flexibility as organisational capabilities resulted in addition
to organisational learning. Ermine (2013) affirmed that there are two types of KVC’s
as; KVC’s encompassing knowledge activities acting on knowledge assets and KVC’s
demonstrating cognitive activities acting on knowledge processes.
2.4 Different Types of Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs)
Numerous KVCMs are available in extant literature and for the convenience of
analysis, the models are categorized as KVCMs based on KM frameworks, KVCMs
based on DIKW hierarchy and other models. Accordingly, KVCMs based on KM
frameworks are accompanied by KM activities and KVCMs based on DIKW hierarchy
characterize the transformation in DIKW hierarchy. Other models are identified as
ones that cannot be noticeably demarcated under any of the first two types of KVCMs.
14
2.4.1 Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) based on Knowledge
Management (KM) frameworks
 Weggeman’s Model (1997)
Matheiu Weggeman is considered as the founder of KVC and the proposed model
exhibited five basic KM processes as Knowledge Development, Sharing, Applying
and Evaluating (Vliet, 2011). According to Vliet (2011), the scholar cited the model
as ‘KM Value Chain’ and distinguished knowledge as a production factor similar to
labour and capital. The model is delineated in Figure 2.4 below;
Knowledge
Development
Evaluating
Knowledge
Knowledge
knowledge
Vision
Applying
Sharing
Mission Knowledge
Goals Inventory
Strategy
Figure 2.4: Weggeman’s KVCM
Source: Vliet (2011)
As per the illustration of Vliet (2011), chain inaugurates from the establishment of the
strategic objectives. Afterwards knowledge gap is established and process proceeds
via the KM activities (Vliet, 2011). Author propounded that the model yields the best
effectiveness when implemented in an organisational context rather than departmental
levels. Nevertheless, reviewing of strategic objectives while utilizing at the
departmental level would facilitate such implementation (Vliet, 2011).
 Carlucci et al.’s Model (2004)
As reviewed in the sub-section 2.3.3, Carlucci et al. (2004) formulated a KVCM based
on four assumptions. Accordingly, KM facilitates the development of organisational
competencies, which in turn enhances efficiency and effectiveness of organisational
processes, so that such processes improve organisational performance, which is
equivalent to the increase in value created for stakeholders (Carlucci et al., 2004).
15
 C. C.Lee and Yang’s Model (2000), Holsapple and Singh’s Model (2001), L.
C. Wang and Ahamed’s Model (2005), and Almarabeh et al. ’s Model (2009)
All the mentioned models are replications of the Porter’s value chain in terms of model
structure and characteristics. Despite the minor deviations among the models, all four
models are analysed as a cluster for the convenience of reference. Almarabeh et al.’s
(2009) model in contravention to other models coalesced attributes of both Porter’s
value chain model and DIKW hierarchy. Therein, KM activities were catalogued under
support activities and obligation was assigned to KWs, whereas responsibility of
primary activities were assigned to DMs (Almarabeh et al., 2009). Table 2.5 further
sums up such KVCMs as follows;
Table 2.5: Comparison of Porter Type KVCMs
C. C. Lee and Holsapple and Singh L. C. Wang and Almarabeh et al.

Source Yang (2000) (2001) Ahamed (2005) (2009)
Jargon KM Processes Primary Activities KM Processes Primary Activities
Knowledge; Knowledge; Knowledge; Knowledge;
 Acquisition  Acquisition  Identification  Sharing
Primary Activities
 Innovation  Selection  Acquisition  Integration

 Protection  Generation  Codification  Action
 Integration  Internalization  Storage
 Dissemination  Externalization  Dissemination
(Holsapple & Jones,  Refinement
2004)  Application
 Creation
Jargon KM infrastructure Secondary Activities KM Enablers Support Activities
 KW Recruitment Knowledge;  Organisational Knowledge;
 Knowledge  Leadership Memory  Acquisition
Support Activities
Storage/Capacity  Coordination Knowledge;  Transformation

 Customer/  Control  System  Dissemination
Supplier  Measurement  Culture
Relationship (Holsapple and  Sharing
 Chief Knowledge Jones, 2005)  Benchmarking
Officer and
Management
Table 2.5 thus emphasises that each model constitutes of two sets of activities
resembling that of Porter’s value chain, despite the varied nomenclature.
 Summary of KVCMs Based on KM Frameworks
Table 2.6 demonstrates a summarized version of KVCMs based on KM frameworks,

including the model components and specific features;
16
Table 2.6: Summary of KVCMs Based on KM Frameworks
Model
Authors Model Components Specific Features
Name
 Knowledge Inventory
Weggeman  Application in organisational context rather than
KM  Knowledge Development
(1997) departmental or operational level
Value  Knowledge Sharing
(Vliet,  Process initiation with the identification of
2011)
Chain  Applying Knowledge
knowledge gap
 Evaluating knowledge
KM Processes KM infrastructure
C. C. Lee Knowledge;  KW Recruitment
 Exact replica of the structure of Porter’s value
and Yang KVCM Acquisition>>>Innovation>>>  Knowledge Storage Capacity
chain
(2000) Protection>>>Integration>>>  Customer/ Supplier Relationship
Dissemination  Chief Knowledge Officer and Management
Primary Activities Secondary Activities
Knowledge;
Holsapple Knowledge;
 Leadership  Exact replica of the structure of Porter’s value
and Singh KVCM Acquisition>>>Selection>>>  Coordination chain
(2001) Generation>>>Internalization>>>
 Control
Externalization
 Measurement
KM Processes KM Enablers
L. C. Wang Knowledge;  Knowledge System
and Identification>>>Acquisition>>>  Knowledge Culture  Exact replica of the structure of Porter’s value
KVC
Ahamed Codification>>>Storage>>>  Organisational Memory chain
(2005) Dissemination>>>Refinement>>>  Knowledge Sharing
Application >>>Creation  Knowledge Benchmarking
Primary Activities Support Activities  Integration of features of both Porter’s value
Almarabeh Knowledge; Knowledge; chain and DIKW hierarchy
et al. KVCM  Sharing  Acquisition  Allocation of Primary Activities and Support
(2009)  Integration  Transformation Activities to DM and KW respectively
 Action  Dissemination  Common understanding between KW and DM
Carlucci et Knowledge Processes>>>Competence Management>>>Process Management>>>
KVC  Model defining via four basic assumptions
al. (2004) Performance Management
17
According to the Table 2.6 above, all models except Carlucci et al.’s (2004) constitutes
of KM activities specified. Notwithstanding, it promotes KM framework for KVCM
concept and entails the steps beyond the KM processes, which is an outstanding
feature. Even though Weggeman’s model comprises of KM activities it does not depict
additional activities in support of the basic KM processes as in models of C. C. Lee
and Yang (2000), Holsapple and Singh (2001), L. C. Wang and Ahamed (2005), or
Almarabeh et al. (2009). However, Ermine (2013) objected the adaptation of models
based on KM framework emphasizing that cognitive activities are obscure to chain by
KVCs of knowledge activities acting on knowledge assets of the organisation.
2.4.2 Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) based on Data-Information-

Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy
 Ermine’s Model (2013)
Consequently, Ermine (2013) proposed a KVC, constructed utterly based on the

DIKW model, to chain the cognitive activities. Although inspired by the conventional
DIKW hierarchy, author adopted a flexible DIKW chain model with feedback loops,
and controlled relationships with diminished hierarchy. In author’s cognitive value
chain, data is gradually transformed into organisational capabilities as presented below
in Figure 2.5; Cognitive
Value Chain
Capability Management Maturity
Competence Management Intelligence
Knowledge Management Learning
Information Management Understanding
Data Management Memorisation
Explicit
Competence Capability
Data Information Tacit

Knowledge
Wisdom
Knowledge Value Chain

Figure 2.5: Ermine’s (2013) KVCM
Source: Ermine (2013)
18
First phase of the process, which transforms reality to explicit knowledge, is
technology based with the human factor as the enabler (Ermine, 2013). On the other
hand, human resource is paramount for the second phase, which transforms
information and explicit knowledge to capability, with technology functioning as the
supportive element (Ermine, 2013). Ermine’s (2013) model has corresponding
concepts of ‘Value Chain of Knowledge Creation’ by Brunel, Zolghadri, and Moradi,
(2012). Furthermore, Ermine’s (2013) KVCM is perceived to be identical to that
inaugurated by Saulais and Ermine (2012). Saulais and Ermine’s (2012) model was
intended to optimize the KVC, in order to enhance its innovative capacity by
harmonizing KM into an innovative organisation (Saulais & Ermine, 2012). Even
though Saulais and Ermine (2012) restored the particular KVCM to enhance
innovative capacity in order to simulate creativity, Ermine (2013)’s model
contemplated to boost organisational learning, competence and performance.
 T. Powell’s Model (2001)
T. Powell’s KVC was also derived From the DIKW hierarchy and the model spanned
in two major processes as Knowledge Acquisition and Knowledge Application. As
demonstrated in the Figure 2.6 beneath, T. Powell’s KVC commenced with the shared
understanding between KW and DM;
KW Shared DM
Understanding
Acquire
Data Intelligence
Communicate
Process Apply
Information Decision
Analyse Formulate
Knowledge Action
Implement
Result
Figure 2.6: T. Powell’s (2001) KVCM
Source: T. Powell (2001)
19
The KVC thus inaugurated constituted of ‘States’ and ‘Actions’, wherein each action
transforms particular stage of processing (input state) to the consequent stage (output
state) (T. Powell, 2001). According to the author, proposed KVC is a linear and serial
process, of which each step is indispensable. Moreover, the individual KVC’s within
an organisation interact with each other (T. Powell, 2001). Subsequently, the eight
states and seven actions the denominated stages of processing and transformation from
one state to the next respectively, and every step is presumed to be proficient in either
accruing or destroying the value eventuating as a consequence of the level of quality
control (T. Powell, 2001). Fundamentally, KWs were deemed to acquire and develop
knowledge, wherein the DMs exploit the resulting knowledge for strategic planning to
infer organisational performance (T. Powell, 2001).
 King and Ko’s Model (2001)
‘Information/Knowledge Value Chain’ was the title designated by King and Ko (2001)
for the KVCM model forwarded by them. Model overviewed the contrasting DIKW
theories of Rowley (2007), Tuomi (1999) and Spiegler (2000) to be correspondent and
thereby reinforced all DIKW hierarchy related arguments in their model. Figure 2.7
depicts a simplified version of the model, laid in the form of a matrix, wherein value
accumulates proceeding rightwards and descending downwards;
Related Actions by
Related Actions by
Post-Cognition
Thoroughness
Organisation
Organisation
Organisation
Performance
the Acquirer
Elaboration
Cognition
Diffusion
Infusion
Others
Individual
Work Unit
Overall Organisation
Figure 2.7: King and Ko's (2001) KVCM
Source: King and Ko (2001)
Accordingly, the model was established on three levels at which the value enhancing
activities are accompanied, namely; the individual, work unit, and overall organisation
(King & Ko, 2001). Respectively, once a unit collects information or knowledge
20
vertically or processed it horizontally, the model further processes it by means of the
phases to the right of the ‘Diffusion’ phase (King & Ko, 2001). Nevertheless, King
and Ko (2001), conceded linearity of the model as a limitation, since the dissemination
and feedback loops were not set out in the model.
 Summary of KVCMs Based on DIKW Hierarchy
Corresponding to the summary of KVCMs based on DIKW hierarchy, Table 2.7

tabulates the components and specific features of KVCMs based on DIKW hierarchy;
Table 2.7: Summary of KVCMs Based on DIKW Hierarchy
Model Specific
Authors Model Components
Name Features
Knowledge
Cognitive Value Chain
Value Chain
 Data Management  Transformation process
(Memorisation) in three perspectives as;
 Information Management Data>>> syntactic, semantic and
Ermine (Understanding) Information>>> context points of view
KVC
(2013)  Knowledge Management Knowledge>>> (Triple Instrumentation)
(Learning) Wisdom>>>  Model structure is
 Competence Management Competence>>> identical to Saulais and
(Intelligence) Capability Ermine`s model (2012)
 Capability Management
(Maturity)
Actions States
Data>>>  Partitioning the model as
T. Acquire>>>Process>>> Information>>> KW and DM
Powell KVC Analyse>>>Communicate Knowledge>>>  Shared Understanding
(2001) >>>Apply>>>Formulate> Intelligence>>> between KW and DM
>> Implement Decision>>>
Action>>>Result
Constructs Units/ Levels
Information/ Knowledge
Cognition>>Post-
Cognition>>Organisation  Applied in the
Value Chain
Related Actions by assessment and

King  Individual
Acquirer>>Diffusion>> evaluation of progress of
and Ko  Work Unit
Elaboration>>Infusion>> KM processes and
(2001)
Thoroughness>>  Overall development of learning
Organisation Related Organisation
organisations
Actions by Others >>
Organisation Performance
Accordingly, T. Powell’s (2001) model delineates the DIKW transformation in an

extended and modified format whereas King and Ko’s (2001) model is based on
DIKW hierarchy even if it is not symbolized in a straightforward manner. Ermine’s
21
(2013) model has a straightforward symbolizing of the DIKW transformation. Several
other models, which neither accompany KM frameworks nor DIKW hierarchy, also
exist. Thus, a third category of KVCMs was identified to incorporate such models.
2.4.3 Other Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs)
 Spinello’s Model (1998)
The continuous flow of knowledge in a circular motion within the model is an

exceptional and salient feature deviating from Porter’s concept. In Spinello’s (1998)
model, knowledge flows continuously in anti-clockwise direction, initiating from
external awareness stage as in Figure 2.8;
Internal External
Awareness
Responsiveness
Figure 2.8: Spinello's (1998) KVCM
Source: Spinello (1998)
Model consists of four inert-related stages namely; External Awareness, Internal

Awareness, Internal Responsiveness, and External Responsiveness (Spinello, 1998).
Once an organisation elicits a perception about its environment (External Awareness),
it should be conscious about its internal requirements and resources (Internal
Awareness), and a smooth transition from awareness to response is driven to transform
knowledge into action (Internal and External Responsiveness) (Spinello, 1998).
 Eustace’s Model (2003)
Eustace (2003) presented a new perspective of the KVCM by unifying different

perspectives of discrete interest groups in parallel with Porter’s value chain system.
The model pursued the essential knowledge flows within an organisation by which the
value creation emerges via four asset groups as in Figure 2.9;
22
Latent Intangible Intangible Tangible
Capabilities Competencies Goods Assets
Figure 2.9: Eustace’s (2003) KVCM
Source: Eustace (2003)
Model initiates with latent capabilities symbolizing the unique competitive factors of
the organisation, which are strenuous to emulate and thereafter propagates in a
spectrum simulating the value generation of an organisation (Eustace, 2003). In
addition, Eustace (2003) declared that organisational dynamics sequencing towards
right, reflected the value generation by codification, commoditization and disclosure.
 Y. L. Chen et al.’s Model (2004)
The authors proposed a KVCM by integrating multiple theories and the model includes
Critical Value Chain and Optimum Value Chain as key applications (Y. L. Chen et al.,
2004). A simplified version of KVCM is illustrated as in Figure 2.10;
Input Knowledge Output

Knowledge Activities Knowledge
Figure 2.10: Y. L. Chen et al.’s (2004) KVCM
Source: Y. L. Chen et al. (2004)

Arrows depict the forward and backward ‘Value-added Path’ as a two-way
contribution (Y. L. Chen et al., 2004). According to the authors, ‘Input Knowledge’ is
based on Drucker’s next society; ‘Knowledge Activities’ are based on Porter’s value
chain and Nonaka’s spiral of knowledge; and ‘Output Knowledge’ is based on
Balanced Scorecard model, Garner’s Multiple Intelligence, and Pareto’s rule.
 Y. Xu and Bernard’s Model (2010)
Y. Xu and Bernard (2010) characterized a KVCM in a three-dimensional super-cube

instituting three main aspects of knowledge context, namely; Participants, Knowledge
Status and Product Lifecycle. Model sophisticated the theory of sequential flow of
23
knowledge, and controverted the DIKW hierarchy (Y. Xu & Bernard, 2010). DIKW
hierarchy suggests that each state evolves to a better state during the process upwards
the DIKW pyramid, whereas Y. Xu and Bernard’s model proposed all the five status
of knowledge, which are; initial, ordered, organised, usable, and intelligent to be equal
and besides knowledge matures in terms of state and context (Y. Xu & Bernard, 2010).
Moreover, authors proclaimed the model to overcome the limitation of linearity of
hitherto proposed models by acquainting a multi-dimensional facet.
 Roper et al.’s Model (2008)
Product or process innovation manifests due to knowledge sourcing and

transformation and eventuate knowledge exploitation, ultimately affecting
organisational performance positively (Roper et al., 2008). Thus, authors constructed
‘Innovation Value Chain’ based on manufacturing industry, which was formulated via
three equations as Knowledge Sourcing, Transformation and Exploitation.
 Summary of Other KVCMs
Third category of KVCMs can also be summarized in terms of components and special
features as in Table 2.8;
Table 2.8: Summary of Other KVCM Models
Model
Name
 External Awareness  Continuous flow of knowledge in a circular
Spinello Knowledge  Internal Awareness motion, imitating from External
(1998) Chain  Internal Responsiveness Awareness to External Responsiveness
 External Responsiveness
 Latent Capabilities
Eustace  Intangible Competencies  Integrating different perspectives of
KVC
(2003)  Intangible Goods interest groups
 Tangible Assets
 Integration of multi concepts including;
 Input Knowledge Drucker’s next society, Porter’s value
Y. L.
 Knowledge Activities chain, Nonaka’s spiral of knowledge,
Chen et
KVC  Output Knowledge Balanced Scorecard model, Garner’s
al.
Multiple Intelligence, and Pareto’s rule
(2004)
 Forward and backward ‘Value-added Path’
24
Model
Name
Y. Xu  Participants  Multi-dimensional facet of knowledge
and  Knowledge Status  Controverting the DIKW hierarchy
KVC  Application as a tool to measure knowledge
Bernard  Product Lifecycle
(2010) value in terms of knowledge maturity
Roper et Innovation  Knowledge Sourcing  Based on the manufacturing industry

al. Value  Transformation  Model formulation via three equations
(2008) Chain  Exploitation
The five models categorized under Other KVCMs vary drastically from one another
in terms of the basis, components, model structure and application. Out of all the
models reviewed, Spinello’s (1998) model is the only model, which demonstrates the
circular flow of knowledge. Y. Xu and Bernard’s (2010) model constitutes of a three-
dimensional structure which declines the DIKW hierarchy.
Different frameworks were proposed subsequently, to implement KVCM concept in

various fields. KVC framework to be implemented in supply chain management (M.
C. Lee & Han, 2009), KVC framework for organisational performance (M. C. Lee,
2016) and KVC framework for knowledge translation in Public Health Organisations
(Landry, Amara, Mendes, Shademani, & Gold, 2006) are some of those applications.
2.5 Knowledge and Construction

2.5.1 Role of knowledge in the construction industry
Ofori (2012) established the importance of construction industry within any economy
on the foreground that it contributes towards the socio-economic development of a
country, constitutes a major part of an economy, government being a major client of
the industry, has complex inter-relations and inter-dependencies with other sectors,
invests a significant proportion of the savings of the country, and is typically labour-
intensive, which generates notable employment. Construction industry is also
significant as it influence other sectors directly or indirectly (Tripathi & Jha, 2018).
Moreover, Kulkarni and Dahiya (2018) have emphasised the knowledge-dependence

nature of the construction industry. Taking into consideration the conventional
classification of knowledge in terms of tacit and explicit, Zhang et al. (2009)
distinguished construction knowledge as tacit and explicit. Accordingly, construction
25
knowledge in explicit form includes documented knowledge and construction
knowledge in tacit form includes knowledge associated with the human component
within the industry. Notwithstanding the classification as explicit and tacit,
construction knowledge could also be classified as domain, organisational and project
knowledge (Rezgui, 2001; Wetherill, Rezgui, Lima, & Zarli, 2002) as in Table 2.9;
Table 2.9: Classification of Construction Knowledge
Type Scope Included

Domain Overall knowledge context available to all organisations such as;
knowledge administrative information, standards, technical rules, and product databases.
Organisation specific knowledge assets of the organisation in formal forms;
Organisational including company records, and informal forms; including skilled processes,
knowledge personal skills, project experience of the employees, cross-organisational
knowledge and business network of stakeholders involved
Recorded and unrecorded project particulars, memory of processes, problems,
Project
and solutions adapted, including both organisational knowledge and
knowledge
knowledge created via interactions among organisations
Source: Rezgui, 2001 and Wetherill et al., 2002
According to Table 2.9, it can be observed that a part of organisational knowledge

overlaps with project knowledge. Moreover, KM is vital for the construction industry
owing to its knowledge-intensive nature (Yu & Yang, 2016). According to Yap and
Lock (2017), KM is a ‘central know-how’ of the industry. Furthermore, KM partakes
a significant position within the construction industry due to its unique features such
as competitiveness, complexity, diversity and customized outputs (Zhang et al., 2009).
On the other hand, Construction industry constitutes of “many players at various
stages”; the construction organisations (Nawi, Baluch, & Bahauddin, 2014, p.1)
“Construction organisations are the fundamental units of the construction industry”

