Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

A lessons-learned tool for organizational learning in construction T

Gorkem Eken, Gozde Bilgin , Irem Dikmen, M. Talat Birgonul
⁎

Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06800, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Organizational learning has been identified as a core competency for project-based companies with industry
Lessons learned management specific challenges. In this study, it is hypothesized that a web-based lessons learned management system may
Organizational learning help construction companies to manage lessons learned effectively. A lessons learned management process
Process model model (LLMPM) was proposed for capturing and transferring knowledge across projects. Expert review meetings
Web-based tool
with participants from both academia and private sector were carried out to develop LLMPM. The identified
Construction management
requirements were actualized through generation of a web-based IT tool (LinCTool) with abilities of capturing,
storing and disseminating lessons learned. Black-box testing was used to verify LinCTool and interviews were
conducted with experts as final testing to evaluate its effectiveness and usability. Results show that LinCTool has
a potential to enhance organizational learning in companies by assigning multiple users having different re-
sponsibilities/roles in the learning process, categorizing lessons learned using a taxonomy and retrieving lessons
learned considering project similarities.

1. Introduction foster their performances and gain competitive advantage [16–18].

Learning is defined as ‘knowledge acquisition’ and it involves the
processes where members of an organization share, generate, evaluate,
and combine knowledge [1]. Kululanga et al. [2] define organizational
learning (OL) as “the systematic promotion of a learning culture within
an organization such that employees at all levels, individually and
collectively, continually increase their capacity to improve their level of
performance”. Although the importance of OL has been extensively
discussed in the construction management literature [3–7]; it has also
been reported that required level of OL could not be achieved within
the construction industry yet due to the lack of learning culture and
tools to support OL [8–12]. Although a vast amount of knowledge is
gained during projects, companies can hardly manage and utilize ac-
cumulated knowledge in forthcoming projects [13,14]. The knowledge
is generally lost by the end of the projects and companies cannot ef-
fectively learn from their experiences. Learning culture and supportive
solutions are required to reverse this trend and make construction
companies convey their experiences in projects to organizational level
where the accumulated knowledge may stay alive to continuously serve
for the company. Learning from projects may be facilitated by using a
manageable format to capture lessons first and establishing a me-
chanism to disseminate lessons learned (LL) successfully [15]. Com-
panies may establish their own knowledge assets that would best serve
for the specific needs of the company. Utilization of this asset may
This study aims to introduce a process model for managing LL, as
well as to demonstrate development of a web-based tool that can be
used to capture, disseminate and reuse LL. First, research background
and findings of an extensive literature review on OL and LL will be
given, research methodology will be explained and then, the generic
process model for management of LL will be depicted. Secondly, a web-
based LL management tool which is entitled as LinCTool, using the
proposed process model will be given. Finally, the results of testing and
validation of LinCTool will be presented, followed by the conclusions.
2. Research background and motivation
Argote [1] defines OL as “a change in the organization's knowledge
that occurs as a function of experience”. OL principles need to be ef-
fectively integrated into business processes or value chain of the or-
ganization to be successfully implemented. OL is facilitated when in-
dividual insights and skills are assimilated into organizational routines,
practices, and beliefs [19]. Knowledge of the individuals need to be
embedded in a non-human repository such as routines, structures,
culture, and strategy and made available for use (e.g., transactive
memory) to enable learning at higher levels [5,18,20,21]. Tools are
required for easy acquisition, storage, and sharing of information
[1,22]. Individuals can share their narratives about their practices
through a discussion forum or a lessons learned database; and so their