(Tripathi & Jha, 2018, p.1). Betts and Ofori (1992) defined a construction organisation
as “any business entity involved in an aspect of construction” (p.512). According to
authors, the term ‘Construction Organisations’ embodies a deeper context than a
‘contractor’ or a ‘building company’. Nevertheless, Tripathi and Jha (2018), exploited
the term to signify construction organisations as contracting organisations. Following
Tripathi and Jha (2018), the research adapts the term construction organisations in
consonance with contracting organisations. Moreover, construction organisations are
26
knowledge-intensive organisations depending significantly on professionals involved
(Ricardo, Arriagada, Luis, & Alarcon, 2014).
Egbu (2004) and Fong and Chen (2012) elaborated knowledge asset of a construction
organisation being employed as an infusion of value creation. Furthermore, Yap and
Lock (2017) presented how KM practices within construction organisations contribute
towards the organisational performance and competitive advantage. Kanapeckiene,
Kaklauskas, Zavadskas, and Seniut (2010) listed a comprehensive collection of KM
strategies adapted by construction organisations such as; expert databases, knowledge
databases, project learning, project reviews, codification and personalization
approaches. Generally, KM is the medium by which tacit knowledge turns to explicit
knowledge within construction organisations (Maqsood, Finegan, & Walker, 2006).
2.5.2 Significance of tacit knowledge in construction organisations
Project-based nature of the construction industry has contributed the construction

knowledge to be tacit in nature (Addis, 2016; L. Chen & Mohamed, 2010; Woo,
Clayton, Johnson, Flores, & Ellis, 2004). In addition, tacit nature of construction
knowledge has been resulted as per the facts of construction knowledge being residing
in professionals’ minds and lack of documentation of such knowledge (Addis, 2016).
Furthermore, individual knowledge (Venkitachalam & Busch, 2012) and experiential
knowledge are tacit in nature (Caldas, Elkington, O’Connor, & Kim, 2015).
Caldas et al. (2015) contemplated that experiential knowledge which is tacit in nature,
has an impact on the competitive capacity of the organisation. Furthermore, Addis
(2016), Garrick and Chan (2017), Pathirage, Amaratunga, and Haigh (2007) and Woo
et al. (2004) have also recognized the decisiveness of tacit knowledge as a driver of
competitive advantage for construction organisations. Most importantly, in
organisational context, tacit knowledge is considered to be vital in decision-making
(Winkelen & McDermott, 2010). Tacit nature is inherent in project experience
(Maqsood et al., 2006). Henceforth, as an innovative counter-measure for the loss of
tacit knowledge in project transitions, Blayse and Manley (2004) suggested to
assimilate project knowledge into continuous business processes of the organisations.
27
2.5.3 Significance of project knowledge in construction organisations
Significance of management of project knowledge is higher in construction

organisations and project knowledge comprehends to be a critical competitive factor
in such (Hanisch, Lindner, Mueller, & Wald, 2009). According to the authors, project
knowledge insinuates the overview of the ‘project landscape’ and thus, is related to the
project management aspects of the particular project. A substantial amount of
knowledge is generated through a construction project (Yap, Rahman, & Chen, 2017).
Owing to the project-based nature, knowledge circulation between the construction
organisation and the professionals across the project life cycle amounts to a critical
competitive aspect within the industry (Lin, Chang, and Lin, 2011). Moreover,
construction organisations conduct project management based on past project
experience of professionals rather than codified knowledge (Maqsood et al., 2006).
Hanisch et al. (2009), Jiang, Zhong, and Cheng (2014), Kivrak et al. (2008), and Zhang
et al. (2009) delineated the risk of loss of project knowledge at project closure due to
the project being a temporary organisation. Moreover, when concerning project
knowledge, Jiang et al. (2014) pertained the detrimental effect of ‘principal-agent’
relationship between the construction organisation and the project. Nevertheless,
explorative intra-project learning and exploitative inter-project learning are essential
for client satisfaction on project delivery and efficient utilization of project resources
(Eriksson & Leiringer, 2015). Authors further mentioned that the aspects contribute
towards organisational learning in Project-Based Organisations (PBOs).
2.5.4 Lessons learned practices in construction organisations
Management of project knowledge is a critical factor in thriving continuous

improvement via lessons learned (Kamara, Augenbroe, Anumba, & Carrillo, 2002).
Paranagamage, Carrillo, Ruikar, and Fuller (2012) also accented the gravity of
recognizing knowledge from past projects to facilitate lessons learned to improve
performance of construction organisations. According to Yap et al. (2017), capturing
lessons learned via project experience is salient in future projects to enhance positive
aspects and to avoid negative aspects. Carrillo, Ruikar, and Fuller (2013) attributed
lessons learned practices as a knowledge strategy for a construction organisation.
28
Lessons learned are key drivers of competitive advantage (Carrillo et al., 2013),
contributing to learning organisations (Paranagamage et al., 2012). Garvin (1993)
defined learning organisations as ones that are competent in KM practices and
improving its behaviour to manifest the improved knowledge status. Organisational
learning occurs, once organisational knowledge status changes (Holsapple & Singh,
2001) in terms of experience gained (Mohammed, 2016). Mohammed (2016) further
traced that a learning organisation reforms itself as it gains experience. According to
Garvin (1993), a learning organisation is capable of systematic problem solving, novel
experimentation, learning from own past project experience and external sources, and
efficient knowledge transference. Esmi and Ennals (2009) exemplified construction
organisations as learning organisations, in which knowledge and learning amount to
2.5.5 Role of knowledge in the tendering process
The term, construction competition revolves around competitive tendering, wherein

profit maximization is the prime goal of construction organisations (Reinschmidt &
Kim, 2006). Competitive tendering is the most frequent and favoured procurement
method being adapted in the industry (Kang, Elbashier, Tang, Jin, & Tang, 2018;
Oyeyipo, Odusami, Ojelabi, & Afolabi, 2016; Takano et al., 2017). In competitive
tendering, the client awards the project to the ‘most suitable contractor’ out of a set of
contractors competing to win the tender (Kang et al., 2018). The compelling
competitive nature of the industry has exhorted the construction organisations to
improve their performance in order to gain competitive advantage (Horta & Camanho,
2014). Takano et al. (2017) entailed that the success of winning a project depends on
the tendering strategy of the organisation. Oyewobi, Windapo, and James (2015)
highlighted the implication of Porter’s competitive strategies to the organisational
performance of construction organisations. Particularly, Betts and Ofori (1992)
discussed the relevance of value chain concept and the application of Porter’s (1985)
competitive strategies to construction organisations in their critic.
Dangerfield, Green, and Austin (2010) formulated a high-level map for construction
organisations, demonstrating the internal and external factors affecting competition.
29
Internal factors portrayed in the model were human resources, supplies/suppliers,
financial capital and reputation. Although Dangerfield et al. (2010) had not directly
identified knowledge among the organisational factors affecting the competition; in
Ericsson, Henricsson, and Jewel’s (2005) ‘Construction Industry Competitiveness
Hexagon Framework’, authors have distinctly determined ‘factor conditions’, which
included factors related to human, physical and knowledge resources of a construction
organisation. On the other hand, Kivrak et al. (2008) asserted that knowledge is vital
for construction organisations to gain competitive advantage in both winning tenders
and project implementation. On the other hand, Senaratne and Sabesan (2008)
mentioned that QSs are responsible for the dynamic project specific aspects such as
cost, financial, and contractual parameters.
2.6 Knowledge and Quantity Surveying

2.6.1 Role of a quantity surveying in the tendering process
Role of QSs within construction organisations include gratifying the organisational

needs internally while coping up with the requirements of consultant QSs externally
(Cornick & Osbon, 1994). Olanrewaju and Anahve (2015) specified that the general
role of a QS includes cost management, cost advising, procurement, and contractual
interference and so on. RICS (2018) asserted QSs as cost managers within the
construction industry. RICS (2018) further identified procurement and tendering as a
core technical competency of a QS, which includes procurement methods and project
structuring in terms of risk allocation, contractual relationships, tender process and
establishing tender prices. According to Brook (2017), a competent ‘estimator’ is
invaluable in winning projects at competitive tendering. Furthermore, Hubert and
Peter (2007) emphasized that QSs must evolve from the traditional role of an estimator
into a forecaster and an analyst.
Towey (2012) specifically highlighted that QSs in contracting organisations involve

in tender pricing including subcontractor pricing, resources costing, unit rate
calculations, preliminaries pricing, value management and so on. O’Brien, Mbachu,
and Lomax (2014) has analysed the professional role of a QS within a construction
organisation and the challenges thus encountered in detail. The aforementioned
30
analysis of quantity surveying duties and responsibilities was carried out by
categorizing into three project phases as; pre-contract, construction, and post-
construction. Accordingly, during the pre-contract stage, QSs engage in procurement
processes including forecasting, in order to win jobs by gaining competitive advantage
over the rivals. In addition, O’Brien et al. (2014) had designated the responsibility of
documenting and capturing lessons learned during the project closure, to QSs.
Dada and Jagboro (2012) further affirmed that QSs add value to the financial and
contractual management at each project phase. According to Aje, Adedokun, and
Ibironke (2015), the ability of QSs to analyse the cost of a project in a scientific
approach, for financial and economic problem solving has transfigured the profession
to an evolved status. On the other hand, Hardie, Miller, Manley, and McFallan (2005)
inferred the requirement of QSs to concern on value creation in order to succeed. QSs
are entrusted extensively on gaining professional expertise in confronting with the
dynamism of the construction industry via learning from experience and existing
knowledge (Senaratne & Sabesan, 2008).
2.6.2 Role of knowledge in quantity surveying
QSs gain expertise via experience and therefore experiential knowledge, which is tacit
in nature, is the strongest affluence of the profession (Davis, Watson, & Man, 2007).
Fong and Choi (2009) further identified the knowledge-intensive nature of quantity
surveying profession in organisational context. Afterwards, Nor (2010) and Appiah
(2014) have also affirmed the knowledge-intensive nature of the profession, quoting
Fong and Choi (2009). Later on, Fadeke et al. (2015) prescribed quantity surveying as
a knowledge-intensive profession providing professional service of expertise advice.
RICS (2018) recognized data management as a mandatory competency for QSs, which
involves collection, storage and retrieval of project related facts. According to Hardie,
et al. (2005), innovation in quantity surveying depends on management of knowledge
gained form lessons learned during past projects to be utilized in forthcoming projects.
QSs further have to be armed with educational training, professional capability and
professional development in order to be competent (Dada & Jagboro, 2018). QSs are
also required to possess the care, skill and knowledge as complementary to other
31
professions (Bohari, 2009). Dada and Jagboro (2012) determined that knowledge
required by a QS includes technical knowledge such as building construction
knowledge, knowledge on civil engineering, knowledge of mechanical and electrical
services engineering, and general knowledge such as economics and international
trading. Moreover, the professional knowledge base of a QS comprises of multiple
collaborating components such as; knowledge developed by professional associations;
knowledge arising via new professional experiences; knowledge disseminated by the
educational sector (Male, 1990). Male (1990) further affirmed that the professional
power and authority of a QS is decided upon the knowledge base possessed.
2.7 Novelty of the Research
Extensive researches have been done for the concepts of knowledge (Alavi & Leidner,
2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Millar et al., 2016; Nonaka, 1994; Polnyi, 1966;
Rowley, 2007 etc.) and KM (Bennett & Gabriel, 1999; Fahey & Prusak, 1998; Lambe,
2011; Maier & Remus, 2003; McAdam & Mccreedy; 1999; Pillania, 2009 etc.). In
addition, knowledge is also characterized as an organisation asset (Beijerse, 1999;
Chan et al., 2011; Dutta and Madalli, 2015; Han & Park, 2009; Mcinerney, 2002;
Millar et al., 2016 etc.). KVCM is an advancement of value chain concept of Porter
(1985) into knowledge context (T. Powell, 2001). Different KVCMs were reviewed
by categorizing as; KVCMs based on KM frameworks (Almarabeh et al. 2009;
Carlucci et al., 2004; Holsapple & Singh, 2001; C. C. Lee & Yang, 2000; L. C. Wang
& Ahamed, 2005; Weggeman, 1997), KVCMs based on DIKW hierarchy (Ermine,
2013; King & Ko, 2001; T. Powell, 2001) and other KVCMs (Y. L. Chen et al., 2004;
Eustace, 2003; Roper et al., 2008; Spinello, 1998; Y. Xu & Bernard, 2010).
Competitive advantage, performance enhancement and value creation via KVCMs are
discussed in advance.
Specifically, knowledge plays a significant role within the construction industry owing
to its unique features (Kamara et al., 2002; Kulkarni & Dahiya, 2018; Rezgui et al.,
2010; Hopfe, & Vorakulpipat, 2010; Yu & Yang, 2016 etc.). Particularly, tacit
knowledge (Addis, 2016; Caldas et al., 2015; Garrick & Chan ,2017; Pathirage et al.,
2007 etc.) and project knowledge (Eriksson & Leiringer, 2015; Hanisch et al., 2009;
32
Kamara et al., 2002; Maqsood et al., 2006; Yap et al., 2017 etc.) contribute immensely
within construction organisations. Furthermore, knowledge contributes to lessons
learned practices and learning organisations (Carrillo et al., 2013; Esmi & Ennals,
2009; Paranagamage et al., 2012; Yap et al., 2017 etc.). Furthermore, QSs contribute
to competitive advantage of construction organisations via competitive tendering
(O’Brien et al., 2014; Takano et al., 2017; Towey, 2012; RICS, 2018 etc.) and can be
signified as knowledge-intensive professionals (Appiah, 2014; Fadeke et al., 2015;
Fong & Choi, 2009; Nor, 2010 etc.).
Although, abound literature exist for the aforementioned notions, those appear to be
dispersed. Nevertheless, solitary correlations are perceived among concepts of
knowledge and competitive advantage, knowledge and KVCM, KVCM and
competitive advantage, knowledge and construction, construction and tendering,
competitive advantage and tendering, tendering and quantity surveying, knowledge
and quantity surveying, and knowledge and competitive tendering. Accordingly,
KVCMs generate competitive advantage for organisations. Construction is a
knowledge-intensive industry and the prime goal of construction organisations are to
gain competitive advantage in competitive tendering. A construction organisation is a
project-based learning organisation. Furthermore, QSs are knowledge-intensive
professionals and contribute to gain competitive advantage at competitive tendering.
Thus, the research aim is to formulate a collaborative relationship among the concepts,
exploiting postulated associations via existing literature. Henceforth, it can be posited
that QSs could deploy KVC concept in a construction organisation to gain competitive
advantage at competitive tendering. Hence, development of a KVC framework for a
construction organisation to gain competitive advantage at competitive tendering,
employing QSs as drivers is derived as a literature and industrial requirement.
2.8 Theoretical Framework
Kumar (2011) traced that the theoretical framework provides a guideline to refer the
literature review. Henceforth, the developed theoretical framework in Figure 2.11
demonstrates the research gap to be focussed, based on the extant literature;
33
Knowledge:
 Definition of knowledge Knowledge Management (KM):
 Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) Hierarchy Management of knowledge  Concept of KM
 Classification of knowledge  Process of KM
 Knowledge as an organisational Asset
Knowledge Value
Construction Chain Model (KVCM)
Industry as a as a KM Framework
How a Construction
Knowledge-Intensive
Industry Organisation Gains
Competitive Advantage in KVCM:
Competitive Tendering???  Porter’s Value Chain Concept
Knowledge and Construction Industry:  Knowledge Value Chain (KVC) Concept
 Role of Knowledge in the Construction Industry  Organisational Value Creation by KVCM
 Types of KVCMs
Knowledge and Construction Organisations:

 Significance of Tacit Knowledge in Construction Organisations
 Significance of Project Knowledge in Construction Organisations
 Construction Organisations as Learning Organisations ?
 Significance of Knowledge in Competitive Tendering
Competitive Advantage ? How KVCM
Contributes to
(Via Knowledge) Competitive
Role of Quantity Surveying within a Construction Organisation:
? Advantage???
 The Role of Quantity Surveyor (QS) in the Tendering Process
Quantity
Surveying as a
Knowledge- How QSs Involve in
Intensive Role of Knowledge in Quantity Surveying: Gaining Competitive
Profession
 Knowledge-Intensiveness of Quantity Surveying Advantage in Competitive
Tendering ???
Figure 2.11: Theoretical Framework
34
The Theoretical Framework in Figure 2.11 demonstrates the intermediate state of the
research findings, achieved through the literature review. Accordingly, the concept of
knowledge is identified in order to apprehend the concept of KM. Thereafter, the
concept of KVCM is overlooked as a KM framework. On the other hand, role of
knowledge in the construction industry, construction organisations and tendering is
established. The stance also derives the role of QSs in construction organisations,
specifically in tendering and the role of knowledge in quantity surveying. The
approaches contributes to generate three queries related to gaining competitive
advantage via knowledge. The responses to the three queries during the forthcoming
research process, collectively contribute towards attaining the ultimate aim of
developing a KVC framework.
2.9 Summary
Knowledge and KM are widely discussed in the extant literature. Hence, abundant
discussions have been contrived evoking numerous theories, concepts, and processes
related to the context. In organisational context, knowledge is a crucial organisational
asset thriving competitive advantage. KVCM is a KM framework built upon Porter’s
value chain concept, integrating value creation mechanism of knowledge processes
within an organisation in order to attain competitive advantage. Different KVCMs
proposed to the organisational context are discussed in the chapter in detail, by
comparing and contrasting the features. Knowledge plays a significant role within the
construction industry. Knowledge is a driving mechanism for a construction
organisation in order to gain competitive advantage over the co-competitors,
specifically tacit knowledge and project knowledge. Meanwhile, QSs shoulder a
significant responsibility within the tendering process for the course. Finally, the
necessity of developing a KVC framework for the tendering process of a construction
organisation based on the quantity surveying profession is highlighted as an industrial
need and the literature gap.
35
CHAPTER 03
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
Second chapter reviewed existing literature on the contexts related to the research
topic. Forthcoming third Chapter is entitled to designate the adapted research
methodology, in order to achieve the acquainted research aim. For the purpose,
research paradigm adapted in the research is discussed succeeded by a detailed
analysis of the research approach, and research method, in terms of available methods,
adapted methods and the justification for adaptation. Furthermore, data collection and
analysis techniques and the research process are also discussed.
3.2 Research Paradigms

“Research paradigms address the philosophical dimensions of social sciences”
(Wahyuni, 2012, p.69) and constitute of four philosophical dimensions as; ontology,
epistemology, methodology, and, methods (Scotland, 2012). Wahyuni (2012)
elaborated the four research paradigms to be positivism, post-positivism,
interpretivism (constructivism) and pragmatism. Interpretivism believes the
experience based subjective understanding of realities and thus the existence of
multiple and varying concepts, which are to be accounted in constructing the research
aim and objectives (Creswell, 2007). Knowledge is ‘idiosyncratic’ in nature (Carlucci
et al., 2004) and abound concepts, theories and ideas have been forwarded over
centuries on the notion. Therefore, interpretivist (constructive) research paradigm is
adopted and the derivations are assumed to be subjective for the particular research.
On the other hand, variants of research paradigms, due to differences in their
philosophical dimensions predicate the particular research approach (Scotland, 2012).
3.3 Research Approach
Johnston (2014) defined research approach as the basic justification for the way of
conducting the research and emphasized that it identifies how and why the research is
carried out. Creswell (2014) advanced three (03) research approaches as qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed. Distinction of qualitative and quantitative approaches is
36
framed in terms of words (qualitative) and numbers (quantitative) respectively
(Creswell, 2014). Mixed approach lies in between the spectrum of qualitative and
quantitative approaches and embodies features of both approaches (Terrell, 2012).
Following Wahyuni (2012) and Creswell (2014), Interpretivism, basically adapts the
qualitative research approach. Creswell (2012,2014) sets out that if explored variables
are unknown or if the existing literature is not comprehensive, adapting a qualitative
approach is convenient. Overviewing the extant literature, there exist a shortfall of
literature to infer Knowledge Value Chain (KVC) concept to a construction
organisation in order to gain competitive advantage at competitive tendering via
Quantity Surveyors (QSs). Furthermore, Creswell (2012) mentioned that a qualitative
research collects data from a lesser number of participants and the collected data is
analysed in depth. Henceforth, a qualitative approach is adapted for the study.
Furthermore, Scotland (2012), asserted that research approach is resembled in the
adapted research methodology and methods.
3.4 Research Method

Research methods include forms of data collection, data analysis, and data
interpretation (Creswell, 2014).
3.4.1 Data collection techniques

Qualitative data collection techniques include interviews, documents and observations
(Creswell, 2012). Out of which, the research utilized qualitative interviews and
documents. Moreover, data collection advanced in two progressive phases as; Expert
Interviews (Phase I), and Case Studies (Phase II) as discussed forthwith.
Phase I: Expert Interviews

Interviewing is one of common methods of data collection (Kumar, 2011; MacDonald
& Headlam, 2011). DeMarris (2004) defined an interview as “a process in which a
researcher and participant engage in conversion focussed on questions related to a
research study” (p.54). Gill, Stewart, Treasure, and Chadwick (2008) and Walliman
(2011) forwarded three types or styles of interviews as; structured, semi-structured and
unstructured interviews. MacDonald and Headlam (2011) further explained that semi-
structured interviews are the most generic type, which is guided by a particular
37
framework, yet facilitates the researcher with flexibility in discussing and reviewing
the responses received. A semi-structured interview guideline was thus followed, to
apprehend a systematic approach while facilitating situational questioning based on
provided views of professionals. Therefore, ten (10) semi-structured interviews were
conducted to obtain the views, opinions and perspectives on the subject.
Phase II: Case Studies

A case can be an individual, a group of people, or an event, wherein it is essential to
consider the total population as a single entity for the study (Kumar, 2011).
Accordingly, Construction Industry Development Authority (CIDA) grade C1
construction organisations were the selected cases in the study. The prime aim of case
study method is to extract a comprehensive and authentic understanding of the cases
(Cronin, 2014). For the formulation and enrichment of the KVCM framework, which
is typically a complicated aim, an in-depth study was required based on perspectives
rather than statistical measures. Moreover, Zainal (2007) assured the application of
case study method to complicated research problems to apprehend integrated and
extensive issues, which thus ascertain the reasonability of adapting case studies to
attain the research aim. Accordingly, three (03) cases were studied including five (05)
qualitative interviews from each case and document reviews.
3.4.2 Data analysis techniques
Content analysis technique is one of the most common strategies to analyse qualitative
data (Elo et al., 2014; Wahyuni, 2012). According to Bengtsson (2016), content
analysis consists of few rules to be followed and reduces the volume of data collected
and facilitates categorization by improving the contextual meaning. Coding is a crucial
step in data analysis and the selection of a coding method depends on the magnitude
of the research along with time and cost constraints (Basit, 2003). Furthermore, manual
coding enhances the focus on data set (Saldana, 2013), and reduces the distraction
towards the process rather than the contextual meaning of data (Cope, 2014).
Henceforth, content analysis with manual coding was adopted for the data analysis,
based on the aforementioned reasoning.
38
3.5 Research Validation
Quality of empirical researches can be judged through four tests namely; Construct
Validity, Internal Validity, External Validity, and Reliability (Yin, 2002).
3.5.1 Construct validity
Rowley (2002) defined construct validity as establishing accurate operational

measures to minimize subjectivity. Accordingly, research employed multiple sources
of data such as interviews and documents to ratify the same finding, which Yin (2013)
recognized as ‘Data Source Triangulation’. In order to maintain chain of evidence,
appropriate references were made to interviewees and documents referred,
maintaining a transparent link among questions of the guideline and the respective
derivatives as emphasised by Rowley (2002).
3.5.2 Internal validity
Internal validity concerns establishing casual relationships between events (Yin,

2002,2013). Escorting Almutairi, Gardner, and McCarthy (2014), pattern matching
was conducted in three (03) progressive steps as; establishing the proposition of the
research, testing the empirical pattern against the predicted pattern, and providing
theoretical explanations for the match or un-match as relevant.
3.5.3 External validity
According to Yin (2002), external validity deals with generalizing the findings beyond
the case studies. Yin (2013) further mentioned that, conducting two or more cases in
support of the same theory claims replication. Since the three (03) cases are studied,
replication is considered to be accustomed in the research.
3.5.4 Reliability
Reliability of the research was established by developing and following a single

guideline for all the interviewees at each phase, which facilitated standardization as
illustrated by Rowley (2002). Furthermore, an organized database was developed
including audio recordings and interviewee transcripts in order to establish maximize
transparency.
39
3.6 Research Process
The research process followed in the study is depicted in the Figure 3.1 beneath;
Background Study: Knowledge, KM, KVCM, Construction Industry,

Construction Organisations, Tendering Process and Quantity surveying
profession
Developing the Research Problem: How KVCM concept to be adapted Objective 1

for the tendering process of a construction organisation in quantity
surveying perspective, in order to gain competitive advantage?
Literature Review: Knowledge, KM, KVCM, Role of Knowledge in

Construction and in the Tendering Process, Role of QS in the Tendering
Process, and Role of Knowledge in Quantity Surveying
Objective 2
Research Paradigm: Interpretivism (Constructivism)
Research Approach: Qualitative
Objective 3
Data Collection: Phase I: Expert Interviews
Phase II: Case Studies
Data Analysis: Manual Content Analysis
Objective 4
Developing the KVC Framework
Conclusions and Recommendations Objective 5
Figure 3.1: Research Process
Accordingly, objective one and two of the study were expected to be achieved solely
via the literature review. The rest of the objectives were to be approached via literature
review and completed after data collection and analysis steps.
3.7 Summary
The chapter discusses the overall research methodology adapted in order to achieve
the research aim successfully. Accordingly, research is based on interpretivism
(constructivism) paradigm and adapts a qualitative approach. Designated research
method accustomed two phases as; expert interviewing (Phase I) and case studies
(Phase II) and the collected data was analysed via manual content analysis technique.
40
CHAPTER 04
4.0 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
Third chapter elaborated on the methodology adhered to achieve the ultimate research
aim. Succeeded by the literature analysis at chapter two, fourth chapter focusses on
presenting the analysis of research findings. Chapter ranges in four broad stages of
analysis. Phase I interviews were analysed with the intentions of literature validation,
assessing the applicability of the concept and to facilitate the forthcoming framework
development. Subsequently, the intermediate model was developed based on literature
findings accompanied by Phase I interviewee perceptions. Third phase was followed
with case studies to develop individual models and the models were then synthesized
to form the framework. Finally, pattern matching was performed to compare research
findings with extant literature. Final outcome of the chapter is to develop a Knowledge
Value Chain (KVC) framework for tendering process in a construction organisation.
4.2 Phase I: Expert Interviews
Proceeding with the Phase I, ten (10) face-to-face interviews of semi-structured design
were conducted for about one hour duration each, with industry experts, who were
passionate on the subject area and inquisitive of the Knowledge Value Chain Model
(KVCM) concept. Objectives, findings and analysis of the expert interviews, alongside
with the interviewee details are discussed in the forthcoming sub-sections.
4.2.1 Objectives of Phase I (Expert interviews)
The phase was intended as a feasibility study for the aforementioned research aim.
Although the literature review divulged salient scrutiny on KVCM concept, the
application of the concept in construction industry is not observed. Extant literature
discusses on the application of KVCM for a generic organisation, whereas the research
aim is to apply the concept for a specific functional area of an organisation, which is
for the tendering process of a construction organisation. Hence, one of the main
objectives of expert interviews was to assess the viability and the practicability of the
41
research aim. In addition, facilitation of intermediate model structuring, which was to
be developed at the forthcoming stage was another objective. Besides, validation of
the literature findings was an additional objective, which justifies the association of
knowledge in construction and quantity surveying portfolios. Interviewees also
perused the progression of data collection process and guided to ameliorate the
process. It has to be noted that the expert interviews were conducted adhering to the
‘Expert Interview Guideline’ attached in Appendix A (Refer Appendix A).
4.2.2 Interviewee details of Phase I (Expert interviews)
Interviews were conducted with ten (10) industry professionals in quantity surveying
profession practicing as Chartered Quantity Surveyors (QSs). Table 4.1 illustrates the
profile of the respective interviewees;
Table 4.1: Profile of Phase I (Expert Interviewees)
Experience
Code Designation
No. of Years Key Experience
PI.01 Claim Consultant 20 Tendering, Claims Management, Project Management
PI.02 Freelancer QS 30 Tendering, Tender Negotiation, Project Administration
PI.03 Chief QS 20 Tendering, Contract Management, Project Administration
PI.04 Director 43 Tendering, Tender Evaluation, Contract Management
Assistant General
PI.05 11 Tendering, Tender Negotiation, Project Administration
Manager
Tendering, Claims Management, Commercial
PI.06 Senior Lecturer 26
Management, Forensic Delay Analysis
PI.07 Senior QS 20 Tender Evaluation, Consulting, Project Administration
PI.08 Managing Director 35 Tendering, Tender Negotiation, Contract Management
PI.09 Chairman 20 Tendering, Project Administration, Contract Management
PI.10 Senior QS 20 Tender Evaluation, Consulting, Project Administration
As per the Table 4.1, all the experts were with a significant industry experience
specifically on tendering practices. Importantly, QSs were preferred since the
framework was anticipated to be developed with QSs as the drivers of the model, based
on the assertion that QSs perform the primary task of tender pricing in a construction
organisation. Therefore, interviewed the Chartered QSs with a prolonged experience
within the construction industry, specifically related to tendering were considered to
42
have the required capacity to make a judgement on the applicability of the KVCM
concept. Moreover, the experts were to incorporate their perspective across the
operational, administrative, and management levels of an organisation, via their
extensive knowledge and experience in organisational context.
4.2.3 Findings and analysis of Phase I (Expert interviews)
The ‘Expert Interview Guideline’ consisted of nine (09) Sections, to achieve the
aforementioned objectives. Accordingly, having introduced the research and inquired
the background of interviewees, the guideline focussed progressively on the relation
of knowledge to the construction industry, competitive strategies of a construction
organisation, role of knowledge within construction organisations, quantity surveying
role in a construction organisation and the significance of knowledge within the
profession. The next section was focussed towards intermediate model development,
whereas the final two sections were dedicated to scrutinize the application of KVCM
concept to the context and related barriers and challenges. Acquired data were
analysed via manual content analysis and recapitulated as follows;
4.2.4 Knowledge-intensiveness of the construction industry
The significance of knowledge within the construction industry and the knowledge-
intensiveness of the industry were re-examined in the practical context. All the
interviewees agreed that construction is a knowledge-intensive industry, but the
responds were based on different perspectives, as tabulated in the Table 4.2 below;
Table 4.2: Reasons for the Knowledge-Intensiveness of Construction Industry
Interviewee Reasons for Agreement

PI.01, PI.09 Competitiveness of the construction industry
PI.02, PI.10 Rapid upgrading of the construction industry
PI.03 All industries attempt to improve themselves owing to the resource scarcity
PI.04 Professionals require to have a clear understanding of their practice for goal
accomplishment
PI.05 Construction is a knowledge-based service industry
PI.06 Construction industry relies tremendously on the previous project experience
PI.07 Construction industry depends on technical and architectural knowledge
PI.08 Construction industry is complex and risky and involves multi-professionals
43
According to PI.01 and PI.09, knowledge-intensiveness has been generated out of the
competitiveness of the industry. PI.01 mentioned “For a contractor to thrive in
competitive tendering knowledge is the driving factor”. Reasoning of PI.04 and PI.08
supports that of PI.01 indirectly. Besides experts highlighted that, requirement of
thorough knowledge of the professionals on their scope of works has been generated
out of the competitiveness prevailing in the industry. PI.03 pinpointed a convincing
aspect that, “Typically, all the industries face a scarcity of resources. Therefore, all
are trying to improve their existing procedures in order to survive. And, it can only be
achieved based on knowledge”. PI.10 extended the concept towards construction
industry, specifically the exploitation of scarce resources such as land in order to meet
the massive demand. According to PI.05, service providing nature of the industry
compelled it to be of knowledge-intensive nature whereas PI.08 was focussing on the
risk-oriented and complex nature of the construction industry. On the other hand, PI.02
and PI.10 emphasized on rapid flourishing nature of the industry in terms of
developing technology and sophisticated systems.
4.2.5 Competitive strategies of construction organisations at tendering
The forthwith attempt was to assess the specific competitive strategies adopted by
construction organisations in order to outperform its rivals. However, conflicting ideas
were advanced by interviewees as depicted in the Table 4.3 underneath;
Table 4.3: Types of Competitive Advantage Adopted by Construction Organisations
Type of Competitive Advantage Adopted ( If Agree)

Expert Interviewee
Cost Leadership Differentiation
PI.01  
PI.02 - -
PI.03 
PI.04  
PI.05 
PI.06  
PI.07 
PI.08 - -
PI.09  
PI.10  
44
Although responses were summarized as above, interviewees presented in-depth ideas
to be analysed. PI.01, PI.04, PI.06, PI.09 and PI.10 conferred a corresponding idea
that both cost leadership and differentiation are applicable, focussing on the Sri Lankan
construction industry. PI.01 emphasized that the adopted strategy would be cost
leadership for public clients, whereas it is differentiation for most of the private sector
clients. Nevertheless, PI.06 highlighted that the adaptation of low-cost strategy is
limited by economies of scale, wherein the construction organisations are necessitated
to adhere to differentiation techniques. PI.03’s and PI.07’s perception were that cost
leadership is the most adopted strategy in the local context. PI.07 noted that even if
the Sri Lankan contractors were given the opportunity to differentiate in a tender via
mechanisms such as Value Engineering (VE) , they are reluctant to adapt such.
In contradiction, PI.05’s opinion was that, “Cost leadership refers to the cost structure
of the entire organisation rather than a tender. A contractor adopts this strategy
during on-going construction rather than pre-tender stage”. Interviewee thus insisted
on differentiation strategy whereby by the tenderers can produce differentiated tenders
such as VE proposals. On the other hand, PI.02 and PI.08 declined admission of both
types of competitive advantage. According to them, ‘Bidding Strategies’ and ‘Pricing
Strategies’ are the respective competitive strategies adapted in winning projects.
4.2.6 Knowledge as a key asset in construction organisations

Purpose of the section was to establish and substantiate that ‘Construction
organisations gain competitive advantage via knowledge’. All the interviewees
mutually agreed that knowledge is a crucial organisational asset contributing to
competitive advantage in construction organisations. Referring to the construction
knowledge classification by Rezgui (2001) and Wetherill et al. (2002), which state that
construction knowledge could be either domain, organisational or project knowledge,
PI.01 and PI.03 stated that organisational knowledge is the most contributing factor
for competitive advantage, even though the industry is based on domain knowledge.
PI.10 inferred that, if one organisation is equipped with better knowledge in related
areas than the co-competitors, such organisations have the possibility of wining jobs
over others. Meanwhile, PI.05 was concentrating on the modern procurement routes.
“Contractor involvement is expected more than before such as in Design and Build
45
projects and contractors tend to submit alternative submissions in parallel to the
original submission to impress the clients. Thereby, knowledge is used to get
competitive advantage”.
4.2.7 Importance of tacit knowledge in construction organisations

PI.03 and PI.08 conferred an argument that since the industry is functioning based on
standard documents and explicit knowledge takes precedence over tacit knowledge.
Nevertheless, PI.02 and PI.10 presented a different perception. According to PI.02,
“Industry is helped by documented knowledge. However, individual organisations are
additionally supported by tacit knowledge at different levels”. Henceforth, they
established that tacit knowledge is more significant when concentrating the
competitive advantage of a single organisation. PI.10’s argument was that tacit
knowledge, which is sort of a ‘common sense’, outweigh explicit knowledge since
construction involves more practical aspects and thus, “knowing how to handle a
situation is much more important than knowing exactly what is said in the book”. PI.07
highlighted that, “It is important to keep the key staff, who are the driving resource of
a particular organisation”, to which Diefenbach (2006) referred as ‘Human Capital’.
PI.01 reaffirmed the idea with an example; “Once we had to construct a water theme
park, which required complex technologies. Therefore, individual knowledge was used
since such projects were not done previously in the local context”. PI.06 referred to
the term ‘Traditional Knowledge’ in the context, and when inquired in detail, expert
defined Traditional Knowledge as a form of tacit knowledge, which is the know-how
descending along generations that people pursue to be correct.
4.2.8 Importance of project knowledge in construction organisations

Another objectives of the section was to verify the importance of project knowledge
in the practical context. According to PI.06, “Projects are temporary organisations
with complex inter-relations”. On the other hand, PI.09 stated that project knowledge
exist in both tacit and explicit forms. PI.05, who was much passionate on modern
procurement systems, reckoned the matter on the tendering perspective of Design and
Build projects. PI.01 and PI.04 established the importance of project knowledge via
examples as mandated in Table 4.4;
46
Table 4.4: Examples for the Importance of Project Knowledge
Interviewee Example Stated

“Once we tendered for a project in a particular province. With our previous
PI.01 project experience, we knew that there were no any recent borrow pits in the
area. Therefore, we quoted accordingly and made high profits out of it”
“When I was working in abroad, we tendered for a project in a certain hill
area. With our previous experience, we increased the wastage factor up to
PI.04
15% for all material, because the residents of the hill areas usually carry
guns and seize cement bags from the site. This saved us from project loss”
Accordingly, the interviewees exemplified the importance of project knowledge to
perform well in the future projects. “Those may be what is learnt from books, but
mostly from lessons learned from previous projects”, said PI.03.
4.2.9 Construction organisations as learning organisations

While agreeing to the assertion; ‘Construction organisations are learning
organisations’, professionals evaluated matter in-depth. PI.01, PI.03, PI.04, PI.06 and
PI.09 referred to competitive advantage on the notion. PI.01 quoted an example to
reinforce the comment; “We did the Phase I of a certain project and recently when
they tendered for the Phase II, we won because of the strengths and weaknesses
learned from the previous phase”. PI.01, PI.03 and PI.08 proclaimed the construction
industry to be unique, dynamic, competitive, unpredictable and hence challenging.
Concisely, interviewee perception was that, in order to retain in the industry,
organisations must learn and improve continuously. According to PI.04, “Any
business is learning through experience”. On the other hand, PI.02 deliberated another
dimension that lessons learned contribute to identify parameters to deviate from
current malpractices. Interviewee was particularly referring to ‘Work Studies’ and
mentioned that work studies emerge purely out of practical research models whereas
lessons learned can either be practical or theoretical. PI.06 pinpointed that construction
organisations tend to isolate from the rest, if learning does not occur as required.
4.2.10 Contribution of Quantity Surveyors (QSs) to competitive advantage
At the outset, contribution of QSs in attaining competitive advantage for their

employers was assessed. Literature material on the subject was limited and hence
required strong reinforcement to establish the argument. All interviewees allied on the
47
fact that QSs contribute to competitive advantage within construction organisations.
Yet, they reviewed the matter from different standpoints. Almost all the experts
contemplated QSs’ contribution to competitive advantage in tendering procedure,
specifically in estimating and pricing. According to PI.05, “QSs play a major role in
winning projects”. PI.08’s opinion was that a QS is the heart of any construction
organisation in terms of winning projects and “A QS can make or break the company”.
Moreover, PI.03, PI.05 and PI.09 were emphasising on how QSs furnish competitive
advantage, particularly in VE mechanisms. According to PI.03, even though QSs are
not innovative professionals, they seek innovative mechanisms in order to meet client
requirements. PI.02 emphasized on the post-contract stage as well. Although the
research focusses on quantity surveying involvement in the tendering stage, the
assertion was noteworthy. According to the expert, quantity surveying role in
competitive advantage is significant even in the post-contract stage, since QSs
generate value via a variety of activities in the specified scope during project operation.
4.2.11 Impact of knowledge on quantity surveying and competitive advantage
All interviewees agreed with the declaration of quantity surveying as a knowledge-

intensive profession. PI.06 and PI.03 generalized that quantity surveying is
knowledge-intensive as any other profession. Besides, PI.01 exclaimed that, “QSs are
the best example for knowledge-intensive professionals”. Indeed, “Quantity surveying
is a vast field constituting a great deal of knowledge”, said PI.05. Specifically, PI.10
stressed that in order to bring competitive advantage for the organisation, QSs must be
sensitive to the current market trends, competitors’ behaviour, while continuously
updating the knowledge base in order to keep pace with the evolving trends and needs.
Succeeding attempt was to establish a logical relationship among knowledge, quantity

surveying, and competitive advantage. Interviewees built-up the relationship in varied
aspects. According to PI.01, “Knowledge is the thread between quantity surveying,
and competitive advantage”. PI.07 established that ‘Bidding’ and ‘Billing’, which
determine contractors’ survival, are QSs’ roles and that knowledge in terms of
experience plays a significant part in both. PI.06 emphasised that QSs handle
tendering in construction organisations, and to win a project, QSs must “Juggle with a
48
number of variable information”. PI.09’s opinion was that a tender must be higher
enough to earn a reasonable profit and lower enough to win the tender and balancing
between the two criteria is crucial, which employs the experiential knowledge of QSs.
4.2.12 Mapping Quantity Surveyors (QSs) with Knowledge Worker (KW) and
Decision Maker (DM) classification
The purpose of the enquiry was to set up the foundation for the forthcoming
intermediate model, by categorizing the quantity surveying levels to Knowledge
Worker (KW) or Decision Maker (DM). Terms KW and DM are derived from T.
Powell (2001), who assigned KW to acquire and develop knowledge and DMs to
exploit knowledge for strategic planning to infer organisational performance. Initially,
interviewees were enquired of their opinion on categorizing QSs into three (03)
distinct levels as ‘Graduate QS’ (GQS), ‘Senior QS’ (SQS) and ‘Chief QS’ (CQS).
Even though the suggestions included varying nomenclature, core intention was to
segregate managerial and administrative level QSs from the rest of QSs at operational
level. Accordingly, GQS, SQS, and CQS levels characterized the operational,
administrative and managerial levels of QSs respectively. Henceforth, mapping of
aforementioned QS levels with KW and DM classification is illustrated in Table 4.5;
Table 4.5: ‘KW’ and ‘DM’ Classification of Quantity Surveying Levels
Classification as ‘KW’ and ‘DM’

Expert Interviewee
GQS SQS CQS
PI.01 KW DM DM
PI.02 KW DM and KW DM and KW
PI.03 None DM and KW DM and KW
PI.04 KW DM and KW DM and KW
PI.05 KW KW DM
PI.06 KW and DM DM and KW DM and KW
PI.07 KW DM and KW DM
PI.08 KW DM DM
PI.09 KW and DM DM and KW DM and KW
PI.10 KW KW DM
Although expert ideas were simplified as above, the judgements were far more
subjective and are to be discussed further. Except for PI.03, all the other professionals
49
agreed the GQS to be a KW. PI.03 rationalized that the operational level of QSs are
not competent enough to be defined as a KW. On the other hand, PI.06 and PI.09
established that a GQS must also be competent enough for rational decision-making
even though such judgements are to be reviewed by their superiors. PI.02, PI.03,
PI.04, PI.06, PI.07, and PI.09 established that SQS level entails characteristics of both
KW and DM. The standpoint of PI.04 was that the state of a SQS being a KW or DM
depends on the organisation, wherein some SQSs play the role of a KW and some
others perform tasks related to knowledge exploitation within their scope. PI.03,
PI.06, and PI.07, emphasized that SQSs orient more towards DMs rather than KWs,
whereas PI.09 established an equivalent proportion. PI.02, PI.03, PI.04 PI.06, and
PI.09 presented a combination of KW and DM to the CQS level as well. According to
the interviewees, even if CQSs align more towards decision-making, they also execute
KW activities meanwhile. PI.04 divulged a comment on the definition of DM by T.
Powell (2001); that the definition was not robust and comprehensive enough to declare
the actual role of a DM. In the interviewee’s words, “A DM does not just exploit others
knowledge; he can also use his own knowledge”. Therefore, declaring CQS solely as
a DM can not be convincingly justified although the other interviewees interpreted so.
Hence, it is enigmatic to trace a fine line among the tasks performed by QSs as KWs
and DMs. Rather, there exist a spectrum between the concepts of KW and DM, where
the operational, administrative and management QSs are assigned based on the
specific organisation. Henceforth, it can be deduced that QSs play both the roles of
KW and DM regardless of their position within a construction organisation.
Nevertheless, to facilitate interviewing in Phase II case studies, GQSs are interviewed
perceiving as KWs, CQSs as DMs and SQSs as playing both the roles of KW and DM.
4.2.13 Applicability of Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) for the tendering
Final section was devoted to determine the applicability of the concept in order to
approach Phase II with credence. Most importantly, it has to be noted that the expert
opinion on applicability was interrogated following a comprehensive clarification on
the concept of KVCM. When inquired whether the interviewees have ever used or
applied the concept, their response was ‘No’. Accordingly, the interviewees were not
50
much informed of the concept of KVCM, even though they were familiar with
Knowledge Management (KM) theories. However, having established the knowledge-
intensiveness of construction industry, knowledge as a critical organisational asset
contributing to competitive advantage, QSs involvement in pertaining competitive
advantage and in-depth elucidation on the concept of KVCM, all professionals agreed
that KVCM is applicable in construction organisations to gain competitive advantage.
Moreover, interviewees highlighted the industry need for such a model as in Table 4.6;
Table 4.6: Expert Opinion on the Application of KVCM to Construction Organisations
Expert
Opinion on the Application of KVCM to Construction Organisations
Interviewee
“There is an industrial gap for such a model. We have to introduce such
PI.01
models, since many do not use lessons learned practices.”
“For contracting organisations, such a model is required to eradicate the
PI.04 wild ways of tendering. Such a model would open the eyes to the fact that
knowledge-based techniques have to be used when coming up with a bid.”
PI.05 “Such models must be adopted to identify the weaknesses in organisations”
PI.07 “Such a mechanism is a essential to minimize the repetition of mistakes”
The comments were of paramount substance to proceed with the study. Furthermore,
PI.02 and PI.05 assured the practicability of the course in advance. Besides, PI.05
mentioned that in procurement perspective, “Contractors can offer value creating
options to the client by adopting such models”. It has to be noted that interviewees
foregrounded the applicability, considering only the ‘Core concept of the
phenomenon’, as emphasised by PI.03. PI.10’s opinion was that, even if not defined
by such terminology, the concept might exist in the industry in an impromptu manner.
4.2.14 Summary of Phase I (Expert interviews)
Phase I interviews were focussed on the knowledge related behaviour of construction

industry, construction organisations and QSs. The inferences were derived with
reference to competitive advantage at the tendering process. Phase I also paved the
path to develop the intermediate model by mapping quantity surveying levels with KW
and DM classification. Finally, the viability of implementing KVCM concept for
construction organisations was analysed in order to proceed with the framework
development.
51
4.3 Development of the Intermediate Model
Phase I interview round was succeeded by the intermediate model development based
on literature findings, accustomed by expert interviewee opinions thus gathered. The
intermediate model development comprehended three (03) basic steps as;
 Step 01: Allotting features to the intermediate model from extant literature
 Step 02: Input from Phase I expert interview round
 Step 03: Compilation of an options list for case study purposes.
The strategy of intermediate model development consisted of choosing most

appropriate features of KVCMs in literature to compose a collaborative model and
refining the model via expert opinion collected during Phase I. In addition, preparation
of a categorized illustration of different options to be presented to the case study
interviewees was performed. Intermediate model so developed was contemplated to
advance a systematic approach for the framework development, and to guide the
interviewed professionals within the cases to develop the framework. Accordingly, a
combination of the theoretical logic for the constructed intermediate model (Step 01)
along with Phase I interviewee endorsements (Step 02) is depicted hereby.
4.3.1 Allotting features from the literature and input from Phase I interviews
Intermediate model is fundamentally based on T. Powell’s model (2001). Expert

interviewees from the Phase I instigated the adaptation of T. Powell’s model due to its
strong resemblance to the structure of tendering or quantity surveying functional areas
of construction organisations. PI.04 stated, “I think Powell's model is applicable to
quantity surveying scope of work at tendering”. PI.04’s notion on applicability of the
concept entirely revolved around T. Powell’s (2001) KVCM, which paves the path to
validate resemblance of T. Powell’s (2001) model for the tendering process of a
construction organisation. Appendix B demonstrates the intermediate model so
developed for case studying purposes, at end of Step 01 and 02 (Refer Appendix B).
According to Appendix B, the model consists of two sub-divisions as ‘Knowledge