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: eken@metu.edu.tr (G. Eken), gbilgin@metu.edu.tr (G. Bilgin), idikmen@metu.edu.tr (I. Dikmen), birgonul@metu.edu.tr (M.T. Birgonul).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102977
Received 25 April 2019; Received in revised form 17 September 2019; Accepted 4 October 2019
0926-5805/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.
G. Eken, et al.
actions and views can be made explicit and therefore the spatial, tem-
poral, functional boundaries of their organizations can be overcome
[23]. Within this context, knowledge management practices enable the
use of the past to structure the future [24]. By utilizing an organiza-
tional memory, the scattered information from different sources can be
unified and knowledge of the past, which can be expressed as the
shared interpretation of the past, can be used to improve the current
organizational activities. This valuable past knowledge becomes a
strategic advantage/asset for the organization and can be used by the
organization in making sense of the present [25].
According to Carrillo et al. [26], “lessons learned are the intellectual
assets used to create value based on past experience”. According to
Weber et al. [27], lessons learned have still been an evolving topic.
Arditi et al. [28] define LL as all experimental knowledge that can be
used to avoid failures and improve efficiency by applying the previous
experience, which is called as ‘knowledge artefacts’, to a task, a decision
or a process. Technical and organizational know-how constitute the
knowledge assets of the organizations as the competencies that identify
the competitive position of the organizations. This knowledge builds
intangible assets of the company that are difficult/impossible to imi-
tate. Such competencies are generally created through repetitively
performed activities within organizational processes/routines; so they
cannot be bought, they have to be built [6,29]. Thus, LL constitutes a
crucial part of OL.
Project-based organizations learn from their “members/teams”
while they solve project-based problems and organizations can accu-
mulate the knowledge of projects in an organizational stock that would
serve as common practices to be used in the future [18,30]. In the study
of Kululanga et al. [31] “review from failures/successes” is identified as
one of the leading learning mechanisms by the construction con-
tractors. Since projects are unique, there is no standard set of practices
applicable to all projects. The unique solutions to problems within each
project constitute the tacit knowledge kept by individuals. Due to the
nature of construction projects, namely considering the changes in
project locations and teams, this knowledge needs to be converted to
organizational knowledge [32].
Strategies that are used to manage knowledge within a company can
be divided into two categories as “techniques” and “technologies”.
Techniques refer to non-IT tools that are more related to human re-
source management. On the other hand, technologies refer to IT-tools
that are based on developing a system to manage knowledge with the
help of information technologies [33]. These technologies emerged to
facilitate managing knowledge through articulation, storage, transfer,
creation, and retrieval [22,23,34]. In the construction management
literature, there are various technological solutions developed to facil-
itate OL. In this study, 13 tools developed for this purpose were re-
viewed and their application domain, knowledge acquisition, tool
platform, classification system, retrieval system and control system
were compared. The tools depicted in Table 1 are all aimed at facil-
itating OL and listed in ascending order of their publication years.
Within this context, the main objective of this research was to de-
velop a lessons learned management process model (LLMPM) that
provides a comprehensive walkthrough for managing lessons learned
considering all of the above mentioned requirements and to create a
web-based tool to successfully implement this process model.
3. Research methodology
The steps of the research are needs analysis to identify system re-
quirements, development of a lessons learned management process
model (LLMPM), implementation of this model in the computer en-
vironment, and verification and validation of the generated tool. As it is
presented in Fig. 1, the first step involves an extensive literature review
on organizational learning and lessons learned management. Previous
efforts were analyzed by an in depth literature review, and three critical
areas for this kind of tools were identified as “lessons learned capture
2
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
mechanism”, “lessons learned retrieval mechanism” and “user types
and authorization system”. Fundamentals of the LLMPM were initially
identified by the research team as a result of the literature review.
Then, LLMPM was discussed with experts, who work in construction
companies and academia, in a combined meeting details of which will
be given in the following sections. One of the goals of this research was
developing a computer program that can be accessed through web
browsers to facilitate live capture of the lessons learned information
and storing them in a centralized location. To achieve this objective, a
web-based tool that works in Microsoft Web Server and uses MS SQL
server as a database was developed according to requirements identi-
fied in LLMPM. Tool integrity and verification of features were tested
by Black-Box testing methods before validating tool through expert
review meetings about the outputs of the system.
3.1. Need analysis
Critical features and tasks that were determined as a result of a
literature survey on LL in the construction industry are summarized as
follows;
1. Identification of necessary project attributes in the context of
lessons learned.
2. Identification of requirements of a lesson learned card to effec-
tively capture tacit and explicit knowledge.
3. Identification of retrieval mechanisms that are most beneficial to
facilitate knowledge sharing.
4. Identification of logic for determining project similarity and de-
veloping a calculation method for similarity-based search.
5. Development of a construction taxonomy that can be used to tag
lessons in order to facilitate lesson query.
6. Development of methods to query lessons according to projects
attributes.
7. Identification of user roles with different authorizations to es-
tablish a well-organized system.
8. Identification of administrative functions to increase system in-
tegrity and facilitate maintenance processes.
9. Development of a web-based tool to foster knowledge capturing
and sharing without location and time restriction.
10. Development of user-friendly interfaces for entry and retrieval
of lessons learned as well as creation and display of projects.
3.2. The lessons learned management process model
The initial process model was developed according to the pre-
defined needs. Simple presentation of the proposed structure is pro-
vided in Fig. 2. LL management tool is located at the center of the
system and the tool provides an interface for accessing the database. A
centralized system that can be accessed through web browsers has the
potential to increase accessibility and widespread use of the system
since there is no need to set up any program to client devices. Cloud-
based document sharing system is integrated to the model for sharing
additional documents as supportive information. In general, companies
have document management systems, which have different access pri-
vileges according to employees' status. Additional document links can
be added to lessons learned forms in order to share supportive in-
formation regarding lessons in the proposed model. However, access
control has to be arranged in the cloud server or document management
system of the companies according to privileges of users in these sys-
tems.
The process model of the developed system is presented in Fig. 3.
Lessons learned entries are grouped under the related projects in the
proposed model. Thus, in order to add a lesson, the project, which the
lesson is related to, must be identified in the system. After a lesson is
entered to the system, it should be reviewed by the authorized person
for its potential to be included in the organizational memory. When all
these processes are completed, the lesson becomes ready to be retrieved
 Table 1
Comparison of previous organizational learning tools.
Research 1. Application domain 3. Tool platform 5. Retrieval system
G. Eken, et al.