Production’ (KP) and ‘Knowledge Utilization’ (KU), wherein the responsibility was
assigned to ‘KW’s and ‘DM’s respectively. It further constitutes of a chain; with
52
‘States’ for which cross links are established to a set of activities named ‘Activities’,
heading towards ‘Competitive Advantage’. Activities are either ‘Primary Activities’,
‘Secondary Activities’ or ‘Support Activities’. A ‘Feedback Loop’ is also established
in the model. Features were elected from different KVCMs as in Table 4.7;
Table 4.7: Sources of Attributes included in the Intermediate Model
Attribute Source
Adapted from T. Powell’s model (2001) and J. Xu, Houssin,
Sub-dividing as ‘KP’ and ‘KU’
Caillaud, and Gardoni (2010)
‘KW’ and ‘DM’ assignment Adapted from T. Powell’s model (2001)
Terms of ‘States’ and
Adapted from T. Powell’s model (2001)
‘Activities’
‘States’ of KP Side Based on Ermine’s model (2013)
‘States’ of KU Side Adapted from T. Powell’s model (2001)
Linear chaining of Stages Adapted from All models except Spinello’s model (1998)
‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’
Adapted from Almarabeh et al.’s model (2009)
Activities
Adapted from KVCMs based on Porter’s value chain model
‘Support Activities’
except Almarabeh et al.’s model (2009)
‘Understanding’ Adapted from T. Powell (2001) and Almarabeh et al. (2009)
‘Feedback Loop’ Literature implications and Phase I interviewee suggestions
Accordingly, subdivision of the model into two quarters was derived from the two sets
of activities in T. Powell’s model as ‘Knowledge Acquisition’ and ‘Knowledge
Application’. Nevertheless, terminology as KP and KU was adapted from J. Xu et al.
(2010). In KP, knowledge is regarded as an organisational asset embedded on the
‘business product’ and KU concentrates on the economic aspects (J. Xu et al., 2010).
Authors further declared, that both terms focus on physical aspects of knowledge,
which is vital in embellishing knowledge in an economic or business context. Hence,
this nomenclature justifies the knowledge transformation for a profit oriented
organisation, in this scenario a construction organisation. T. Powell’s model (2001)
further distinguished between ‘States’ and ‘Actions’ wherein states are “stages of
processing” and ‘Actions’ are “transformation needed to move to the next stage of
processing” (p.3). The feature is included in the intermediate model with terminology;
‘Activities’ to avoid complications with the state ‘Action’.
53
Moreover, the first four states are recognized to be ‘Data’, ‘Information’, ‘Knowledge’
and ‘Wisdom’. This feature of knowledge transformation is significant in Ermine’s
model (2013). Literature review has illustrated how Ermine (2013) prioritized Data-
Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy based models over models on
KM framework, pertaining to the difficulty in chaining cognitive activities of such
models. Furthermore, KU side states succeeding Wisdom are recognized to be
‘Decision’, ‘Action’, and ‘Result’ as in T. Powell’s model. Accordingly, ‘Intelligence’
of T. Powell’s model is replaced with the term ‘Wisdom’. According to Ermine (2013),
Wisdom includes both individual wisdom and organisational wisdom. Therefore, the
term Wisdom is supposed to be more comprehensive in an organisational context, even
if the term complements the term, Intelligence.
Almarabeh et al.’s model is an integration of the Porter’s value chain model and DIKW
hierarchy. Unlike in other models based on KM frameworks, all the generic activities
of the model are KM activities, separately assigned to the KW and DM. Following the
prospect, activities in the intermediate model are classified as ‘Primary Activities’ and
‘Secondary Activities’. In filling out secondary activities, it was intended to correlate
the KM activities with state transformation. Concept of knowledge related
infrastructure or enablers was abstracted from KVCMs based on KM framework (other
than Almarabeh et al.’s model), citing as ‘Support Activities’ in the model.
Feedback loop is not directly entailed in many models except for T. Powell’s model.
In C. C. Lee and Yang’s model, a feedback channel is portrayed as ‘Communication’.
Knowledge circulation of Spinello’s model is circular, which also implies continuous
feedback. Y. L. Chen et al. (2004) emphasised on ‘Two-way contribution’, which is
another interpretation of feedback. King and Ko (2001) stated the absence of feedback
loops as a limitation in their model. Furthermore, PI.09 highlighted the importance of
feedback system mentioning, “It is a lifecycle”. Moreover, the strategic
implementation of an organisation is guaranteed by feedback learning loops, since
those facilitate organisational learning processes (Versiani, Rezende, Magalhaes, &
Vaz, 2018). Accordingly, the feedback loops in the model denote the concept of
organisational learning.
54
Viewpoints of Phase I interviewees enriched the intermediate model development to
establish QSs as drivers of the model. PI.04 who referred the perception particularly
to T. Powell’s (2001) model mentioned that, “For an example, a primary task of QSs
is to prepare cost estimates. Once a project is completed, claims, variations and other
issues are analysed to apply the result in future projects in estimating and pricing”. In
addition, the sub-divisions; KP and KU were entrusted to ‘KW’s and ‘DM’s
respectively. This nomenclature was prominent in both Almarabeh et al.’s and T.
Powell’s models. L. C. Wang and Ahamed (2005) employed the terms, ‘Knowledge
Provider’ and ‘Knowledge Seeker’ in their model, which implies a parallel notion.
During the Phase I, an attempt was made to map quantity surveying levels with KW
and DM classification, which resulted in mixed results, since a fine distinction could
not be made to classify GQS, SQS, and CQS levels to KWs or DMs. Hence, for the
purpose of framework development, a presumption was established; the GQS to be a
KW and CQS to be a DM, wherein the SQS can act either as a KW or DM as relevant.
Nurulin and Skvortsova (2018) introduced ‘Understanding’ amidst knowledge and

wisdom in the DIKW hierarchy to ensure smooth transition. Furthermore. T. Powell
(2001) mentioned that the ‘Shared Understanding’ between the KW and DM governs
the quality of the process. Indeed, it would be not be productive, if KW’s efforts were
concentrated on a task at which, the DM has no interest in strategic implementation
(T. Powell, 2001). Almarabeh et al. (2009) also validated that a failure in the common
understanding among the KW and DM results in failures to complete the activities at
the expected quality. Hence, in the intermediate model, ‘Understanding’ between the
KW and DM is established as an integral component. PI.03 asserted the application
stating, “KWs and DMs are required to have a shared understanding among them”.
4.3.2 Compilation of options list for case study purposes
A summarized version of options was to be provided to the case study interviewees,

in order to guide them in formulation of Activities of the model. Content of the
document was contrived out of the extant KVCMs reviewed in the literature synthesis.
Nevertheless, intricate model features were defined in-detail at Step 03 and presented
to the interviewees in a tabulated format as in Appendix C as ‘Illustration of KVCM
55
Components’ (Refer Appendix C). It was meant as a guideline for the interviewees to
develop the frameworks systematically with a valid base. Accordingly, the authors
have listed out the outcomes and sequential transformations at each stage, which are
to be employed in the compilation of Primary and Secondary Activities. Nevertheless,
C. C. Lee and Yang’s (2000) model terminates at dissemination without continuing to
the KU side. Regardless the varying nomenclature and definitions, all authors
elaborated activities and outputs from KP to KU in terms of KM processes and
resulting outcomes. Feature of support activities, extracted from KVCMs based on
KM frameworks, was also elaborated in the Appendix C.
4.3.3 Characteristics of the intermediate model
Above analysis can be abstracted in terms of scope, characteristics, assumptions and

the limitations of the intermediate model. Model illustrates how construction
organisations gain competitive advantage by KVC during the tendering process.
Henceforth, the model is interpreted in the context of estimating and pricing a tender
by a construction organisation. QSs are assigned as the drivers of the KVC, with the
proposition that QSs are basically involved in tendering as the pioneer profession with
the participation of other related professionals. The model proceeds with the
presumption that GQSs are basically KWs, SQSs can be either KWs or DMs as
appropriate and CQS is a DM. Unique characteristics of the model includes; feedback
loop indicating organisational learning and correlation of KM processes with the
DIKW hierarchy. Understanding between the KW and DM is considered vital for the
successful progression in the model. Primary inputs to the model can either be of tacit
or explicit forms. It is observed that the output of one state becomes the input to the
immediate state succeeding.
4.3.4 Summary of intermediate model development

Intermediate model was developed by accommodating salient features from KVCMs
in extant literature. Phase I interview round also had a remarkable input to upgrade the
model. Intermediate model consists of the model structure itself and a list of options
for the further development of the intermediate model to KVCMs during case studies.
56
4.4 Phase II: Case Studies
As the third phase, case study analysis was conducted inclusive of three (03) cases,
which were construction organisations of or above Construction Industry Development
Authority (CIDA) grade C1. Five (05) interviews were conducted in each case,
precisely within the quantity surveying profession. Objectives, background, findings
and analysis of case studies are illustrated on forthcoming sub-sections.
4.4.1 Objectives of Phase II (Case studies)
Paramount objective of the phase was to develop a KVCM specific to each case and
to synthesise the models to formulate the KVC framework. In order to accomplish the
objective, five (05) face-to-face interviews of semi-structured design, each of about
one hour were conducted for each case. Models were developed primarily based on
opinions and suggestions of interviewees. Furthermore, model developments were
accompanied with document reviews, when required. Afterwards, developed models
were to be coalesced to formulate the overall KVC framework. For the purpose, case
studying was conducted adhering to the ‘Case Study Interview Guideline’ attached in
Appendix D (Refer Appendix D). Moreover, for the convenience of model
development, the intermediate model (Refer Appendix B) along with the options list
(Refer Appendix C) were presented to the interviewees, anticipating that the
professionals would make necessary adjustments and improvements in their
organisational context. It has to be noted that the interviewees were granted with
complete sovereignty to reject or accept the intermediate model in part or in total.
4.4.2 Background of case studies
Three (03) cases of construction organisations on or above CIDA grade C1 were

selected with the basis that, the concept of KVCM is rather prominent in large-scale
organisations rather than medium or small-scale organisations. Even though selected
organisations exercise in multi sectors within the construction industry, research
focussed basically on building construction sector of the organisation. Table 4.8
delineates the background of each case;
57
Table 4.8: Background of Cases
Details Type of the

Organisation CIDA Grading
Case
CS2 for all the major construction disciplines including
General
Case CS.01 building construction, highway construction, water supply
Contractor
and drainage, and bridge construction
 CS2 for building construction
General  CS2 for highway construction
Case CS.02
Contractor  C1 for water supply and drainage
 C3 for bridge construction
 CS2 for building construction
General  CS2 for highway construction
Case CS.03
Contractor  CS2 for water supply and drainage
 C1 for bridge construction
 Description of Case CS.01
Case CS.01 is one of the major contracting organisations in Sri Lanka, with capability
in diverse sectors including infrastructure and property development. The organisation
is also renowned for ready-mix concrete, pre-stressed and pre-cast concrete, and
asphalt concrete. Focussing on the building construction, it undertakes high-rise
buildings, housing complexes, and other commercial building projects. Organisational
structure of CS.01 constitutes of a matrix structure. All the projects are handled under
five functional units headed by five directors namely; Executive director of; design
and estimate, roads and bridges, financial and administration, mechanical and
electrical and General Manager of constructions. Quantity surveying division is
functioning under the Executive Director of Design and Estimate and there exist two
types of QSs within the division as in charge of mechanical and civil work.
Case CS.02 is one of the established contracting organisations in Sri Lanka, which
outlooks on several sectors including civil engineering services, building construction,
and interior designing. A matrix structure with a flat hierarchy exists in the
organisation. Main functional units within the organisation include group commercial,
technical services, industrial services, contracts and quantity surveying, plant and
equipment, finance, corporate services and administration, business development,
58
human resource management and project co-ordination. Project co-ordinators are
allocated to head all undergoing projects including; two project co-ordinators for
buildings and one co-ordinator each for water services and highways. The contracts
and quantity surveying department at which the research is focussed consist of two
divisions as Pre-Contract division and Post-Contract division. The Pre-Contract
division conducts tendering and estimating processes, whereas Post-Contract division
handles on-going project monitoring.
Case CS.03 is one of the reputed contracting organisations in Sri Lanka for developing
and implementing VE initiatives, specifically in civil engineering and building sectors.
Organisational structure of CS.03 is of matrix nature and consists of three Project
Management Divisions (PMDs), along with individual departments for human
resource, business development, internal audit, information technology and premises,
finance and commercial and corporate project management. Each PMD is specialized
in a particular area of construction; roads and irrigation, piling works and water supply
and building works and consists of its own General Manager and a team including a
Project Managers (PM), and other professionals. Even though a Tendering Division
exists under the Business Development unit, practically tendering is carried out by the
teams formed under each PMD.
4.4.3 Interviewee details of Phase II (Case studies)
Model development was progressed with interviewee ideas and recommendations.

Accordingly, two (02) GQSs, two (02) SQSs and the CQS of each organisation were
interviewed. Primarily, quantity surveying professionals were interviewed with the
prominent research goal of developing the framework for the tendering process of an
organisation. In order to enrich the framework with different perspective in the same
organisation, five (05) interviews were conducted, representing QSs from different
layers of the organisational hierarchy. The assigned designations of GQS, SQS and
CQS of interviewees were contemplated as nominated by each organisation. Table 4.9
illustrates the profile of respective interviewees;
59
Table 4.9: Profile of Case Study Interviewees
Experience
Case Code Designation
No. of Years Key Experience
CS1.G1 GQS 2 Tendering, Project Administration
Case CS.01
CS1.S1 SQS 6 Tendering, Project Administration

Tendering, Project Administration,
CS1.C CQS 11
Contract Management
Case CS.02
CS2.S1 SQS 23 Tendering, Contract Management

CS2.S2 SQS 25 Tendering, Tender Negotiations
CS2.C CQS 9
Contract Management
Case CS.03
CS3.S1 SQS 20 Tendering, Contract Management

CS3.C CQS 16
Contract Management
(GQS - Graduate QS SQS - Senior QS CQS - Chief QS)
Accordingly, KVCMs were developed in each case, by the professionals, upwards the
hierarchy initiating from the GQS level.
4.4.4 Findings and analysis of Phase II (Case studies)
‘Case Study Interview Guideline’ was organized in eight (08) sections in order to
develop the model. At the outset, research was introduced and background of
interviewees was inquired. Subsequently, current knowledge related practices of the
organisation were investigated. Model development thus initiates developing the KP
and KU sides, discussing the incorporation of feedback loop and mechanism of
competitive advantage. Afterwards, QSs’ role in each side of the model was
ascertained, finally focussing on barriers and challenges encountered in implementing
the KVC framework. Accordingly, KP side of the model was developed by GQSs and
verified by SQSs. SQSs further developed the KU side to be scrutinized by the CQS.
Collected data were analysed via manual content analysis and outcomes are as follows;
60
4.4.5 Within case analysis: Case CS.01
 Developing the Knowledge Producing (KP) Side of the Model
Both GQSs elected the secondary activities as per L. C. Wang and Ahamed’s (2005)
model. According to the interviewees, aforementioned steps are the ones, which
express the KM process comprehensively within their organisational context. It was
further emphasised that the designation entails a combination of current organisational
practices and proposed improvements for the system. Once a tender is received, the
tendering QS selects several past projects of similar nature and location from the recent
past and filter the cost significant items of the tender to conduct a cost analysis. The
activity resembles to the steps of ‘Identification’ and ‘Acquisition’ by which the facts
and ideas are searched, located and absorbed into the process. Identification is
distinguished from acquisition in order to signify the gravity of each step.
As per CS1.G1, the new data as well as past project data would undergo these two
steps collectively. If the prices vary in a wider range, a deeper analysis would be done
by conducting the project staff. The adapted strategies and the failures would thus be
evaluated and recorded. The process involves codifying tacit components,
categorizing and analysing under ‘Codification’. The step of ‘Storage’ can be
incorporated to the process at this point, which is not being currently followed in the
organisation. The stored information can thus be made available to the KWs and DMs
via ‘Dissemination’. The process also encompass the ‘Kick-off Meeting’ conducted in
the organisations to review the tendering process, which would be analogous to
‘Refinement’ wherein the information is improved, transferred and adapted to the
current context in a new dimension. The process was endorsed by CS1.S1 in order to
proceed to the next step. Notwithstanding, CS1.S2 stated that Application and
Creation occur after knowledge emerges. The GQSs also designated the KM enablers
of L. C. Wang and Ahamed (2005) as support activities of the model, which was
approved and reasoned by the SQSs owing to the comprehensiveness. The Figure 4.1
depicts the model development of the KP side achieved;
61
KP ≡ KW
STATES
Data Information Knowledge
1) Identification 3) Codification 5) Dissemination

2) Acquisition 4) Storage 6) Refinement
ACTIVITIES
Secondary Activities
Activities
Support
Knowledge Knowledge Organisational Knowledge Knowledge

System Culture Memory Sharing Benchmarking
Figure 4.1: Framework Development of the KP Side of CS.01
Figure 4.1 is a summarized output of the interviews conducted with the GQSs and
SQSs, which was produced to CS1.C to proceed. A fundamental phenomenon was
forwarded by CS1.C on reviewing the above partition of the model. Accordingly,
“Construction is more dynamic than production. Past experience cannot be copy
pasted in a construction framework. Hence, new data must also flow along with the
project data”. Even though the research places a significant weight on the
organisational learning occurring via past project experience, the expert emphasised
that new knowledge is also essential due to uniqueness of construction projects.
 Developing the Knowledge Utilization (KU) Side of the Model
Development of the KU side was inaugurated from the SQS level, with the prediction
that a SQS has the conception of mobilizing from the KP side to the KU side in
perception as a KW, as well as a DM. The SQSs suggested that the transformation of
knowledge in the KU side takes the form of King and Ko’s (2001) model initiating
from the step, ‘Diffusion’, which they considered to be complementing the current
organisational practice. Furthermore, the steps of Application and Creation were to be
bypassed consequently. It has to be noted that the proposed notion includes activities
rather than states, which causes several conflicts when incorporating in the model. In
contradictory, CS1.C disagreed to the above adaption and acquainted the states
included in the DM side of T. Powell’s model to complement the selected states.
62
Accordingly, knowledge leads to ‘Wisdom’, via Communication, to ‘Decision’ by
Application, to ‘Action’ by Formulation, and to ‘Result’ by Implementation.
Framework was developed coalescing CS1.C’s perspective as the basis and

incorporating SQSs’ viewpoints accordingly. Henceforth, ‘Communication’ of
knowledge from KW to DM occurs via submitting a priced tender for the reviewing.
As SQSs illustrated, after knowledge is produced, different interpretations are
generated by different parties, which are then used to identify the issues as in the steps
of ‘Elaboration’ and ‘Infusion’ respectively. Subsequently, ‘Thoroughness’ is
achieved by arriving at multiple understandings on the matter. The above three
components can be characterized as sub-activities of Communication for the
emergence of Wisdom. CS1.S2 illustrated the next step as, “Then we go through
decision-making cabinet. For an example, in a foreign project, the panel considers the
fluency in language when assigning PMs”. The proceeding corresponds to
‘Organisation Related Actions by Others’, by which the top management and other
related divisions involve in finalizing the tender submission. The conceptualization is
a direct interpretation of the activity ‘Application’ to arrive at a final decision.
Afterwards, organisation Formulates the Action and Implement the action plan to
achieve a Result which aligns with the finalization and submission of the tender.
In CS1.C’s opinion, eliminated steps of Application and Creation in L. C. Wang and

Ahamed’s model are appended indirectly, in the KU side. Specifically, the definition
of Application in T. Powell’s model corresponds to that of L. C. Wang and Ahamed’s.
In L. C. Wang and Ahamed’s model, Creation stands for “Nurturing, seeding and
incubating new ideas, and generating new knowledge that leads to major
breakthroughs” (p.321), which implies organisational learning. The aspect is
embodied by the feedback loop, which is to be discussed in a forthcoming sub-section.
As per CS1.S1, “If the previous norm breaks from the process, we have a new norm
to use. It is recorded in the Pricing Norm Pool”. Thus, can be deduced that the activity
would be a ‘Creation’ of knowledge to be fed back to the system. According to L. C.
Wang and Ahamed (2005), Creation is the ‘Organisational Learning’ thus achieved.
The final outcome of the KVCM framework developed for CS.01 is therefore
illustrated in Figure 4.2;
63
KP≡ KW Understanding KU ≡ DM
(Feedback Loop ≡ Lessons
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
STATES
Decision
Wisdom
Result
Action
10) Implementation
5) Dissemination
1) Identification
9) Formulation
7) Communication
6) Refinement
7) Communication
3) Codification
2) Acquisition
8) Application
4) Storage
ACTIVITIES
Primary Activities
Knowledge Organisational Knowledge

Knowledge Culture Knowledge Benchmarking
System Memory Sharing
Support Activities
Figure 4.2: KVCM for CS.01
64
Figure 4.2 thus demonstrate the KVCM developed for CS.01, as reviewed
methodically by different levels of the organisation.
Out of the provided options, GQSs selected the KM process developed by C. C. Lee
and Yang (2000). According to CS2.G1, ‘Acquisition’ occurs initially. “The
acquisition of knowledge is deemed to include identification and filtering of required
aspects”. The statement overlaps with the definition of Acquisition composed by the
authors that Acquisition occurs via searching and organisational learning. Then
‘Innovation’ occurs where the acquired knowledge is innovated and crystalized as a
part of organisational knowledge (C. C. Lee & Yang, 2000). CS2.G2 specifically
mentioned the importance of research and development on the aspect. Once a tender
is received, similar projects are referred basically to derive a price for the current
tender which reflects the activities of Acquisition and Innovation.
Re-organizing of the KM sequel was suggested by CS2.G1 stating that ‘Integration’

precedes ‘Protection’, where ‘raw knowledge’ translates to ‘actionable knowledge’ via
Integration and then protected. When reviewing the suggestion, an indecision emerged
whether, what is protected is knowledge or information. CS2.S2 reinforced the notion
mentioning, “We protect confidential information such as insurance details, not
knowledge”. Hence, it was determined to not to switch the position of activities.
Therefore, process was updated as; data is acquired and innovated to form information,
which is protected as well. Afterwards, information is integrated to form knowledge,
which is later disseminated, wherein the priced tender is forwarded to DMs.
An additional suggestion was made by CS1.G2 to incorporate ‘Creation’ from L. C.

Wang and Ahamed’s model herein. Yet, the definition of Acquisition stated by C. C.
Lee and Yang encompasses the component of organisational learning which is same
as that of Creation. Hence, for the convenience of model development, the feature was
set aside since, it is already acknowledged by the process. It has to be noted that authors
had used the term knowledge from acquisition to the dissemination. Accordingly, what
65
is processing through the transformation channel is knowledge and no transformation
as DIKW occurs. The notion is declined in matching KM stages with the DIKW
hierarchy. The argument is that, knowledge evolves from data and knowledge is
formed with information as the intermediate transformation state. Moreover, GQSs
designated the support activities as in L. C. Wang and Ahamed’s model equivalent to
that of CS.01. SQSs endorsed the selection owing to its correspondence to the
organisation, in comparison to the other available options. Development of KP side by
the GQSs was accepted by the SQSs with necessary adjustments as discussed. Final
output of KP side of CS.02 is depicted in Appendix E (Refer Appendix E).
CS2.S1 nominated the transformation states after knowledge to constitute that stated
by Carlucci et al. (2004) and it was approved and seconded by CS2.S2. Accordingly,
KM develops organisational competencies (Assumption 01), which affects the
effectiveness and efficiency of organisational processes (Assumption 02). Hence,
organisational performance improves as a result of effective and efficient
organisational processes (Assumption 03). Improvement in organisational
performance corresponds to the increase in value created for organisational
stakeholders (Assumption 04). CS2.C authenticated the selection owing to the logical
and methodical representation by the authors with the aid of the four assumptions. Yet,
several amendments were made in order to comprehend with the intermediate model.
CS2.C forged two recommendations for the above process. Accordingly, CS2.C
suggested that capabilities are generated due to the competencies as elaborated by
Ermine (2013). Furthermore, performance is governed by ‘Organisation Related
Actions by Others’ as in King and Ko’s (2001) model. Therefore, the proposed states
in the DM side by CS2.C is as follows in the Figure 4.3;
Organisation
Competencies
Performance
Capabilities
Actions by
Processes
Related
Others
Figure 4.3: Proposed States in the DM Side by CS2.C in CS.02
66
Recommendations of CS2.C has to be analysed further, in order to arrive at a
conclusion. Considering the Interpretations provided for competencies and
capabilities, Ermine (2013) defined competencies as the individual wisdom and
capabilities as organisational wisdom. On the other hand, Carlucci et al. (2004) defined
competencies as the organisational capacity to manage and exploit organisational
resources, in order to achieve a specific goal. Hence, the term competency by Carlucci
et al. (2004) entails the organisational context, which bears a resemblance to the
capabilities definition by Ermine (2013). Hence, it can be deduced that there is no
requirement of incorporating an additional step as capabilities according to the
definition provided by Carlucci et al. (2004).
The second suggestion was to include ‘Organisation Related Actions by Others’ from
King and Ko’s model. As per the model definition, the term stands for “behaviours
that reflect interpreted cognitive actions” (King & Ko, 2001, p.14). Hence, it
corresponds to the state ‘Decision’ in the model. According to Carlucci et al. (2004)
Process Management concerns the effectiveness and efficiency of organisational
processes. A postulation was forwarded to instigate that, management of processes
includes the transformation of Wisdom to Decision, as well as Decision to Action. The
reasoning is that, the top management influences and controls Application and
Formulation all by themselves, as an overlapping series of activities. Ultimately,
Action undergoes Performance Management to give the Result. In consideration of all
facts analysed, the KVCM of CS.02 is portrayed in Appendix F (Refer Appendix F).
In order to apprehend the framework development, the GQSs elaborated the

organisational structure and the tendering procedure in-detail. Even if a tendering
department is established in the organisational structure under the Business
Development unit, the actual practice differs. Once the management decides to
proceed with a tender, a temporary team constituting different professionals are
formed as per management preference. The management appoints the team members
based on the prior performance and experience of the professionals within the
67
respective fields. As per CS3.S1, the tendering process is ‘action-oriented’, since the
same team would be incorporated in project operation, if the tender is won. In addition,
project analyses are done for all past projects and the relevant PM and other project
members are also included in the appointed tendering team. Hence, the GQSs and
SQSs mutually agreed that clear distinctions could not be demarcated in the
transformation process. “It is an overlapping process counting on the experiential
knowledge of the professionals”, said CS3.S1. Therefore, CS3.G1 proposed the
activities of Spinello’s model (1998) to apprehend the transformation. CS3.G2
seconded the proposal owing to the difficulty in distinguishing the transformations.
Accordingly, it was proposed that the total transformation of KP side to be depicted

by a single activity; ‘External Awareness’. External Awareness includes absorption of
all types of knowledge specifically beyond the organisational boundaries and
transforming into Knowledge. The Business Development unit of the organisation
plays a significant role in identification of the opportunities and threats beforehand, so
that the organisation can respond accordingly. The process is enriched by the extracts
from prior project analyses available for each project. As per the illustration of
CS3.S2, all input and processing to transform Data to Information to Knowledge
occurs within the scope External Awareness.
Knowledge absorption occurs basically outside the organisational boundaries.

Knowledge outsourcing is thus specific feature of the organisation. For an example,
CS3.G2 highlighted that the organisation does not employ an in-house architect, in
order to prevent the organisation from narrowing its architectural perspective to a
single professional. On the other hand, CS3.S2 pointed out that forming joint ventures
with foreign partners via collaboration was one of their prime strategies to strengthen
the competitive positioning. Joint venturing with international partners is a significant
feature of the organisation, which also augment the absorptive capacity of the
organisation. Even though not directly applicable or currently practiced within the
organisation, GQSs proposed the support activities by L. C. Wang and Ahamed (2005)
for the framework. SQSs recommended the same, establishing that it would reflect the
support activities required by the organisation at the best light possible. Appendix E
demonstrates the KP side of CS.03 thus achieved (Refer Appendix E).
68
KU side development was commenced as an extension of the KP side to the KU side

via Spinello’s model. Both the SQSs agreed on allocation of the next three activities
to enfold the states of KU side. Henceforth, ‘Internal Awareness’ is recognized as the
activity, which fabricates Wisdom. Self-awareness of the organisation on its resources,
competencies and weaknesses is known as Internal Awareness (Spinello, 1998). The
activity constitutes recognition of tacit and experiential knowledge of professionals. It
has to be noted that according to the author, the activity has an overlapping with the
previous activity. As emphasised by CS3.C, current tendering process justifies the
notion, since External Awareness accompanies the understanding of internal capacity.
In other terms, a portion of External Awareness overlaps and permeates with Internal
Awareness in order to exploit the awareness completely.
Thereafter initiates the translation of Wisdom into Action via Decision-making.

According to CS3.S2, ‘Internal Responsiveness’ delineates a collective term for the
transformation of Wisdom to Action with Decision as an intermediate state of the
process. According to Spinello (1998), Internal Responsiveness requires an action-
oriented and flexible organisational structure, supporting innovation with self-directed
inter-functional teams. Hence, Internal Responsiveness can be justified as the best
representation for the case, since the above mentioned characteristics are prominent
within the organisation. Nonetheless, ‘decentralized decision-making’ elaborated by
the author under Internal Responsiveness has a disagreement with the current
organisational context. “Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the Board of Directors
plays a remarkable role within the organisation”, said CS3.S1. According to the
interviewees, the involvement of the COO is prominent throughout the procedure.
Hence, it could be asserted that the Internal Awareness defined for case CS.03 must
preclude the characteristic of ‘decentralized decision-making’.
Ultimately, ‘External Responsiveness’ follows, whereby the organisation brings the

output to the market via marketing and positioning strategies. According to CS3.C,
“External Responsiveness is the result of the process”. Henceforth, the term External
Responsiveness represents the market positioning carried out by the organisation in
69
order to survive and flourish in the market. Conclusively, KVCM developed for CS.03
is illustrated in Appendix G (Refer Appendix G).
Having developed the three KVCMs for the three cases, next phase was the cross case
analysis in order to mobilize knowledge from individual cases in order to accumulate,
compare and to produce new knowledge (Khan & Vanwynsberghe, 2008).
4.4.8 Cross case analysis
 Current Knowledge Related Practices in the Organisation
Both CS.01 and CS.02 interviewees highlighted on the significance of practicing

‘Work Studies’. Indeed, “Work studies and project experiences are compulsory for
pricing” said CS2.S1. When CS2.C was enquired of a specific work study format
observed at the particular site where CS2.G2 was employed, CS2.C responded that
the employees are given the independency to maintain their own formats, rather than
following a standard format. In both cases, Enterprise Resource Planning system was
the hub of knowledge circulation and project analyses are not done methodically. Yet,
“We have data stored somewhere for the individual users to access. It might be
automatically or by purpose. Even knowledge stored in the minds of professionals can
be considered here”, said CS1.C. Moreover, hard copies of project data are preserved
in the organisation for a specified number of years specified by CIDA and afterwards
in a distinct storing yard in both cases. ‘Method Statement Library’, ‘Pricing Norm
Pool’ are some examples of knowledge databases established in CS.01.
Operational budget presentations conducted in CS2.C at certain time intervals for on-
going projects imply that the organisation is possessing an on-going reviewing
mechanism. On-going monitoring and reviewing were also mentioned in CS.03.
Nevertheless, the organisation has currently identified a gap in knowledge circulation
within the organisation, and to minimize the gap, a ‘Document Management System’
is now being developed, which is in the commissioning stage. On the other hand, tacit
knowledge plays a significant role within CS.03. As per CS3.G2, “A people-oriented
culture exist in the organisation”. Management of CS.03 has an extensive reliance on
70
the human resource of the organisation. Accordingly, tacit knowledge has a strong
effect on organisational processes rather than codified or recorded knowledge.
 Case Specifics
Investigation of organisational behaviours infer peculiar features of each case. Having

established that all the cases appertain on or above CIDA grade C1, all organisations
perform at a larger scale within the industry, notwithstanding the diversified features
of organisations. Aforementioned case specifics are pinpointed in Table 4.10 herewith;
Table 4.10: Organisational Attributes of the Cases
Case CS.01 Case CS.02 Case CS.03

Attribute
(Option 01) (Option 02) (Option 03)
Departmentalization Matrix Matrix Matrix
Organisational Mixed: Organic and
Mechanistic Organic
Structure Mechanistic
Competitive Strategy Cost Leadership Cost Leadership Differentiation
Pre-Contract Temporary Teams
Tendering by QS Division
Division Assigned
Management
Participatory: via on- Significant: via the
Influence on Significant: via COO
going meetings hierarchical channels
Tendering
Both Human and Both Human and Both Human and
KM Outlook
Technology-oriented Technology-oriented Technology-oriented
Accordingly, CS.02 constitutes characteristics of centralized decision-making and

well-defined hierarchy. Pre-Contract division is in charge of winning jobs for the
organisation and includes permanent staff with senior staff appointed to each sector.
CS.01 also incorporates a hierarchical structure with an established staff for tendering
within the QS division. However, in CS.01, a single division called the QS division
overlooks both pre-contract and post-contract activities. Yet, the tendering team and
the operational team are distinct. In CS03, once a tender is received, top management
appoints the tendering team, with the objective of incorporating those officials for
project operation as well. Other professionals such as PMs with related project
experiences are also included compulsorily within the tendering team.
In CS.02, management overlooks the tender procedures via periodical meetings held
with the middle level managers such as CQS. Tendering procedure is thus under the
direct supervision and instructions of the top management. Nevertheless, involvement
71
of the management within the tendering procedure of CS.01 follows a flexible
mechanism than CS.02. Once a tender is received, the top management conducts
‘Kick-off Meetings’ involving QSs assigned for the tender, other related professionals,
CQS and the other middle-level managers. The arrangement encourages the
involvement of operational level in decision-making, rather than rigid instruction
issuance. Decision-making and management influence of CS.03 is relatively similar
to that of CS.02. Administration and the supervision of COO is noteworthy across all
dimensions of the organisation of CS.03. CS.01 and CS.02 basically adapts cost-
leadership strategy to achieve competitive advantage. In contradiction, CS.03
primarily adapts differentiation. However, cost-leadership is adapted at specific
instances. Following conclusions in Table 4.11 are derived from the above discussion;
Table 4.11: Conclusions on Organisational Specifics
Case Conclusion
Case CS.01 Hierarchical organisational structure, yet inclusive of flexible traits with
(Option 01) management involvement in a permissive stance
Case CS.02 Formalized hierarchical structure and centralized decision-making with a distinct
(Option 02) and established staff for tendering
Case CS.03 People-oriented organisational culture with dynamic team formation for
(Option 03) tendering and centralized decision-making
As per Table 4.11, each case has evolved to acquire its specific organisational culture
and structure. Aforementioned organisational portfolios are addressed with the
proposition that, variances in KVCMs developed for each case are derived as a result
of differences among inherent features of organisations.
 Knowledge Value Chain (KVC) Framework
Consequently, the KVCMs developed for each case were amalgamated to form the
ultimate KVC framework. The framework constitutes of three (03) options based on
organisational specifics discussed formerly, along with both current and proposed
knowledge practices, via which the framework can propagate. While specific model
characteristics are discussed subsequently, organisational specifics are matched with
the model options at sub-section 4.5.2. KVC framework thus developed is
demonstrated in the Figure 4.4;
72
KP≡ KW UNDERSTANDING KU ≡ DM
(Feedback Loop ≡ Lessons Learned)
STATES
DATA INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE WISDOM DECISION ACTION RESULT

Option 01 (CS.01)
7) Communication
5) Dissemination
10) Implementation
1) Identification
9) Formulation
3) Codification
8) Application
2) Acquisition
6) Refinement
4) Storage
Option 02 (CS.02)
5) Dissemination
8) Performance
6) Competency
Management
1) Acquisition
2) Innovation
Management
Management
3) Protection
7) Process
4) Integration
ACTIVITIES
Option 03 (CS.03)
2) Internal 3) Internal 4) External

1) External Awareness
Awareness Responsiveness Responsiveness
SECONDARY ACTIVITIES PRIMARY ACTIVITIES
Knowledge System Knowledge Culture Organisational Memory Knowledge Sharing Knowledge Benchmarking
SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
Figure 4.4: KVC Framework
73
Accordingly, KVC framework constitutes of three (03) options in relation to the three
(03) cases, which are considered to be generated based on organisational specifics
discussed hitherto. Primary activities vary in a wide range as observed in the Figure
4.4. Due to the similar operational features of the KP side of CS.01 and CS.02, the
activities could be tallied with each other. Definition of ‘Acquisition’ from CS.02
incorporates both activities listed in CS.01 as ‘Identification’ and ‘Acquisition’.
However, demarcation is highlighted in CS.01 to establish that CS.02 specifically
acquires data, which are only relevant to the context. Transformation from data to
information in both the cases describe the amplification and categorization of data as
‘Codification’ or ‘Innovation’ and proceeding activities of ‘Storage’ or ‘Protection’.
‘Dissemination’ is repetitive in both cases whereas the transformation from
Information to Knowledge is depicted as ‘Refinement’ or ‘Integration’ in each case,
which comprises equivalent denotations. Nevertheless, ‘Storage’ of CS.01 is not
prominent in CS.02, which implies that the activity is affixed to the scope of
‘Integration’. Total transformation in CS.03 is encapsulated in a single activity;
‘External Awareness’ owing to the difficulty in segregating the transformations.
Conveyance of knowledge from KP side to KU side is demonstrated as

‘Communication’, ‘Competency Management’ and ‘Internal Awareness’ in the three
cases. Despite the different phraseology and definitions, underlying concept of
transference is overlapping. In the KU side, transformation from Wisdom to Action
via Decision is an overlapping in CS.02 and CS.03, as ‘Process Management’ and
‘Internal Responsiveness’ respectively, since decision-making and action planning of
both cases are conducted solely by the top management disintegrated from the lower
levels of the organisations. Both notions thus incorporate the discrete activities of
CS.01 namely; ‘Application’ and ‘Formulation’. Last transformation is characterized
in the cases as ‘Implementation’, ‘Performance Management’, and ‘External
Responsiveness’. Notwithstanding the differences among nomenclature and
definitions, the scope of transformation activities are considered as parallel. Support
activities coincide at each case, since interviewees were admitting the most suitable
option out of the given three options, reflecting a combination of existing and proposed
support activities.
74
 Incorporation of Feedback Loop
All the interviewees mutually agreed on incorporating a feedback loop in the

framework. Moreover, CS1.C provided a new dimension for the feedback loop,
proposing feedbacks to be generated not only at Result state, but also at Decision and
Action. CS1.C justified the fact extensively with an example of well point dewatering.
“Initially we may decide to use ten well points. After excavation, it is changed to twenty
due to adverse ground conditions. But for a new project estimation, we use the number
of well points as ten, not twenty”. Accordingly, if the feedback was given after the
result only, the tenderer would be at competitive disadvantage. According to CS1.C,
Wisdom is a state of mind, which would not create a feedback. In consonance with
CS.01, CS2.C also assimilated the generation of multiple feedback paths in the model
whereas CS3.C also agreed with the proposal. In CS.03, Spinello’s model itself
depicts a ‘circular flow of knowledge’ that acknowledges feedback. Accordingly, it
was determined to incorporate three feedback channels initiating from Decision,
Process and Result to be adapted in the framework.
 Role of Quantity Surveyor (QS) in the Model
A preliminary instigation of ascertaining the role of QSs within the model and mapping
QS levels with KW and DM classification was carried out during the Phase I. Based
on the realizations and understandings, presumption that GQS is a KW, SQS can either
be a KW or DM, and CQS is a DM was adhered for the interviewing purposes during
Phase II. Nevertheless, in model operation, QSs have to act either as KWs or as DMs
as required by the context. Opinion of the interviewees was that, to the extent that
tender pricing is considered, model lies within the scope of QSs. CS2.C validated the
affirmation mentioning that based on the assumption that QSs are involved in the
tendering process instead of a tender team of mixed professionals, QSs are the drivers
of the model even though there is an input from the other professionals.
Nevertheless, the top management and even the owner of the organisation involve in
the latter stages of the model. “Company owner is usually involved in tendering
because it is the most significant activity in a construction organisation”, said CS1.S1.
According to CS2.C, “Even if the QSs direct the organisation through the model, the
75
interference and the influence from top management levels may change the whole
scenario”. On the other hand, when project implementation is considered, framework
shifts beyond the scope of QSs, to other professionals and divisions. CS1.C thence
affirmed, “Many other professional such as PMs, planning engineers, will be involved
in implementation. Thus, it will create many paths and all the paths give feedback to
the tendering team or QS”. Therefore, expert affirmed limiting the model to a ‘single
row’ by refining the scope as estimation and pricing carried out by a QS in tendering.
The opinion of CS3.S1 was that limitation of the model only to quantity surveying
scope is difficult within their organisational context. On the other hand, CS3.S1
accorded that “Mostly QSs are involved in the process although there is a significant
input from PMs, engineers and other professionals”. The tendering teams appointed
by the top management necessarily include many other professionals such as PMs,
engineers, and design advisors. Hence, it is established that tender pricing is primarily
the task of QSs, even though the input from the other parties is significant.
Considering the perceptions, a broader view point of QSs as drivers of the KVC
framework can be congregated. With respect to the assertion that QSs play a major
role in tender pricing in each case, involvement of QSs in the KVC framework is
noteworthy. Nevertheless, the involvement and the contribution from parties such as
other professionals and the top management cannot be disregarded in each case.
Hence, it could be established that QSs act as drivers of the model with a momentous
input from the other internal stakeholders associated with tendering.
 Barriers and Challenges on the Application of Knowledge Value Chain

Model (KVCM) Concept for a Construction Organisation
Analysis of barriers and challenges confronting such application consists of literature

findings, Phase I interviewee opinions and case study interviewee viewpoints.
Following Phase I interviewing, case study interviewees were further enquired of the
barriers and challenges of the framework. Case study interviewees were supposed to
have an in-depth abstraction of the KVC framework than the Phase I interviewees.
Table 4.12 thus constitutes of the barriers and challenges on the application of KVC
framework, amalgamating the extant literature, Phase I interviews and case studies;
76
Table 4.12: Barriers and Challenges in Application of KVCM in the Construction Industry
Expert Source
Interviewee
No. Barriers and Literature (T. Expert Case Study
Challenges Powell, 2001) Interviewees Interviewees
Lack of understanding between the

01 
KWs and DMs
Time Constraints on model
02   
implementation
Communication issues between DMs
03 
and KWs
Reliability issues among DMs
04  
regarding the output of KWs
05 Disregarding the feedback loop  
KVCs not linking with each other in
06 
an organisation
Changing the mindset of the industry
07 to adapt new concepts or Resistance to  
change
Organisations neglecting subsidiary
08  
systems over basic functions
Cost constraints on model
09  
implementation
Scarcity of knowledgeable and expert
10  
professionals on the subject area
Requirement of formalized and
11 
sophisticated systems
12 The model being of qualitative nature 
Professionals focussing on technical
13 
and numerical aspects than soft skills
14 Reluctance of knowledge sharing 
Realization of model outcomes in the
15 
long run
It has to be noted that barriers and challenges mentioned by the Phase I interviewees
were related to model implementation, whereas literature and case study interviewees
concentrated on model operation. Many Phase I interviewees identified the difficulty
in changing the mindset of the industry in order to implement such a model. With
respect to model progression, specific barriers and challenges such as, credibility
issues of the output of KWs and abandoning the feedback loop, which were extracted
from extant literature were re-affirmed by the case study interviewees. Time constraint
on model implementation was iterated in all three data sources. Specifically, T. Powell
(2001) emphasised that presence of large quantities of data to be processed within a
limited time frame is a major challenge faced by a KW. In addition, a barrier specific
to CS.03 emerged, due to the difficulty of assigning QSs as the drivers in their model.
77
 Limitations of the Framework
The basic limitation of the framework is the presumption of considering GQSs as

KWs, SQS as a combination of KWs and DMs, and CQS as DM during the model
development. Furthermore, the framework disregards complexities arising from the
involvement of other professionals in the model. Framework further assumes the ‘bid
or no bid decision’ is already taken by the organisation, which otherwise would result
in complications on model operation. Furthermore, the framework constitutes only of
three options as variants. Framework is also restricted from being implemented at the
project level, and considers only the departmental level. The framework does not
demonstrate its integration to the overall organisational strategy as well.
4.4.9 Summary of Phase II (Case studies)
Case studying was conducted with the prime intention of developing KVCMs specific
to each case, based on the organisational characteristics and to accrue the models to
articulate the KVC framework ultimately. The three KVCMs developed for the three
cases are perceived to be unique owing to the distinctive organisational characteristics.
The KVC framework, which is based on those unique KVCMs, demonstrates the
variation of KVCs on the ground of unique nature of the construction organisations.
4.5 Discussion
4.5.1 Discussion of Phase I (Expert interview) findings
The aspiration of the discussion is to compare the research findings with that of the
existing literature, as illustrated in sub-section 3.5.2. Accordingly, different authors
have reviewed the role of knowledge and KM within the construction industry in
different angles. Construction industry is knowledge-dependent (Kulkarni & Dahiya,
2018) and knowledge-intensive (Yu & Yang, 2016). Interviewee perception was that
construction industry is a knowledge-intensive industry, owing to its unique features.
On the other hand, among the two types of competitive advantage, an organisation is
ought to be the lowest cost producer via ‘Cost Leadership’ or tends to be unique via
‘Differentiation’, yet achieving both at the same time is usually inconsistent (Porter,
1985). Several interviewees agreed that construction organisations are supposed to
78
adhere to a single strategy. Others contended that both types are applicable for a single
organisation, but a single strategy to be adapted for each project in consideration.
Knowledge has been recognized as a crucial asset in any organisation (Beijerse, 1999;
Chan et al., 2011; Dutta & Madalli, 2015; Han & Park, 2009; Mcinerney, 2002; Millar
et al., 2016), whereas the interviewees advanced the relevance in the context of
construction organisations. Amongst which, tacit knowledge has been recognized as a
driver of competitive advantage for construction organisations (Addis, 2016; Garrick
& Chan, 2017; Pathirage et al., 2007; Woo et al., 2004). Although several interviewees
presented contradicting ideas, majority placed a higher weight on tacit knowledge in
consideration of competitive advantage. Esmi and Ennals (2009) recognized
construction organisations as learning organisations. The interviewees also agreed
with the notion that ‘construction organisations are learning organisations’.
A direct linkage among the quantity surveying profession, knowledge and competitive
advantage is limited in the extant literature. Nevertheless, several authors have
recognized the role of QSs in the tendering process of a contractor organisation
(O’Brien et al., 2014; Towey, 2012). Furthermore, quantity surveying has been
demarcated as a knowledge-intensive profession (Appiah, 2014; Fadeke et al., 2015;
Fong & Choi, 2009; Nor, 2010). The interviewees coalesced the above two notions in
order to established a comprehensive abstraction that, QSs contribute to competitive
advantage in tendering, by employing knowledge as the principle ingredient.
4.5.2 Discussion of Phase II (Case studies) findings
Salient features of the developed KVC framework are hereby matched with the
existing literature. Eriksson (2013) defined Organisational Ambidexterity as the ability
of an organisation to achieve both exploration and exploitation. The author further
defined structural ambidexterity as existence of two functional units for exploration
and exploitation within the organisation and contextual ambidexterity as a functional
unit allocating the resources for both the aspects as per emerging demand. Eriksson
(2013) recommended the integration of contextual ambidexterity within construction
organisations due to the project-based nature of the industry. KVC framework fetches
the same feature by entailing two partitions within the framework as KP and KU.
79
Even though the term ‘Knowledge’ is used to denote knowledge circulations, what is
actually processed is data, rather than knowledge (Garrick & Chan, 2017). KVC
framework is coherent with the concept by illustrating the DIKW transition in the
chain. According to Ye (2016), DIKW hierarchy could be transformed into a logic
chain, although demonstrated in the form of a hierarchy. KVC framework in turn has
disintegrated the DIKW hierarchy into a chain with extended states of Decision,
Action and Result. Nurulin and Skvortsova (2018) introduced an additional state
amidst knowledge and wisdom in the DIKW hierarchy as ‘Understanding’, in order to
ensure a smooth transition. KVC framework also entails the feature between the
transition states in order to align the efforts of KW with the strategic objective of DM.
Carlucci et al. (2004) comprehended the value creation via KM processes within the
KVCM for a generic organisation adapting Balance Scorecard, Business Excellence
Model, and Performance Prism. Table 4.13 illustrates the application of the framework
to delineate the value creation of KVC framework within a construction organisation;
Table 4.13: Value Creation in Construction Organisations via Business performance Models
Value Creation of KVC