2. Knowledge acquisition 4. Classification system 6. Control system

Lessons-Learned Generator (LLG) [35] 1. Specific to the design review process 3. Standalone program 5. Abstracting according to comment usage
frequency
2. Design review comments 4. MasterFormat, predefined unstructured 6. No review and approval process
keywords
Interactive Knowledge-Intensive System for Constructability (IKIS- 1. Specific to constructability issues 3. Standalone program at head office 5. Direct search using keywords and master format
Constructability) [36] 2. Personal interviews with construction experts 4. MasterFormat, unstructured keywords 6. Monthly meetings with TQM committee
Constructability Lessons Learned Database (CLLD) [37] 1. Specific to constructability issues 3. Microsoft Lotus 5. Direct search using keywords
2. Personal interviews with construction experts 4. MasterFormat, unstructured keywords 6. No Information
Organizational Knowledge Bank (OKBank) [38] 1. All phases and all types of projects 3. Web-based 5. Direct search using classes
2. Entry by the “Knowledge Source” directly 4. Division, type of issue, phase of work 6. Review by a designated person
Project Navigator [39] 1. All phases and all types of projects 3. Standalone desktop tool with predefined LL 5. Direct search using project phase information
library
2. Investigation current problems, techniques by 4. Multimedia file formats and project phase 6. Release of a new version with an updated library
research team
KyTC Lessons Learned System [40] 1. Specific to all phases of transportation projects 3. Web-based 5. Search by keyword and project information
2. Entry by the “Knowledge source” directly 4. Keywords, type of work, and project 6. Review by a designated person
information
The design review checking system (DrChecks) & the corporate lessons 1. Specific to the design review process 3. Web-based 5. Direct search using keywords, location, client
learned (CLL) [41] 2. Entry by the “Knowledge source” directly 4. Keyword, location, client, disciplines 6. Review by experts through email
Capture and Reuse of Project Knowledge in Construction – CAPRIKON 1. All phases and all types of projects 3. Web-based 5. Search through free text and project information
[42] 2. Entry by the “Knowledge source” and regular 4. Knowledge category and type, project 6. Validation by meetings and online review by
meetings information experts
Knowledge Platform for Contractors (KPfC) [9] 1. All phases and all types of projects 3. Web-based 5. Search through knowledge type, project and