Model Model Description
frameowork
Integrates financial measures with three non- KVC enhances ‘Learning and
financial measures (customers, internal Growth’ by substantiating
Balance
business processes, and learning and growth) construction organisations as
Scorecard
to ascertain business performance (Kaplan & learning organisations via the
Norton, 1996) feedback loop.
A scoring system of Enablers (leadership,
‘Innovation and Learning’
people management, policy and strategy,
Business characteristic of the model is
resources, processes) and Results (people
Excellence promoted by the continuous
satisfaction, customers’ satisfaction, impact
Model learning via feedback loop
on society, business results) (Wongrassamee,
developed of the framework.
Simmons, & Gardiner, 2003)
A three dimensional framework with five KVC adds value to the
Performance facets (stakeholder satisfaction, strategies, tendering process in terms of
Prism processes, capabilities, stakeholder reinforcing the ‘Capabilities’
contribution) (Neely, Adams, & Crowe, 2001) of the organisation.
Carlucci et al. (2004) justified utilization of models, as those being widely adapted by
organisations to assess the organisational performance. The same notion is applied in
the context of the tendering process in a construction organisation wherein, KM
processes range in the KVC of the developed framework. Moreover, Spiegler (2000)
fostered the concept of double hierarchy of DIKW relationship in the form of a cyclical
80
model. Incorporation of feedback was encouraged in many extant KVCMs such as Y.
L. Chen et al. (2004), T. Powell (2001), and Spinello (1998), even if not portrayed
straightforwardly. KVC framework incorporates a feedback loop generating links
from each of the last three transformation states to promote organisational learning.
Wiewiora, Murphy, Trigunarsyah, and Brown (2014) addressed how organisational

culture influences the knowledge processes of a PBO. Nevertheless, Wiewiora et al.
(2014) idenitified that organisational culture has an effect on individual employees,
which in turn determines the operation of knowledge processes. Wei and Miraglia
(2017) also have instituted that organisational features have an effect on the KM
processes of a construction organisation. Accordingly, KVC framework entails three
options to proceed depending on the nature of the organisation, on the consideration
that KVC varies with the inherent features of an organisation.
Kessler, Nixon, and Nord (2017) had conducted an in-depth comparison of

mechanistic and organic structures in terms of satisfaction and relationships, ethics and
influence, and learning and communication. The study revealed that organic structures
support flexible communication and enhanced knowledge processes. The authors
further discussed the adaptation of multi-dimensional approach in organisations,
coalescing features of both organic and mechanistic structures. Such organisations
alternatively adapt mechanistic features to promote standardization of processes, while
utilizing organic features to promote for customization and innovation. Option 01 of
the KVC framework demonstrates the probable KVC for a construction organisation
with multi-dimensional features, whereas option 02 and 03 depicts KVC for a
tendering process in organisations with mechanistic and organic features respectively.
4.6 Summary
The chapter illustrates the analysis of Phase I interviews and case studies, which are
analysed via manual content analysis. The findings are illustrated in four progressive
steps as Phase I analysis, development of the intermediate model, Phase II analysis
and the discussion, in order to formulate and rationalize the ultimate KVC framework.
Alternatively, the chapter paves the pathway to establish the conclusions,
recommendations and further research options as in the forthcoming chapter.
81
CHAPTER 05
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
Even though construction industry and Quantity Surveyors (QSs) deal extensively
with knowledge, mechanisms to exploit knowledge utterly for competitive advantage
are limited. Hence, the study applies Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) concept
as a resolution to facilitate effective and efficient utilization of organisational
knowledge. QSs as knowledge-intensive professionals are designated as drivers of the
model, in order to operate it to gain competitive advantage during tendering. Chapter
thus concludes how the research aim is achieved by fulfilling each objective and make
recommendations while listing the limitations associated and further research options.
5.2 Conclusions
Conclusions derived are illustrated with respect to each objective of the study, in
accordance with sub-section 1.3.2.
Objective 01: Identifying the concepts of knowledge, KM and KVCM
Identification of concepts were achieved via the literature review. Knowledge and KM
have varied interpretations evolving over decades. Despite the controversies related to
knowledge theory, it is recognized as a crucial organisational asset contributing to
competitive advantage within the current knowledge economy. In an organisational
perspective, the rationale of Knowledge Management (KM) is to facilitate effective
exploration and exploitation of knowledge resources for value creation. KVCM can
be designated as a derivative of KM, based on Porter’s value chain theory. A KVCM
consists of a set of knowledge related activities or transformation stages, to provide
directives on the employment of knowledge resources. Knowledge Value Chain
(KVC) of an organisation ensures the effective deployment of KM initiatives to bring
about value creation and competitive advantage. The mechanism by which KVCM
generates competitive advantage for a construction organisation is thereby derived via
Resource-Based View (RBV) of an organisation and across extant KVCMs.
82
Objective 02: Analysing the different types of KVCMs existing
The objective was solely fulfilled via the literature review. Even though the core
concept of any KVCM is to gear organisational knowledge resources to bring about
competitive advantage, different scholars have recognized different mechanisms by
which the goal is achieved. Fourteen (14) such models were compared and contrasted
by categorizing into three (03) categories as KVCMs based on KM frameworks,
KVCMs based on Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy, and
other KVCMs. KVCMs based on KM frameworks entail KM processes to bring about
value creation and KVCMs based on DIKW hierarchy emphasise the transition from
data to wisdom and so on, for the purpose. A third category was identified since several
models could be categorized as neither constituting a KM framework, nor elaborating
DIKW transition. Nevertheless, ach model possess its own features, applications and
limitations, which are critical in consideration of the KVC framework development.
Objective 03: Determining the necessity and application of KVCM concept for
the tendering process in construction organisations
Determination of the relevance of KVC concept in the context of construction,

specifically for the tendering process of a construction organisation was attained by
formulation of the theoretical base via the literature review and subsequently
investigating the practical context via Phase I interviewee perceptions. Construction
industry is a knowledge-intensive industry, which relies extensively on tacit
knowledge and project knowledge. Tendering is an essential functional area of a
construction organisation, by which the organisation receives jobs. Henceforth,
construction organisations need to be competitive over the co-competitors to win jobs.
Knowledge plays a significant role within the tender process, specifically in tender
pricing. The overall project knowledge of organisation and the tacit knowledge of
professionals involved play a significant role contributing to gain a competitive
advantage. Engaging KVCM concept thus assists the exploitation of the organisational
knowledge resources strategically to direct the organisational efforts towards winning
the projects. Accordingly, KVCM concept can be employed to yield competitive
advantage in the tendering process of a construction organisation.
83
Objective 04: Discerning the KVC for the tendering process of construction
organisations to gain competitive advantage
Having fulfilled the third objective, the succeeding effort was to recognize and develop
the KVC framework. The objective was a cumulative process fulfilled throughout
literature reviewing, data collection and data analysis phases. An intermediate model
was developed based on the literature findings and further fine-tuned by Phase I
interviewee suggestions. Subsequently three (03) individual KVCMs were developed
for each case based on the intermediate model and the extant models in the literature.
Three models collaboratively resulted in the ultimate KVC framework. Three cases
exhibit three variants, in which a KVC can outspread within a construction
organisation. The first option represents the KVC of an organisation with mixed
features of organic and mechanistic organisational structures, granting the opportunity
for the operational level to make recommendations in decision-making. The second
option exemplifies a typical bureaucratic organisational structure with centralized
decision-making. Third option signifies the KVC probable for an innovative and
person-oriented organisational culture, but with centralized decision-making.
Objective 05: Ascertaining the role of QSs within the KVC framework
In order to achieve the objective, foundation was laid via literature review and
continued across data collection and analysis. Accordingly, QSs were recognized as
knowledge-intensive professionals, who employ knowledge to gear competitive
advantage. The role of QSs in construction organisations extend across project
winning and operation. Specifically, QSs’ role is prominent during tender pricing.
Therefore, KVC framework focusses on QSs to utilize knowledge effectively to gain
competitive advantage. Even though other professionals’ contribution is also vital in
the process, QSs are expected to act as drivers of the model in terms of tender pricing.
QSs may function as either KWs or DMs as required. A clear demarcation cannot be
assigned to whether which functional level of quantity surveying should act as KWs
or DMs. Nevertheless, QSs would perform their tasks interchangeably among KW and
DM statuses, in order to drive the KVC to derive competitive advantage for the
construction organisation during the tendering process.
84
The ultimate research aim of developing a KVC framework for the tendering process
in construction organisations via quantity surveying perspective is thus attained by the
systematic realization of the five objectives illustrated formerly.
5.3 Recommendations
Recommendations focus basically on the enhancement of awareness and the practical
implementation of the KVCM concept in construction organisations as follows;
Technological Advancement: For the efficient functioning of the KVC framework,

organisations are required to composite with the necessary technological capacity.
Assigning a distinct official: Framework requires the administration and management

of a knowledgeable person in-charge to perform the specific tasks of the framework.
Encouraging practical implementation at organisational level: Construction

organisations need to implement the model practically to test and yield the results.
Implementing research and development: In-depth investigations on the application

and the impediments encountered are required for further enhancement of the model.
5.4 Limitations
Even though KM practices are available, the concept of KVCM is novel to the
construction industry. Lack of awareness of industry professionals on the concept thus
limited the study to ten (10) expert interviewees at Phase I and five (05) professionals
in each of the three (03) case studies at Phase II, who were asserted to be proficient in
providing the judgements. Moreover, the study was limited to construction
organisations of or above CIDA grade C1 and three (03) levels of quantity surveying.
5.5 Further Research
The research advanced within the construction industry emanating options for further
researches. Such research avenues include developing KVC frameworks for;
 The operational facet of construction projects

 The effective resource allocation in construction organisations
 Consultant organisations in the quantity surveying perspective.
85
REFERENCES
Abdullahi, S., & Saif, A. (2015). Positioning organisational culture in knowledge

management research. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 164-189.
doi:10.1108/JKM-07-2014-0287
Addis, M. (2016). Tacit and explicit knowledge in construction management.

Construction Management and Economics, 34(7-8), 439-445.
doi:10.1080/01446193.2016.1180416
Aje, I. O., Adedokun, O. A., & Ibironke, O. T. (2015). Analysis of projects undertaken
by quantity surveyors in Lagos state, Nigeria. Organization, Technology &
Management in Construction: An International Journal, 7(1), 1209-1216.
doi:10.5592/otmcj.2015.1.5
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge

management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS
Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. doi:10.2307/3250961
Almarabeh, T., Abuali, A. N., Alsharrab, S., & Alkareem, A. (2009). Value chain
model in knowledge management. International Journal of Recent Trends in
Engineering, 2(2), 196-198. doi:10.1108/02621710010378228
Almutairi, A. F., Gardner, G., & McCarthy, A. (2014). Practical guidance for the use
of a pattern-matching technique in case-study research:A case presentation.
Nursing and Health Sciences, 16, 239–244. doi:10.1111/nhs.12096
Appiah, B. (2014). Knowledge management practices in the quantity surveying firms

in Ghana. (Master’s thesis, Department of Building Technology,Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (Knust), Kumasi). Retrieved
from http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6406
86
Asrarulhaq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016). A systematic review of knowledge management
and knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges. Cogent Business and
Management, 16(4), 1-15.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1127744
Ball, M., Farshchi, M., & Grilli, M. (2000). Competition and the persistence of profits
in the United Kingdom construction industry. Construction Management and
Economics, 18(7), 733-745. doi:10.1080/014461900433023
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17(1), 99-120. doi:10.1177/014920639101700108
Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. The Academy of

Management Executive, 9(4), 49-61. doi:10.5465/AME.1995.9512032192
Basit, T. N. (2003). Manual or electronic? The role of coding in qualitative data

analysis. Educational Research, 45(2), 143–154.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000133548
Beijerse, R. P. (1999). Questions in Knowledge management: Defining and

conceptualising a phenomenon. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 94-
109. doi:10.1108/13673279910275512
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content
analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (1999). Organisational factors and knowledge management
within large marketing departments: An empirical study. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 3(3), 212-225. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/13673279910288707
87
Betts, M., & Ofori, G. (1992). Strategic planning for competitive advantage in
construction. Construction Management and Economics, 10(6), 511-532.
doi:10.1080/01446199200000049
Betts, M., & Ofori, G. (1994). Strategic planning for competitive advantage in
construction: The institutions. Construction Management and Economics,
12(3), 203-217. doi:10.1080/01446199400000029
Blayse, A. M., & Manley, K. (2004). Key influences on construction innovation.

Construction Innovation, 4(3), 143-154. doi:10.1108/14714170410815060
Bohari, A. A. (2009). Quantity surveyor’s liability during pre tender stage. Master's
theseis for the degree of Master of Sciences in Construction Contract
Management, University of Technology, Malaysia, Faculty of Built
Environment, Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://eprints.utm.my/18501/1/AsmahAliaMFAB2009.pdf
Bollinger, A. S., & Smith, R. D. (2001). Managing Organizational knowledge as a

strategic asset. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 8-18.
doi:10.1108/13673270110384365
Brook, M. (2017). Estimating and tendering for construction work (5 ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Brunel, S., Zolghadri, M., & Moradi, M. (2012). Global approach for Knowledge
management in design. Information Sciences for Decision Making :
Informations, Savoirs, Décisions et Médiations. Retrieved from
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00948449/document
Caldas, C. H., Elkington, R. W., O’Connor, J. T., & Kim, J. Y. (2015). Development
of a method to retain experiential knowledge in capital projects organizations.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(5), 04014083 (1-11).
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000322
88
Carlucci, D., Marr, B., & Schiuma, G. (2004). The knowledge value chain: How
intellectual capital impacts on business performance. International Journal of
Technology Management, 277(27), 575-590. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2004.004903
Carrillo, P., Ruikar, K., & Fuller, P. (2013). When will we learn? Improving lessons
learned practice in construction. International Journal of Project Management,
31(4), 567–578. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.005
Chan, P., Pollard, D., & Puriveth, P. (2011). Implementing knowledge management.
Journal of Business & Economics Research, 2(5), 7-17.
doi:10.19030/jber.v2i5.2877
Chen, L., & Fong, P. S. (2013). Visualizing evolution of knowledge management

capability in construction firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 139(7), 839-851. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000649
Chen, L., & Mohamed, S. (2010). The strategic importance of tacit knowledge
management activities in construction. Construction Innovation, 10(2), 138 -
163. doi:10.1108/14714171011037165
Chen, Y. L., Yang, T. C., & Lin, Z. S. (2004). A study on the modeling of knowledge
value chain. SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset
Management (pp. 1-12). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:https://doi.org/10.2118/87027-MS
Cope, D. G. (2014). Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software. Oncology

Nursing Forum, 41(3), 322-323. doi:10.1188/14.ONF.322-323
Cornick, T., & Osbon, K. (1994). A study of the contractor's quantity surveying
practice during the construction process. Construction Management and
Economics, 12(2), 107-111. doi:10.1080/01446199400000017
89
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2 ed.). California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from
https://charlesbickenheuserdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/creswell_20
07_qualitative_inquiry_and_research_design__choosing_among_five_approa
ches__2nd_edition.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (4 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Retrieved from basu.nahad.ir/uploads/creswell.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design : Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (4 ed.). California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved
from file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Creswell-ResearchDesign.pdf
Cronin, C. (2014). Using case study research as a rigorous form of inquiry. Nurse
Researcher, 21(5), 19-27. Retrieved from
http://repository.essex.ac.uk/11140/7/Cronin%20NR%20MAR%202014%20.
pdf
Dada, J. O., & Jagboro, G. O. (2012). Core skills requirement and competencies
expected of quantity surveyors: Perspectives from quantity surveyors, allied
professionals and clients in Nigeria. Australasian Journal of Construction
Economics and Building, 12(4), 78-90.
doi:https://doi.org/10.5130/AJCEB.v12i4.2808
Dada, J. O., & Jagboro, G. O. (2018). A framework for assessing quantity surveyors’
competence. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(7), 2390-2403.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-05-2017-0121
Dalmarco, G., Maehler, A. E., Trevisan, M., & Schiavini, J. M. (2017). The use of
knowledge management practices by Brazilian startup companies. RAI Revista
de Administração e Inovação, 14(3), 226–234.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2017.05.005
90
Dangerfield, B., Green, S., & Austin, S. (2010). Understanding construction
competitiveness: The contribution of system dynamics. Construction
Innovation, 10(4), 408-420. doi:10.1108/14714171011083579
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations

manage what they know. Massachusetts, United States: Harvard Business
School Press. doi:10.1145/348772.348775
Davis, R., Watson, P., & Man, C. L. (2007). Knowledge management for the quantity
surveying profession. FIG Working Week 2007 (pp. 13-17). Hong Kong SAR,
China: International Federation of Surveyors, FIG. Retrieved from
https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2007/papers/ts
_4e/ts04e_03_davis_etal_1260.pdf
DeMarris, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience. In

K. DeMarris, & S. D. Lapan, Foundations for Research: Methods of inquiry in
education and social sciences (pp. 51-68). New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc. Retrieved from
ftp://ftp.park.istt.ir/Download/ISTT/Amozesh/r&d/Books/Foundations%20fo
r%20Research.pdf#page=234
Diefenbach, T. (2006). Intangible resources: A categorial system of knowledge and

other intangible assets. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(3), 406-420.
doi:10.1108/14691930610681483
Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organizational factors to support knowledge

management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 890 -
914. doi:10.1108/13673271111179271
Dutta, B., & Madalli, D. (2015). Trends in knowledge modelling and knowledge
management: An editorial. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1).
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2014-0442
91
Egbu, C. O. (2004). Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved
organizational innovations in the construction industry: An examination of
critical success factors. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 11(5), 301–315. doi:10.1108/09699980410558494
Elo, S., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O., Polkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngas, H. (2014).
Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open, 4(1), 1–
10. doi:10.1177/2158244014522633
Ericsson, S., Henricsson, P., & Jewel, C. (2005). Understanding construction industry
competitiveness: The introduction of the Hexagon framework. 11th Joint CIB
International Symposium Combining Forces - Advancing Facilities
Management and Construction through Innovation (pp. 13-16). Helsinki,
Finland: Technical Research Centre - Association of Finnish Civil Engineers.
Retrieved from https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB6268.pdf
Eriksson, P. E. (2013). Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations:

Development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in
construction companies. International Journal of Project Management, 31(3),
333–341. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.07.005
Eriksson, P. E., & Leiringer, R. (2015). Explorative and exploitative learning in

project-based organizations: improving knowledge governance through a
project management office? Engineering Project Organization Journal, 5(4),
160-179. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21573727.2015.1104665
Ermine, J. L. (2013). A knowledge value chain for knowledge kanagement. Journal of

Knowledge & Communication Management, 3(2), 85-101. doi:10.5958/j.2277-
7946.3.2.008
Esmi, R., & Ennals, R. (2009). Knowledge management in construction companies in

the UK. AI & Society, 24(2), 197–203. doi:10.1007/s00146-009-0202-9
92
Eustace, C. (2003). A new perspective on the knowledge value chain. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 588 - 596. doi:10.1108/14691930310504581
Fadeke, A. T., Oluwaseyi, A., & Rufus, O. D. (2015). Assessment of knowledge

management practices in quantity surveying firms in Lagos and Abuja,
Nigeria. Information and Knowledge Management, 5(11). Retrieved from
http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/IKM/article/viewFile/26979/27662
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management.
California Management Review, 40(3), 265-276. doi:10.2307/41165954
Faucher, J. B., Everett, A. M., & Lawson, R. (2008). Reconstituting knowledge

management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3), 3-16.
doi:10.1108/13673270810875822
Fong, P. S., & Chen, L. (2012). Governance of learning mechanisms: Evidence from
construction firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
9(139), 1053-1064. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000521
Fong, P. S., & Choi, S. (2009). The processes of knowledge management in

professional services firms in the construction industry: A critical assessment
of both theory and practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(2), 110-
126. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910942736
Garrick, J., & Chan, A. (2017). Knowledge management and professional experience:
the uneasy dynamics between tacit knowledge and performativity in
organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(4), 872-884.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2017-0058
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review,

71(4), 78-91. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1993/07/building-a-learning-
organization
93
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection
in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal,
204(6), 291-295. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192
Girard, J., & Girard, J. (2015). Defining knowledge management: Toward an applied
compendium. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 3(1), 1-20.
Retrieved from
http://www.iiakm.org/ojakm/articles/2015/volume3_1/OJAKM_Volume3_1p
p1-20.pdf
Han, K. H., & Park, J. W. (2009). Process centered knowledge model and enterprise
ontology for the development of knowledge management system. Expert
Systems with Applications, 36(4), 7441–7447. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.09.031
Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Mueller, A., & Wald, A. (2009). Knowledge management in
project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 148-160.
doi:10.1108/13673270910971897
Hardie, M., Miller, G., Manley, K., & McFallan, S. (2005). The quantity surveyor’s
role in innovation generation, adoption and diffusion in the Australian
construction industry. Queensland University of Technology Research Week
International Conference (pp. 1-10). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland
University of Technology, Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/974535/The_quantity_surveyors_role_in_innovati
on_generation_adoption_and_diffusion_in_the_Australian_construction_indu
stry
Hassan, A., Bakar, A., Yusof, M. N., Tufail, M. A., & Virgiyanti, W. (2016). Effect of
knowledge management on growth performance in construction industry.
Management Decision, 54(3), 735-749. doi:10.1108/MD-01-2015-0006
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing

complex products and systems. Research Policy, 29(7-8), 871-893. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00110-4
94
Holsapple, C. W., & Jones, K. (2004). Exploring primary activities of the knowledge
chain. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(3), 155–174.
doi:10.1002/kpm.200
Holsapple, C. W., & Jones, K. (2005). Exploring secondary activities of the knowledge
chain. Knowledge and Process Management, 12(1), 3–31.
doi:10.1002/kpm.219
Holsapple, C. W., & Singh, M. (2001). The knowledge chain model: Activities for
competitiveness. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(1), 71-98. Retrieved
Horta, I. M., & Camanho, A. S. (2014). Competitive positioning and performance

assessment in the construction industry. Expert Systems with Applications,
41(4), 974–983. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.064
Hubert, H., & Peter, N. (2007). How the QS Can Create Values in the Procurement of
Construction Works in Hong Kong. Strategic Integration of Surveying
Services, FIG Working week 2007, (pp. 13-17). Hong Kong SAR, China.
Retrieved from
https://www.fig.net/pub/fig2007/papers/ts_5g/ts05g_04_hiew_lee_1665.pdf
Ion, E. I., & Criveanu, M. (2011). Organizational performance: A concept that self-
seeks to find itself. Annals of the Constantin Brâncuşi University from Târgu
Jiu : Economy Series, 1(4), 179-183. Retrieved from
http://www.utgjiu.ro/revista/ec/pdf/2016-04/27_Ion,%20Criveanu.pdf
Jiang, L., Zhong, P., & Cheng, H. (2014). Study on the organization structure
innovation of knowledge management in construction enterprise. International
Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management, (pp. 875-885).
Kunming, China. doi:10.1061/9780784413777.103
Johnston, A. (2014). Rigour in research: Theory in the research approach. European

Business Review, 26(3), 206-217. doi:10.1108/ebr-09-2013-0115
95
Kamara, J. M., Augenbroe, G., Anumba, C. J., & Carrillo, P. M. (2002). Knowledge
management in the architecture, engineering and construction industry.
Construction Innovation, 2(1), 53-67. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1108/14714170210814685
Kanapeckiene, L., Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E., & Seniut, M. (2010). Integrated
knowledge management model and system for construction projects.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 23(7), 1200–1215.
doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2010.01.030
Kang, B. G., Elbashier, M., Tang, L., Jin, R., & Tang, S. (2018). Competitive tendering
for construction projects in Sudan. Journal of Fundamental and Applied
Sciences, 10(3S), 828-835. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jfas.v10i3s.71
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic
management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75–85. Retrieved from
http://jackson.com.np/home/documents/MBA4/Management_accounting/BS
CHarvardBusinessReview.pdf
Kessler, S. R., Nixon, A. E., & Nord, W. R. (2017). Examining organic and
mechanistic structures: Do we know as much as we thought? International
Journal of Management Reviews, 19(4), 531-555. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12109
Khan, S., & Vanwynsberghe, R. (2008). Cultivating the under-mined: Cross-case

analysis as knowledge mobilization. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(1), 1-26 (Article 34) .
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-9.1.334
King, W. R., & Ko, D. G. (2001). Evaluating knowledge management and the learning
organization: An information/ knowledge value chain approach.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 5(Article 14), 1-
27. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol5/iss1/14/
96
Kivrak, S., Arslan, G., Dikmen, I., & Birgonul, M. T. (2008). Capturing knowledge in
construction projects: Knowledge platform for contractors. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 24(2), 87-95. Retrieved from
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290742-
597X%282008%2924%3A2%2887%29
Kulkarni, R., & Dahiya, R. (2018). Implementation barriers for knowledge

management for SMEs in Indian construction industry. Department of Real
Estate and Construction Management. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of
Technology.
Kululanga, G. K., & McCaffer, R. (2001). Measuring knowledge management for

construction organizations. Engineering, construction and architectural
management, 8(5/6), 346-354. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/eb021195
Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology: A step by step guide for beginners (3 ed.).
London: SAGE Publications Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.sociology.kpi.ua/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ranjit_Kumar-
Research_Methodology_A_Step-by-Step_G.pdf
Lambe, P. (2011). The unacknowledged parentage of knowledge management.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 175 - 197.
doi:10.1108/13673271111119646
Landry, R., Amara, N., Mendes, A. P., Shademani, R., & Gold, I. (2006). The
knowledge-value chain: A conceptual framework for knowledge translation in
health. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(8), 597-602.
doi:https://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-
96862006000800009&script=sci_arttext
Lee, C. C., & Yang, J. (2000). Knowledge value chain. Journal of Management
Development, 19(9), 783-794. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710010378228
97
Lee, M. C. (2016). Knowledge management and innovation management: Best
practices in knowledge sharing and knowledge value chain. International
Journal of Innovation and Learning, 19(2), 206-226.
doi:10.1504/IJIL.2016.074475
Lee, M. C., & Han, M. W. (2009). Knowledge value chain model implemented for
supply chain management performance. Fifth International Joint Conference
on INC, IMS and IDC, (pp. 606-611). Seoul, South Korea.
doi:10.1109/NCM.2009.302
Lin, L. K., Chang, C. C., & Lin, Y. C. (2011). Structure development and performance
evaluation of construction knowledge management system. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, 17(2), 184-196.
doi:10.3846/13923730.2011.576833
MacDonald, S., & Headlam, N. (2011). Research methods handbook. Manchester:

Centre for Local Economic Strategies. Retrieved from
http://www.cles.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Research-Methods-
Handbook.pdf
Maier, R., & Remus, U. (2003). Implementing process oriented knowledge

management strategies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4), 62-74.
doi:10.1108/13673270310492958
Male, S. (1990). Professional authority, power and emerging forms of profession in

quantity surveying. Construction Management and Economics, 8(2), 191 -204.
doi:10.1080/01446199000000016
98
Malhotra, Y. (2004). Why knowledge management systems fail: Enablers and
constraints of knowledge management in human enterprises. In C. W.
Holsapple, Handbook on knowledge management (pp. 577-599). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/27545471/kms.pdf?AW
SAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1521082753&Sig
nature=f25UwLt8Qz5bsavKlJiluwogmdo%3D&response-content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DWhy_Knowledge_Management_Sy
stems_Fail.pdf
Maqsood, T., Finegan, A., & Walker, D. (2006). Applying project histories and project
learning through knowledge management in an Australian construction
company. The Learning Organization, 13(1), 80-95.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470610639149
Mcinerney, C. (2002). Knowledge management and the dynamic nature of knowledge.

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
53(12), 1009–1018. doi:10.1002/asi.10109
Millar, C., Lockett, M., & Mahon, J. (2016). Knowledge intensive organisations: On
the frontiers of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management,
20(5), 845-857. doi:10.1108/JKM-07-2016-0296
Mohammed, R. A. (2016). Concept and application of learning organization in

Sudanese construction industry. M.Sc. thesis for Construction Management
Requirements degree, Sudan University of Science and Technology College of
Graduate Students. Retrieved from
http://repository.sustech.edu/handle/123456789/14839
Montano, B. R., Liebowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B., & Rebeck,
K. (2001). A systems thinking framework for knowledge management.
Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 5-16. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00116-0
99
Nawi, M. N., Baluch, N., & Bahauddin, A. Y. (2014). Impact of fragmentation issue
in construction industry: An overview. Conference: Building Surveying,
Facilities Management and Engineering Conference (BSFMEC 2014), 15
(Article 1009), pp. 1-18. Perak, Malaysia.
doi:10.1051/matecconf/20141501009
Neely, A., Adams, C., & Crowe, P. (2001). The performance prism in practice.
Measuring Business Excellence, 5(2), 6-13. doi:10.1108/13683040110385142
Newbert, S. L. (2008). value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A

conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the
firm. Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 745–768. doi:10.1002/smj.686
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.

Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. Retrieved from
https://business.illinois.edu/josephm/BA504_Fall%202008/Uploaded%20in%
20Nov%202007/Nonaka%20(1994).pdf
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge creating theory revisited:
Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 1(1), 2-10.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500001
Nor, M. (2010). An insight into knowledge sharing practices in quantity surveying

firms in Malaysia. 6th Annual ARCOM Conference. Leeds,UK: Association of
Researchers in Construction Management. Retrieved from
http://usir.salford.ac.uk/10120/1/ar2010-0779-
0788_Mohd_Nor_and_Egbu.pdf
Nurulin, Y., & Skvortsova, I. (2018). Conceptual model of information support for
taking decisions. IV International Scientific Conference “The Convergence of
Digital and Physical Worlds: Technological, Economic and Social
Challenges”. 44, pp. 1-7 (Article 00064). Rīga, Latvia: International
Conference Society, Health, Welfare.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184400064
100
O’Brien, P., Mbachu, J., & Lomax, S. (2014). Current and future challenges facing
New Zealand quantity surveyors: Priority issues and potential solutions. 4th
New Zealand Built Environment Research Symposium, (pp. 272-286).
Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from construction.massey.ac.nz/NZBERS-
2014_proc_fp_OBrien-P_et-al.pdf
Ofori, G. (2012). Developing the construction industry in Ghana: The case for a
central agency. Singapore: National University of Singapore. Retrieved from
http://ghanatrade.com.gh/file/Developing%20the%20Construction%20Indust
ry%20in%20Ghana%20BUILDING.pdf
Olanrewaju, A., & Anahve, P. J. (2015). Duties and responsibilities of quantity

surveyors in the procurement of building services engineering. Creative
Construction Conference 2015. 123, pp. 352 – 360. Krakow, Poland: Procedia
Engineering. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.046
Omerzel, D. G., & Gulev, R. E. (2011). Knowledge Resources and Competitive

Advantage. 9(4), 335-354. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/openview/d2842be8fbcd0888559d0ef1458f2015/
1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=706341
Oyewobi, L. O., Windapo, A. O., & James, R. O. (2015). An empirical analysis of

construction organisations’ competitive strategies and performance. Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(4), 417-431.
doi:10.1108/BEPAM-10-2013-0045
Oyeyipo, O. O., Odusami, K. T., Ojelabi, R. A., & Afolabi, A. O. (2016). Factors
affecting contractors'bidding decisions for construction projects in Nigeria.
Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 21(2), 21–35.
doi:10.21315/jcdc2016.21.2.2
101
Paranagamage, P., Carrillo, P., Kirti, R., & Fuller, P. (2012). Lessons learned practices
in the UK construction sector: Current practice and proposed improvements.
The Engineering Project Organization Journal, 2(4), 216–230.
doi:10.1080/21573727.2012.681643
Pathirage, C., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. (2007). Tacit knowledge and
organisational performance: Construction industry perspective. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 11(1), 115-126. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/13673270710728277
Pellicer, E., Yepes, V., & Rojas, R. J. (2010). Innovation and competitiveness in
construction companies: A case study. Journal of Management Research,
10(2), 103-115. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304461579_Innovation_and_compe
titiveness_in_construction_companies_A_case_study
Pemberton, J. D., & Stonehouse, G. H. (2000). Organisational learning and knowledge

assets. The Learning Organization, 7(4), 184-193.
doi:10.1108/09696470010342351
Pham, T. B. (2008). Intra-organizational knowledge transfer process in Vietnam's

information technology companies. Doctoral dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Fribourg,
Switzerland, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Fribourg,
Switzerland. Retrieved from
https://doc.rero.ch/record/10671/files/PhamTBN.pdf
Pietersen, W. (2010). Defining competitive advantage: How much more value do you
deliver than your competitors? In W. Pietersen, Strategic learning: How to be
smarter than your competition and turn key insights into competitive
advantage (pp. 15-29). New Jersy, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
doi:10.1002/9781118257968.ch2
Pillania, R. K. (2009). Demystifying knowledge management. Business Strategy

Series, 10(2), 96 - 99. doi:10.1108/17515630910942223
102
Polnyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Retrieved from www.sjsu.edu/people/john.estill/courses/158-
s15/The_Tacit_Dimension_Polanyi.pdf
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press. Retrieved from
forleadership.org/wp-content/uploads/Competitive-Advantage.pdf
Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. (1985). How information gives you competitive
advantage. Harvard Business Review, 63(4), 149–160. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/1985/07/how-information-gives-you-competitive-advantage
Powell, T. (2001). The knowledge value chain: How to fix it when it breaks.
KnowledgeNets 2001: Proceedings of the 22nd National Online Meeting. (pp.
1-14). New York City: Information Today, Inc. Medford. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267195717_The_Knowledge_Valu
e_Chain_KVC_How_to_Fix_It_When_It_Breaks
Powell, T. C. (2001). Competitive advantage: Logical and philosophical

considerations. Strategic management journal, 22(9), 875-888.
doi:10.1002/smj.173
Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of
Sociology, 30(1), 199-220. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037
Ragsdell, G. (2009). Managing knowledge about knowledge management: Practising

what we teach. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and
Computer Sciences, 8(1), 21-26. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.11120/ital.2009.08010021
Rastogi, P. N. (2002). Knowledge management and intellectual capital as a paradigm

of value creation. Human Systems Management, 21(4), 229–240. Retrieved
from https://content.iospress.com/articles/human-systems-
management/hsm518
103
Reinschmidt, K. F., & Kim, H. J. (2006). A dynamic competition model for
construction contractors. Construction Management and Economics, 24(9),
955-965. doi:10.1080/01446190600799729
Rezgui, Y. (2001). Review of information and the state of the art of knowledge
management practices in the construction industry. The Knowledge
Engineering Review, 16(3), 241-254. doi:10.1017/S026988890100008X
Ricardo, E., Arriagada, D., Luis, F., & Alarcon, C. (2014). Knowledge management
and maturation model in construction companies. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 140(4), B4013006 (1-10).
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000726
Roper, S., Du, J., & Love, J. H. (2008). Modelling the Innovation Value Chain.
Research Policy, 37(6-7), 961-977. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.005
Rowley, J. (2002). Using case studies in research. Management Research News, 25(1),
16-27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170210782990
Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy.

Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 163-180.
doi:10.11770165551506070706
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. (2016). Lessons learned. London: Royal

Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). Retrieved from
http://www.rics.org/Global/Lessons_learned_1st_edition_PG_guidance.pdf
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. (2018). Quantity surveying and construction

pathway guide. London: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).
Retrieved from
http://www.rics.org/Global/RICS_QS_and_Construction_Pathway_Guide_(A
ugust_2018).pdf
104
Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2 ed.). SAGE
Publications Ltd. Retrieved from
https://books.google.lk/books/about/The_Coding_Manual_for_Qualitative_R
esear.html?id=V3tTG4jvgFkC&redir_esc=y
Saulais, P., & Ermine, J. L. (2012). Creativity and knowledge management. ournal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 42(3/4), 416-438.
doi:10.1108/03055721211267521
Schiuma, G. (2012). Managing knowledge for business performance improvement.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(4), 515-522.
doi:10.1108/13673271211246103
Schiuma, G., Carlucci, D., & Lerro, A. (2012). Managing knowledge processes for
value creation. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems,
42(1), 4 - 14. doi:10.1108/03055721211207815
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating

ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific,
interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching,
5(9), 9-16. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n9p9
Senaratne, S., & Sabesan, S. (2008). Managing knowledge as quantity surveyors: An

exploratory case study in Sri Lanka. Built-Environment - Sri Lanka, 8(2), 41-
47. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/32021211/1911-6749-1-
PB.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1519
731209&Signature=64auYR3vxTIMPPVdeHXGV7vAehY%3D&response-
content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DBuilt-Environment_-
Sri_Lanka_-V
105
Smirnova, Y. V. (2014). Knowledge, knowledge transfer, technology transfer:A
conceptualization. 6th International Conference on Building Cultural Bridges:
Integrating Languages, Linguistics, Literature,, (pp. 504-510). Almaty,
Kazakhstan. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271326173_Knowledge_Knowledg
e_Transfer_Technology_Transfer_A_Conceptualization
Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311-321. doi:10.1108/13673270110411733
Spiegler, I. (2000). Knowledge management: A new idea or a recycled concept?

Communications of the Association forInformation Systems, 3(14), 1-23
(Article 14). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol3/iss1/14/
Spinello, R. (1998). The knowledge chain. Business Horizons, 41(6), 4-14. Retrieved
Takano, Y., Ishii, N., & Muraki, M. (2017). Multi-period resource allocation for
estimating project costs in competitive bidding. Central European Journal of
Operations Research, 25(2), 303-323. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-
016-0438-7
Terrell, S. R. (2012). Mixed methods research methodologies. The Qualitative Report,

7(1), 254-280. Retrieved from SR Terrell - The qualitative report, 2012 -
nsuworks.nova.edu
Towey, D. (2012). Construction quantity surveying: A practical guide for the

contractor's QS (1 ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tripathi, K. K., & Jha, K. N. (2018). An empirical study on factors leading to the
success of construction organizations in India. International Journal of
Construction Management, 18, 1-18.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1423162
106
Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed
knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3), 103-117.
doi:10.1080/07421222.1999.11518258
Tzortzaki, A. M., & Mihiotis, A. (2014). A review of knowledge management theory

and future directions. Knowledge and Process Management, 21(1), 29–41.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1429
Umar, I. (2014). Assessment of knowledge management capabilities if the Nigerian

quantity surveying firms. Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria, Department
of Quantity Surveying Faculty of Environmental Design, Nigeria. Retrieved
from
http://kubanni.abu.edu.ng:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5875/1/ASSESS
MENT%20OF%20KNOWLEDGE%20MANAGEMENT%20CAPABILITIE
S%20OF%20THE%20NIGERIAN%20QUANTITY%20SURVEYING%20F
IRMS.pdf
Venkitachalam, K., & Busch, P. (2012). Tacit knowledge: Review and possible
research directions. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(2), 357 - 372.
doi:10.1108/13673271211218915
Versiani, A. F., Rezende, S. F., Magalhaes, A. T., & Vaz, S. L. (2018). The relationship
between strategy making and organizational learning. Revista Brasileira de
Gestao de Negocios, 20(2), 157-177. doi:10.7819/rbgn.v20i2.3888
Vliet, V. V. (2011). Knowledge Management Value Chain. Retrieved from

https://www.toolshero.com:
https://www.toolshero.com/management/knowledge-management-value-
chain/
Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: understanding

paradigms,cases,methods and methodologies. Journal of applied management
accounting research, 10(1), 69-80. Retrieved from
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2103082
107
Walliman, N. (2011). Research Methods: The Basics (1 ed.). London, UK: Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/2317618/mod_resource/content/1/B
LOCO%202_Research%20Methods%20The%20Basics.pdf
Wang, H. L. (2014). Theories for competitive advantage. In H. Hasan, Being Practical

with Theory: A Window into Business Research (pp. 33-43). Wollongong,
Australia: THEORI Business Research Group: Faculty of Business, University
of Wollongong. Retrieved from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1410&context=buspapers
Wang, L. C., & Ahamed, P. K. (2005). The knowledge value chain: A pragmatic
knowledge implementation network. Handbook of Business Strategy, 6(1),
321-326. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/08944310510558115
Wang, Y. (2015). Formal cognitive models of data, information, knowledge, and

intelligence. WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 14(3), 770-781. Retrieved
from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7954/59df9ef76a0d38797832a553d3f550c44
6dd.pdf
Wei, Y., & Miraglia, S. (2017). Organizational culture and knowledge transfer in
project-based organizations: Theoretical insights from a Chinese construction
firm. International Journal of Project Management, 35(4), 571-585.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.010
Wetherill, M., Rezgui, Y., Lima, C., & Zarli, A. (2002). Knowledge management for
the construction industry: the e-cognos project. Journal of Information
Technology in Construction, 7(Special issue ICT for Knowledge Management
in Construction), 183-196. Retrieved from http://www.itcon.org/2002/12
Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G., Trigunarsyah, B., & Brown, K. (2014). Interactions
between organizational culture, trustworthiness, and mechanisms for inter‐
project knowledge sharing. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 48-65.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21407
108
Winkelen, C. V., & McDermott, R. (2010). Learning expert thinking processes: Using
knowledge management to structure the development of expertise. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 14(4), 557 - 572. doi:10.1108/13673271011059527
Wongrassamee, S., Simmons, J. E., & Gardiner, P. D. (2003). Performance

measurement tools: The balanced scorecard and the EFQM excellence model.
Measuring business excellence, 7(1), 14-29.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040310466690
Woo, J. H., Clayton, M. J., Johnson, R. E., Flores, B. E., & Ellis, C. (2004). Dynamic
knowledge map: Reusing experts’ tacit knowledge in the architecture,
egineering and construction industry. Automation in Construction, 13(2), 203–
207. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2003.09.003
Wu, I. L., & Lin, H. C. (2009). A strategy-based process for implementing knowledge
management: An integrative view and empirical study. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 789-802.
doi:10.1002/asi.20999
Xu, J., Houssin, R., Caillaud, E., & Gardoni, M. (2010). Macro process of knowledge
management for continuous innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management,
14(4), 573-591. doi:10.1108/13673271011059536
Xu, Y., & Bernard, A. (2010). Knowledge value chain: An effective tool to measure
knowledge value. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 23(11), 957-967. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2010.500677
Yap, J. B., & Lock, A. (2017). Analysing the benefits, techniques, tools and challenges
of knowledge management practices in the Malaysian construction SMEs.
Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 15(6), 803-825.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-07-2017-0067
109
Yap, J. B., Rahman, H. A., & Chen, W. (2017). Collaborative model: Managing design
changes with reusable project experiences through project learning and
effective communication. International Journal of Project Management,
35(7), 1253–1271. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.010
Ye, F. Y. (2016). Measuring knowledge: A quantitative approach to knowledge theory.

International Journal of Data Science and Analysis, 2(2), 32-35.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5936-0_13
Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (Applied Social Research
Methods, Vol. 5) (3 ed.). SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Retrieved
from http://www.madeira-
edu.pt/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Fgm4GJWVTRs%3D&tabid=3004
Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations.

Evaluation , 19(3), 321–. doi:10.1177/1356389013497081
Yu, D., & Yang, J. (2016). Knowledge management research in the construction
industry: A review. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(3), 782–803.
doi:10.1007/s13132-016-0375-7
Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management

Review, 41(3), 125-145. doi:10.2307/41166000
Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 5(1), 1-6
(Article 1). Retrieved from
https://jurnalkemanusiaan.utm.my/index.php/kemanusiaan/article/view/165/1
58
Zhang, X., Mao, X., & Simaan, A. R. (2009). Developing a knowledge management
system for improved value engineering practices in the construction industry.
Automation in Construction, 18(6), 777-789.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2009.03.004
110
APPENDIX A: EXPERT INTERVIEW GUIDELINE
Level IV Undergraduate,
Department of Building Economics,
University of Moratuwa.
………………………………………
………………………………………
Dear Sir/Madam,
Conducting an Interview for the Dissertation
I am a final year undergraduate undertaking the Honours Degree of Bachelor of

Science in Quantity Surveying at Department of Building Economics of University of
Moratuwa. In order to complete the degree programme successfully, I am conducting
a research under the module BE 4703, Dissertation. The research credentials are
specified in the section “Introduction to the Research”.
For the purpose, I would like to interview yourself, for about 45 minutes
approximately, since I have recognized you as a potential source of knowledge on my
research area. Further, I would like to kindly inform that audio recording and note
taking would be incorporated (with your due permission) for accurate and reliable data
collection.
Moreover, I would like to ascertain the confidentiality of data collected along with
personal information and data thus collected would only be employed for the
mentioned research purpose. I kindly request you to support my research by providing
your valuable knowledge and opinions on the research topic.
Thank you very much in advance for your kind corporation anticipated.
Yours faithfully, Dissertation Supervisor:

Dewagoda K.G. CH. QS Prof. (Mrs.) Perera B.A.K.S
111
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH
Research Topic:
‘Knowledge Value Chain’ (KVC) Framework for Tendering in Construction

Research Aim:
To develop a KVC framework for the tendering process of construction organisations

via quantity surveying perspective, in order to gain competitive advantage.
Research Objectives:
I. To identify the concepts of knowledge, Knowledge Management (KM) and

Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM)
II. To analyse the different types of KVCMs existing
III. To determine the necessity and application of KVCM concept for the tendering
IV. To discern the KVC for the tendering process of construction organisations to gain
competitive advantage
V. To ascertain the Role of Quantity Surveyors (QSs) within the KVC framework
SECTION II - BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE INTERVIEWEE
I. Designation: …………………………………………………………............
II. Industry experience: ……………..…………………….……………..……....
112
SECTION III - KNOWLEDGE AND THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
1) Do you agree the construction industry to be a knowledge-intensive industry,

why?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
.………………………………………………………………………………………...
…..…………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……..………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………
2) Why Knowledge Management (KM) is significant within the construction

industry?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
.………………………………………………………………………………………...
…..…………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……..………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION IV - CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATIONS AND COMPETITIVE

ADVANTAGE
3) What are the types of competitive advantage that construction organisations adapt,
in order to gain competitive advantage over the co-competitors in the industry?
Comments
Agree () or
Competitive Remarks
Disagree (x)
Strategy
“A firm sets out to become the low-cost producer in its industry”

(Porter, 1985).
Cost Leadership
113
Comments
Agree () or
Competitive Remarks
Disagree (x)
Strategy
“A firm seeks to be unique in its industry along some dimensions

that are widely valued by buyers” (Porter, 1985).
Differentiation
SECTION V - ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE WITHIN A CONSTRUCTION

ORGANISATION
4) Do you recognize knowledge as a crucial organisational asset in a construction

organisation?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
5) What is the significance of tacit knowledge (individual knowledge and experiential

knowledge) in a construction organisation?
EXPLICIT VS TACIT KNOWLEDGE
Explicit knowledge is ‘‘know-what’’ which is documented (or codified) whereas tacit

knowledge refers to ‘‘know-how’’ which is people or action oriented (Smith, 2001).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
114
6) Do you recognize project knowledge being employed as a lessons learned practice
currently in construction organisations?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
7) Does the Past Project Reviews (PPR) technique being currently adapted in
construction organisations, and what is your opinion on the applicability of the PPR
technique?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
8) Do you agree that lessons learned by a construction organisation promote

continuous improvement, organisational performance and competitive advantage?
Comments Yes ()

Remarks
Benefit or No (x)
Continuous
Improvement
Organisational
Performance
Competitive
Advantage
115
9) “Construction organisations are learning organisations”. Do you agree with the
statement? Why?
Yes No
LEARNING ORGANISATIONS
Organisational learning occurs once organisational knowledge status changes

(Holsapple & Singh, 2001) in terms of experience gained (Mohammed, 2016).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION VI – ROLE OF A QUANTITY SURVEYOR IN A

CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION
10) Do quantity surveyors contribute to competitive advantage in a construction

organisation, and if yes, how?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
116
11) Can you specify the roles and responsibilities of a quantity surveyor, which are
specifically related to competitive advantage of a construction organisation?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION VII - KNOWLEDGE AND QUANTITY SURVEYING
12) Do you recognize quantity surveying profession as a knowledge-intensive

Profession?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
13) How do quantity surveyors engage in knowledge related processes of a

construction organisation, in terms of Knowledge Worker (KW) or Decision
Maker (DM)?
KNOWLEDGE WORKERS (KW) AND DECISION MAKERS (DM)
Knowledge workers were deemed to acquire and develop knowledge, wherein the
decision makers exploit the resulting knowledge for strategic planning to infer
organisational performance (T. Powell, 2001).
117
Comments
Quantity KW or DM Remarks
Surveyors
Graduate Quantity
Surveyor
Senior Quantity
Surveyor
Chief Quantity
Surveyor
14) Is there a logical association of knowledge in the quantity surveying role of

gaining competitive advantage in a construction organisation?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
15) How project knowledge influence in quantity surveying profession in order to gain
competitive advantage for a construction organisation?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
118
SECTION VIII - KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN MODEL (KVCM)
16) Have you ever used/applied the concept of Knowledge Value Chain Model
(KVCM)? Yes No
KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN MODEL (KVCM)
Knowledge Value Chain (KVC) implies the accommodation of value chain concept to
the knowledge sphere, which signifies the transformation of data to intelligence in order
to derive benefits in organisational context (Powell T., 2001).
Every organisation consists of a Knowledge Value Chain, which encapsulate the

dynamic nature of knowledge flow within an organisation representing its cognitive
competence to gain competitive advantage (Spinello, 1998).
A Knowledge Value Chain is a sequence of intellectual tasks by which knowledge

workers build their employer's unique competitive advantage and/or social and
environmental benefit” (Almarabeh, Abuali, Alsharrab, & Alkareem, 2009).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
17) Do you affirm that the Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) contributes to
value creation, organisational performance and competitive advantage?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
119
SECTION IX – APPLICABILITY OF KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN
MODEL (KVCM) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
18) In your opinion, is Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) applicable to a

construction organisation in order to gain competitive advantage?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
19) Can you characterize quantity surveyors as the drivers of the Knowledge Value
Chain Model (KVCM)?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
20) What are the barriers and challenges to be faced in such an adaption of the model?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
120
APPENDIX B: INTERMEDIATE MODEL
KP ≡ KW Understanding KU ≡ DM
STATES
Decision
Wisdom
Result
Action
ACTIVITIES
Secondary Activities Primary Activities
Support Activities
121
APPENDIX C: ILLUSTRATION OF KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN MODEL (KVCM) COMPONENTS
Option Author Activities Description
Model Components (Activities)

 What specific knowledge is required to achieve organisational objectives
Knowledge  Distinction between available knowledge and knowledge that needs to be developed
Inventory  What (technical) skills and attitudes (culture) required
 Knowledge gap: needed knowledge vs. available knowledge
Weggeman (1997)
Knowledge  Use knowledge gap to identify what knowledge development is required for organisation
Development  Training staff or purchasing knowledge from a third party
A
Knowledge
Sharing  Most ideal situation is one which knowledge becomes an integral part of an organisation’s strategy and culture
Applying  By applying knowledge, it will be integrated in the organisation

Knowledge  People should familiarize themselves with the available information, experiences and skills
Evaluating  Continuous process
Knowledge  Enables knowledge development and possible adjustments
 Tangible/intangible processes based on information developed in interactions between resources in order to
Carlucci, Marr, and
achieve a specific aim

Schiuma (2004)
 Organisation as a portfolio of competencies

B Competencies  Cognitive nature of competencies allows identification of processes to manage capabilities
 Organisation’s competence as a combination of knowledge assets and knowledge processes that allows an
organisation to carry out its business processes
 Assumption 1: Knowledge Management (KM) is at the basis of developing organisational competencies
122
Processes  Assumption 2: Effectiveness and efficiency of organisational processes depend on organisational competencies
Carlucci et
al. (2004)
 Assumption 3: Improvements in business performance depend on effective and efficient processes
B
 Assumption 4: Improvements in business performance equates with an increase in value generated for
Performance
organisational stakeholders
 Information or explicit knowledge acquisition via searching and organisational learning