3
author info
2. Knowledge entry by the knowledge manager 4. Project name, knowledge type, LL author 6. Review by a designated person
name
CMAID- A lessons learned system in construction management practices 1. Specific to construction management domain 3. Microsoft Access 2003 5. Search with taxonomy and keyword
[28] 2. Entry by the “Knowledge source” directly 4. CM taxonomy, and unstructured keywords 6. No Information
Mobile Cloud Shared Workspace (MCSW) [43] 1. Specific to construction site processes 3. A mobile platform that provides workspace 5. Direct search using keywords
2. Entry by the “Knowledge source” directly 4. No Information 6. No Information
Work of Oti et al. [44] 1. Specific to the construction phase 3. Excel spreadsheet and Navisworks 5. Access to LL by selecting items in the
Navisworks
2. Knowledge acquisition is not a concern in the 4. Relating lessons learned with model items 6. No information
research in BIM
Work of Kim and Chi [45] 1. Specific to construction accidents 3. Online platform 5. Natural Language Processing
2. Automated analysis of accident reports with 4. Unstructured text data with machine 6. No review or approval processes for LL entries
machine learning learning

1. Application domain: A tool may cover the whole construction domain and be specific for a single type of project. Findings from literature review demonstrate that most of the available tools are developed for “specific
types of knowledge”, “specific types of projects” or “specific phases of construction projects” [28,42]. Tan et al. [42] argue that OL system should be able to capture all project knowledge “irrespective of the type of
project, the type of construction organization and project phases”.
2. Knowledge acquisition: The primary aim of a lessons learned system should be effective capturing of tacit knowledge [46] as well as explicit knowledge and its reliability/effectiveness should be checked/ensured.
Effective strategies for timely capture and successful representation of knowledge within the corporate memory are needed. Knowledge capture is proposed to be at the time that knowledge is created [6]. The time-lag
between occurrence of a lesson learned and its recording time may result in loss of some critical details and lead to a decrease in its reliability [47]. Real-time knowledge capture process and direct knowledge entry by the
source are considered to be important features that improve knowledge acquisition process.
3. Tool platform: The platform of the tool is related with its accessibility and integration with other tools. Most of the available tools are web-based.
4. Classification system: The captured knowledge should be organized, represented in an easily understandable format and indexed to make them fully accessible for other individuals in the organization [42,47]. A
classification system is needed for the users to easily review and extract relevant lessons for the intended use. A suitable taxonomy should be implemented together with complementary indexing options.
5. Retrieval system: Considerable importance should be given to the mechanisms for searching and retrieving the stored lessons [48]. It is argued that direct search has the potential to create problems in the process of
retrieving related lessons due to requirements of exact matching with previously entered data. Utilization of a taxonomy is preferred.
6. Control system: As mentioned by Caldas et al. [49], “the quality of lessons learned is more important than the quantity of lessons in the database”. Establishment of a control system can ensure validity and quality of
lessons learned [47,49].
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
G. Eken, et al.
Fig. 1. Research methodology.
through search mechanisms by authorized users.
Detailed responsibilities of user types in the proposed model can be
seen in the use case diagram given in Fig. 4. As it is stated, the lesson
has to be reviewed and approved in order to be added to the organi-
zational memory. So, there is a need for different type of roles and
responsibility definitions to implement the developed model properly.
One of the objectives in the system is live capture of knowledge;
however, the value of the entered lessons must also be controlled by
experts to eliminate useless data and maintain the quality of the system.
Defining roles is important to preserve the structure of the proposed
system. Rights of operations such as creating a project, editing the tag-
4
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
tree, deleting/modifying existing lessons cannot be granted to every
user in the system since changes done by irresponsible users may ruin
the system integrity. To overcome this problem, typical roles to manage
the system were created as the default list, and the required author-
ization for each role was identified. Four main user roles were proposed
in the system as “project coordinator”, “knowledge manager”,
“knowledge source”, and “knowledge seeker”.
“Project coordinator” role was created to limit the number of users
who are authorized to define projects in the system. This role is privi-
leged to create, modify, and delete the projects in the system. This role
can be assigned to an employee, who works in the head office and is
G. Eken, et al. Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977