Acquisition  Searching occurs through scanning, focused search, performance monitoring
 Organisational learning is either by know-how (single-loop learning) or establishing new premises (double loop
learning)
 Amplifying knowledge created organisationally and crystalizing as a part of organisational knowledge
C. C. Lee and Yang (2000)
Innovation  Three levels of knowledge creation as individual, group and organisation

 Four modes of knowledge conversion as socialization, combination, externalization, internalization
C  Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)

Protection
 Legal and Information Technology (IT) protection
 How to translate raw knowledge into actionable knowledge

Integration
 Internal knowledge integration of experience with outside sources
 Systematic transfer of knowledge

 Create a knowledge-sharing environment
Dissemination
 Explicit knowledge through IT systems
 Tacit knowledge through people
 Acquiring knowledge from external sources and making it available to subsequent use
Acquisition 
Holsapple and
Identifying, capturing, organizing, transferring/ assimilating

Singh (2001)
 Direct and indirect acquisition

D  Selecting suitable knowledge from internal sources for subsequent use
Selection  Counter part to knowledge acquisition
 Identifying, capturing, organizing, transferring/ assimilating
 Action-oriented and archival oriented
123
 Producing knowledge by discovery or derivation from existing knowledge

 Monitoring, evaluating, producing and transferring
Generation  Knowledge discovery and knowledge derivation
Holsapple and Singh (2001)  Lessons learning
 Alter the state of organisational knowledge internally

 Produces knowledge flows to impact state of knowledge of organisation
D Assimilation  Assessing, structuring, delivering
 Publishing and interaction and further as formal and informal
 Embedding knowledge into organisational outputs to release the environment

 Targeting, producing, transferring the outputs
Emission  Counter part to knowledge acquisition aassimilation
 External publishing and external interaction and further as formal and informal
Identification  Searching and locating new information, ideas and knowledge relevant to the organisation
L. C. Wang and Ahamed (2005)
Acquisition  Identifying and absorbing relevant knowledge
Codification  Codifying tacit knowledge, categorizing and labelling knowledge
Storage  Recording, retaining and maintaining and signposting knowledge

E
Dissemination  Retrieving and making it available to knowledge seekers and users
Refinement  Improving, transferring and adapting knowledge to change situations, or using in a new way
Application  Putting knowledge into action, utilizing knowledge to produce organisational outcomes
Creation  Nurturing, seeding and incubating new ideas, and generating new knowledge that leads to major breakthroughs
124
Acquisition  Acquiring data and identification of sources

 Process of data, skills and relationships capturing, operating, analysis, and reach
Almarabeh, Abuali, Alsharrab, and
Transformation
and  Operation and organisation of data, preparing knowledge in suitable form for processing, verifying
Alkareem (2009) Confidentiality
Dissemination  Transferring knowledge of Knowledge Worker (KW) to Decision Maker (DM)

F  Knowledge sharing: transfer and dissemination of knowledge
Sharing  Common understating between KW and DM
 Actual use of knowledge namely; intelligence to make decisions
Integration  Knowledge utilization: process of integration and coherence between the knowledge obtained and using it by
DM in the decision-making process
Action  Actual implementation including resource allocation, goal setting and feedback
Data  Transforming reality into data
Management  Acquiring signs through perceptive filters via observation
Information  Transforming data into information
Management  Coding data trough conceptual filters via a structuring activity
Ermine (2013)
Knowledge  Transforming information into knowledge

G Management  Building models through theories via learning
Competence  Transforming knowledge into competences

Management  Implementing a set of practices through action via experience
Capability  Transforming competences into capabilities

Management  Building a strategy (knowledge strategy) through strategic filters (alignment) via a vision
125
Acquire  Data: facts and figures

 Any method of obtaining data
 Organizing data
Process  Preparing data to be analysed properly
 Checking and validating facts
 Examine and make decisions on outliers
 Information: processed data
Analyse
T. Powell (2001)
 Give context, assess relevance to organisation, draw implications for action, outlining options and alternatives,
reducing information quantity
H  Knowledge
 Most crucial step
Communicate  From mind of KW to DM
 Successful communication means right amount of summarized, organized material with analysis, conclusion,
recommendations, data sources and qualifications and insight of DM with credibility of KW
Apply  Intelligence: knowledge in the hands of a person with the capability of acting on it
 Using intelligence to decision making
Formulate  Plans to execute action that embody the decision
Implement  Actual implementation of decisions and action plans
 Resources, scheduling and goal setting
Cognitive  Willingness to search and notice information and doing it
Processes  Conscious and subconscious willingness
King and Ko (2001)
Post cognition  Analysing and interpreting new information

I Organisation
Related  Actions/inactions by the acquirer based on analysis and interpretation
Actions by the  Behaviors that reflect patterns/cognitive associations developed/interpreted
Acquirer
Diffusion  Sharing and dissemination of information/results/interpretations

 At same and different levels
126
Elaboration  Varied interpretations by others based on unique mental models and relating to others
Infusion  Using information to identify problems/issues
 Non-obvious and underlying issues
King and Ko (2001)
I Thoroughness  Comprehension of varied interpretations and multiple understandings
Organisation
Related  Actions/inactions by to others
Actions by  Behaviors that reflect patterns/cognitive associations developed/interpreted
Others
 Absorb information beyond organisational boundaries and transform it into usable knowledge
External  Absorptive capacity
Awareness  When porosity increases absorptive capacity increases
 All explicit, tacit and implicit knowledge
 Overlapping and permeable with internal awareness
 Self-awareness: Understanding the organisation’s resources, core competencies and limitations
Internal  What it has, what it knows and what it needs
Spinello (1998)
Awareness  Organisation’s ability to preserve and develop internal or external knowledge

 Appreciating the power and scope of organisation’s resources
J
 Organizing and gathering organisational resources to meet organisational goals
 Begin translating knowledge into action
Internal  Requires action-oriented, autonomous and often aggressive culture that supports innovation, organisational
Responsiveness structure to continuous flexibility, decentralized decision making, emphasize networks of inter-functional teams
 Work cells and self-directed teams
External  Taking necessary steps to bring the product to the market and marketing it properly
Responsiveness  Traditional downstream activities
 Signifies the ability to make key marketing and positioning decisions to respond market shifts
127
Latent  Reservoir of potential talent and innovation

Capabilities  Provides a main source of future competitive advantage and earnings
 Provide a leading indicator of the organisation’s ability to respond to market threats and opportunities
Eustace (2003)  More-or-less codified capabilities
Intangible  Key factors of “non-price” competition
Competencies  Rely heavily on the IT infrastructure
K
 Distinctive, core and routine competences
Intangible
Goods  Intangible commodities and intellectual property
Tangible
Assets  Physical assets and financial assets
Input  Knowledge flows converge towards Enterprise Information Portal (EIP)

Chen, Yang, and
Knowledge  Knowledge flows be IT or non-IT

Lin (2004)
L Knowledge  Porter’s value chain and Nonaka’s spiral of knowledge; Externalization, combination, internalization,
Activities socialization
Output Values  Balanced Scorecard model: financial, customer, internal business process, learning and growth
 Two-way contribution
Model Outcomes (States)
 Specific sub-Knowledge Value Chain (KVC) for each Inbound Logistics, Operations, Outbound Logistics,
and Yang
C. C. Lee
Marketing and Sales and Services

(2000)
A Competencies  Added value comes from the competence of element activity itself
 All the sub-KVCs are integrated together into the whole KVC
 Competence is the measurement of each sub-KVC
Organisational  Changes in organisation’s knowledge status
Holsapple
and Singh
Learning
(2001)
B  Resource influences
Projections  Organisational resources being released into the environment
 Environmental influences
128
Organisational
 Includes responsiveness to customers, new product development, organisational learning, and strategic flexibility
Wang and
Capabilities
Ahamed
(2005)
L. C.
C
Performance  KM strategies turned into organisation wide implementation
Outcomes  KM approaches: tacit approach, explicit approach, and strategic approach
 Individual wisdom: competence/ expertise
 Competence: standardized requirement, combination of knowledge, skill and behaviour, being qualified and
having ability to perform a specific role
 Expertise: a characteristic of individuals and consequence of the human capacity for extensive adaptation to
Competencies
physical and social environments
 Knowledge in action
Ermine (2013)
 Intelligence
D  Appropriate use of knowledge to improve performance
 Ability to perform actions

 Sum of expertise and capacity
 Absorptive capacity, combinative capability, dynamic capability, core competency, organisational learning and
Capabilities
agility
 Corresponds to a high level maturity of the organisation
 Aligning the strategy with competence portfolio leads the organisation to global wisdom
 Knowledge in the hands of someone with the capability of acting on it

Intelligence  Used to make decisions
 Result from the analyst’s bringing data to the attention of DM
T. Powell (2001)
 Involves resource allocation

E Decision  Important factor is when to make the decision
 Formal decision making process and informal inputs
 Result to make an offer to acquire the target
 Plan and execute
Action  Resources, goals and timetables are set
 Creates new data (feedback loop): Formulated to define the terms, process, and support players for the acquisition
129
Powell
(2001)
E Result  Includes the impact of the acquisition on earnings per share and stock price, and the acquiring organisation’s
T.
market share in the affected market
King  Outputs: improved knowledge and improved actions
Organisational
F and Ko  Objectives: improved information and knowledge, that enables organisational behaviours and decisions that have
Performance
(2001) greater impacts, and improved organisational performance
Critical Value  An application of the KVC
Chen et Chain (CVC)  Phenomenon of value contribution by only a few Among a group of KW
G al. Optimum
(2004) Value Chain  An application of the KVC
(OVC)  Optimum combinations of multiple values (goals) to achieve a maximum number of business goals
Support Activities of KVCMs Based on KM Frameworks

Knowledge  KW is the worker who possess competencies, knowledge and skills in the organisation
Worker  Knowledge is acquirable, renewable and source of innovation and creativity
Recruitment  Recruiting KW is a key activity in the long term
C. C. Lee and Yang (2000)
 Organisational memory and capabilities for people to store and reuse information and knowledge
Knowledge  Support organisation’s routine operations and structures which support employee quest for optimum intellectual
Storage performance and hence overall business performance
Capacity  Owned by organisation and retain by it when employees leave
A
 Formal organisations easily access explicit knowledge, people-to-document approach
 Formal organisations rich in tacit knowledge, person-to- person approach
 Organisation’s relationship with its customers/ suppliers
Customer/  Loyalty for services/products, purchasing/sale patterns, reputation, warranties and undertakings and database of
Supplier customers/ suppliers
Relationship  Suppliers are an intangible and agile asset for cost control purposes
 Understanding customer makes a business leader than a follower
 Turning knowledge into customized services/products increase organisation’s market value
130
 Co-ordinates KM infrastructure components and KM activities

 Support not only other KM infrastructure but entire KM process
C. C. Lee and Yang
Chief  Technologist or environmentalist: breadth of career experience, familiarity with organisation and enthusiasm for
Knowledge the career as CKO
A (2000) Officer(CKO)  Transform intellectual property to business value
and  Responsible for overall knowledge assets of organisation and define areas of knowledge capabilities evolvement
Management based on vision and mission
 Controlled vocabulary and knowledge-directory
 Tackles issues with cross-departmental/organisational processes with unique knowledge sharing requirements
 Assessing value of knowledge resources, processors and their deployment
Measurement  Basis for evaluation of other secondary activities, identifying value-adding processors/resources, assessing KM
activities, evaluating impact of organisation’s conduct of KM on the bottom-line performance
 Determining/developing measures and applying measures
 Ensuring the required knowledge processors and resources are available in sufficient quality and quantity subject
Holsapple and Singh (2001)
to security
Control  Important because vale and return from knowledge depends on quality
 Protection: loss, obsolescence, unauthorized exposure/modification, erroneous assimilation
 KM resource control and process governance
B  Managing dependencies among KM activities to ensure proper processes and resources are in required quantity
and quality
 Managing dependencies: among knowledge resources, between knowledge resources and other resources,
Coordination knowledge manipulation activities, knowledge resources and KM activities
 Involve marshaling sufficient skills, arranging time and integrating knowledge processing to organisational
operations
 Structuring and securing efforts
 Establishing conditions to enable and facilitate fruitful conduct of KM
Leadership  Being a catalyst
 Planning and executing
131
Knowledge  Managing knowledge system

System  Capability of using IT to facilitate KM processes and communication channels
 Includes managing codified knowledge and creating knowledge networks
 Fostering knowledge culture
Knowledge  It must couple with knowledge -friendly organisational culture
Culture  Allow managers to increase the control over employees and reduce employee power, which resist employees from
L. C. Wang and Ahamed (2005)
contributing to knowledge repositories

 Adapt a culture which reduces employee fear of redundancy after contributing their knowledge
 Developing organisational memory
Organisational  Capability to remember success, failure
C Memory  To ensure lessons learned are captured, conserved and readily retrieved
 Includes both explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge
 Make it retrievable, updated, accurate and relevant
 Promoting knowledge sharing
 Effective KM includes constant flow of knowledge
Knowledge  knowledge flow facilitates connection between knowledge provider and knowledge seeker
Sharing  Consider human elements with IT
 Organisations must promote work both work related knowledge flow and contributing and retrieving from
knowledge repository by active promotion of communities of practice
Knowledge  Measuring knowledge assets against other organisations
Benchmarking  Identify level of comparative knowledge performance and knowledge gaps
 Facilitates adoption of KM best practices and improve knowledge-based capabilities
132
APPENDIX D: CASE STUDY INTERVIEW GUIDELINE
Level IV Undergraduate,
Department of Building Economics,
University of Moratuwa.
………………………………………
………………………………………
Dear Sir/Madam,
Conducting an Interview for the Dissertation
I am a final year undergraduate undertaking the Honours Degree of Bachelor of

Science in Quantity Surveying at Department of Building Economics of University of
Moratuwa. In order to complete the degree programme successfully, I am conducting
a research under the module BE 4703, Dissertation. The research credentials are
specified in the section “Introduction to the Research”.
For the purpose, I would like to interview yourself, for about 45 minutes
approximately, since I have recognized you as a potential source of knowledge on my
research area. Further, I would like to kindly inform that audio recording and note
taking would be incorporated (with your due permission) for accurate and reliable data
collection.
Moreover, I would like to ascertain the confidentiality of data collected along with
personal information and data thus collected would only be employed for the
mentioned research purpose. I kindly request you to support my research by providing
your valuable knowledge and opinions on the research topic.
Thank you very much in advance for your kind corporation anticipated.
Yours faithfully, Dissertation Supervisor:

Dewagoda K.G. CH. QS Prof. (Mrs.) Perera B.A.K.S
133
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH
Research Topic:
‘Knowledge Value Chain’ (KVC) Framework for Tendering in Construction

Research Aim:
The aim of this research is to develop a KVC framework for the tendering process of
construction organisations via quantity surveying perspective, in order to gain
Research Objectives:
I. To identify the concepts of knowledge, Knowledge Management (KM) and

Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM)
II. To analyse the different types of KVCMs existing
III. To determine the necessity and application of KVCM concept for the tendering
IV. To discern the KVC for the tendering process of construction organisations to gain
competitive advantage
V. To ascertain the Role of Quantity Surveyors (QSs) within the KVC framework
SECTION II - BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE INTERVIEWEE
I. Designation: ……………………………………………………………...........
II. Industry experience: ……………..…………………….……………..……....
134
SECTION III – SIGNIFICANCE OF KNOWLEDGE WITHIN THE
ORGANISATION
1) Do you recognize knowledge being employed as a source of creation of competitive

advantage in competitive tendering within your organisation?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
………………...………………………………………………………………………
…………………………...……………………………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
2) According to your opinion, does project knowledge result in lessons learned?
Yes No
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
………………...………………………………………………………………………
…………………………...……………………………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
3) Do you agree that lessons learned practices contribute to continuous improvement,

organisational performance and competitive advantage?
Comments Yes ()

Remarks
Benefit or No (x)
Continuous
Improvement
Organisational
Performance
Competitive
Advantage
135
4) Does the Past Project Reviews (PPR) technique being currently adopted in your
organisation and what is your opinion on the applicability of the PPR technique?
Yes No
…...……………………………………………………………………………………
……………...…………………………………………………………………………
………………………...………………………………………………………………
……………………………………...…………………………………………………
……………………………………………...…………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION IV - KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS ADOPTED/TO

BE ADAPTED IN THE ORGANISATION
5) Is there a systematic Knowledge Management (KM) process followed in the

organisation?
Yes No
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
………………...………………………………………………………………………
…………………………...……………………………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
6) According to your opinion, is Knowledge Management (KM) process linear or

cyclical?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
………………...………………………………………………………………………
…………………………...……………………………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
136
SECTION V – DEVELOPMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION
(KP) SIDE OF THE MODEL
(To be developed by Graduate Quantity Surveying Level and Verified by Senior

Quantity Surveying Level)
(Refer Appendix B and C)
7) What is the proposed/ developed/ existing Knowledge Management (KM) process

of the organisation in Knowledge Production (KP) side?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
………………...………………………………………………………………………
…………………………...……………………………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
8) What are the support activities to be adapted in the organisation?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
………………...………………………………………………………………………
…………………………...……………………………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
137
SECTION VI- DEVELOPMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE UTILIZATION
(KP) SIDE OF THE MODEL
(To be developed by Senior Quantity Surveying Level and Verified by Chief Quantity
Surveying Level)
(Refer Appendix B and C)
9) What is the proposed/ developed/ existing Knowledge Management (KM) process

of the organisation in Knowledge Utilization (KU) side?
Wisdom Decision Action Result
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
………………...………………………………………………………………………
…………………………...……………………………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
10) What is your opinion on incorporation of a feedback loop to the model?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
………………...………………………………………………………………………
…………………………...……………………………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...………………………………………
138
11) According to your opinion, how the Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM)
creates competitive advantage for a construction organisation?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……...…………………………………………………………………………………
………………...………………………………………………………………………
…………………………...……………………………………………………………
………………………………………...………………………………………………
………………………………………………...……………………………………….
SECTION VII - ROLE OF QUANTITY SURVEYORS IN THE MODEL
12) Do you agree with the proposed distinction levels of QS profession in a

construction organisation and how would the Quantity Surveyors (QSs) involve
in the selected activities of the Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM)?
Comments Knowledge Worker

Quantity Specified General
(KW) or Decision Remarks
Surveyors Activities Examples
Maker (DM)
Graduate Quantity
Surveyor
Senior Quantity
Surveyor
Chief Quantity
Surveyor
139
13) How would the quantity surveyors involve in the selected secondary activities of
the Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM)?
………………………………………………………………………………...………
….……..………………………………………………………………………………
……..…………………………………………………………………………………
………...………………………………………………………………………………
….………..……………………………………………………………………………
………...………………………………………………………………………………
………...………………………………………………………………………………
14) How would the quantity surveyors involve in the selected primary activities of the
Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM)?
………………………………………………………………………………...………
….……..………………………………………………………………………………
……..…………………………………………………………………………………
………...………………………………………………………………………………
….………..……………………………………………………………………………
………...………………………………………………………………………………
….………..……………………………………………………………………………
SECTION VIII – BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES IN THE MODEL

IMPLEMENTATION
15) What are the barriers and challenges encountered in model implementation?
………………………………………………………………………………...………
….……..………………………………………………………………………………
……..…………………………………………………………………………………
………...………………………………………………………………………………
….………..……………………………………………………………………………
………...………………………………………………………………………………
….………..……………………………………………………………………………
140
APPENDIX E: KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION (KP) SIDE OF
CS.02 AND CS.03
Framework Development of the Knowledge Production (KP) Side of

CS.02
KP≡ KW
STATES
Dat Information Knowledge
1) Acquisition 2) Innovation 4) Integration

3) Protection 5) Dissemination
ACTIVITIES
Activities
Support

Framework Development of the Knowledge Production (KP) Side of

CS.03
KP≡ KW
STATES
1) External Awareness
ACTIVITIES
Activities
Support

141
APPENDIX F: KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN MODEL (KVCM) OF CS.02
STATES
Decision
Wisdom
Result
Action
5) Dissemination
1) Acquisition
8) Performance
6) Competency
4) Integration
2) Innovation
3) Protection
Management
Management
Management
7) Process
ACTIVITIES
Primary Activities
Support Activities
142
APPENDIX G: KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN MODEL (KVCM) OF CS.03
STATES
Decision
Wisdom
Result
Action
Responsivenes
Responsivenes
4) External
Awareness
2) Internal
3) Internal
1) External
Awareness
s
s
ACTIVITIES
Secondary Activities Primary Activities
Support Activities
143

Knowledge Value Chain' Framework For Tendering in Construction Organisations: Quantity Surveying Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Knowledge Value Chain' Framework For Tendering in Construction Organisations: Quantity Surveying Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

‘KNOWLEDGE VALUE CHAIN’ FRAMEWORK FOR

TENDERING IN CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATIONS:

Kaveesha Gihani Dewagoda

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

Department of Building Economics

Further, I acknowledge the intellectual contribution of my research supervisor

Also, I hereby grant to University of Moratuwa the non-exclusive right to reproduce

I dedicate this dissertation

On this moment of submission of my dissertation, I would like to express my sincere

First and foremost, I express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Chartered Quantity

1.2 Problem Statement ............................................................................................. 3

1.3 Aim and Objectives ............................................................................................ 3

1.3.1 Aim ............................................................................................................. 3

1.3.2 Objectives ................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 4

1.4.1 Literature review ......................................................................................... 4

1.4.2 Phase I: Expert interviews .......................................................................... 4

1.4.3 Phase II: Case studies.................................................................................. 4

1.4.4 Discussion ................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Scope and Limitations........................................................................................ 5

1.6 Chapter Breakdown ........................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 Knowledge .................................................................................................. 6

2.2.2 Classification of knowledge ........................................................................ 8

2.2.3 Knowledge as an organisational asset ......................................................... 8

2.2.4 Knowledge Management (KM) .................................................................. 9

2.3 Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) ....................................................... 10

2.3.1 Porter’s value chain model and competitive advantage ............................ 11

2.3.2 Concept of Knowledge Value Chain Model (KVCM) ............................. 12

2.4 Different Types of Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) ..................... 14

2.4.1 Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) based on Knowledge

2.4.2 Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) based on Data-Information-

2.4.3 Other Knowledge Value Chain Models (KVCMs) ................................... 22

2.5 Knowledge and Construction ........................................................................... 25

2.5.1 Role of knowledge in the construction industry ....................................... 25

2.5.2 Significance of tacit knowledge in construction organisations ................. 27

2.5.3 Significance of project knowledge in construction organisations ............ 28

2.5.4 Lessons learned practices in construction organisations........................... 28

2.5.5 Role of knowledge in the tendering process ............................................. 29

2.6 Knowledge and Quantity Surveying ................................................................ 30

2.6.1 Role of a quantity surveying in the tendering process .............................. 30

2.6.2 Role of knowledge in quantity surveying ................................................. 31

2.7 Novelty of the Research ................................................................................... 32

2.9 Summary .......................................................................................................... 35

3.2 Research Paradigms ......................................................................................... 36

3.3 Research Approach .......................................................................................... 36

3.4 Research Method ............................................................................................. 37

3.4.1 Data collection techniques ........................................................................ 37

3.4.2 Data analysis techniques ........................................................................... 38

3.5 Research Validation ......................................................................................... 39

3.5.1 Construct validity ...................................................................................... 39

3.5.2 Internal validity ......................................................................................... 39

3.5.3 External validity ........................................................................................ 39

3.5.4 Reliability .................................................................................................. 39

3.6 Research Process .............................................................................................. 40

3.7 Summary .......................................................................................................... 40

4.2 Phase I: Expert Interviews ............................................................................... 41

4.2.1 Objectives of Phase I (Expert interviews)................................................. 41

4.2.2 Interviewee details of Phase I (Expert interviews) ................................... 42

4.2.3 Findings and analysis of Phase I (Expert interviews) ............................... 43

4.2.4 Knowledge-intensiveness of the construction industry ............................ 43

4.2.6 Knowledge as a key asset in construction organisations .......................... 45

4.2.7 Importance of tacit knowledge in construction organisations .................. 46