Pc Pc Pc ... Pc
Knowledge Seeker 1 Knowledge Seeker 2 Knowledge Seeker 3 Knowledge Seeker n

Cloud Server

Web Interface for Lesson Retrieval

Pc
Knowledge Source 1

Pc
Lesson
Knowledge Source 2 Learned
Entry and
Document
Links

Pc
Web Interface for Lesson Entry Database
Knowledge Source 3
...

LinCTool Server

Pc
Knowledge Source n

Pc Edit/Delete Lessons
Knowledge Manager Maintain the
System Integritiy

Web Interface for Knowledge Manager

Fig. 2. Representation of proposed structure for lessons learned capture and sharing.

responsible for project contracts. “Knowledge manager” is responsible
for reviewing the entered lessons and maintaining the system quality by
editing, deleting, and approving lessons according to values of the
lessons. It is expected that live capture of the lessons can be achieved
through the web interface. This ability provides a chance to decrease
the loss of knowledge; however, it may also lead to an overload in the
system with useless information. To overcome this problem, company
may need to hire a person to work as “knowledge manager” with the
main duty of handling the overall system. Approving, editing, and de-
leting operations of the lessons are under the authority of the “knowl-
edge manager”. When a lesson is entered into the system, it is auto-
matically labeled as unapproved. If a lesson is considered as valuable, it
is approved by the “knowledge manager”; otherwise, it is deleted from
the database. Expected benefits of these restrictions can be stated as
increasing reliability of the knowledge stored in the system by
restraining unqualified personnel from doing aimless changes in the
lessons. Employees, who are identified as qualified enough to convey
their experience to the knowledge management system, are authorized
with the privileges of “knowledge source”. Other employees, who are
eligible with accessing corporate memory, are privileged to access to
the lessons learned through the “knowledge seeker” role. Users, who
are defined as “knowledge seeker”, are able to search and display les-
sons that have been entered already; however, they cannot make any
change in the system or add anything to the system.
There are two main workflows in the system. First one is “recording
previous experiences” in a structured form and the second one is “re-
using this information” in forthcoming projects. Fig. 5 represents the
process details of adding a lesson learned to the lesson learned data-
base. When a lesson is to be added to the system, first of all, the ex-
istence of the related project has to be checked. If the project has not

5
G. Eken, et al. Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977

Project
Needs
Lesson and
Project Project
Define Project Inputs Related
Inputs Actors

1 Actor
Add Actor Information

Project
Coordinator 2

Project
Project Knowledge Start
Coordinator Source

Event Occur Tag Tree Knowledge Value

Project
Create Project Information Company Needs

Enter Lessons Lesson

3
Candidate Deleted Lesson Knowledge
Learned Approve/Edit/
Need
Delete Lessons
Project 4 Approved
Coordinator
Learned
Lesson
5 New Lesson
Knowledge Knowledge Retrieve Lesson
Source Manager Related
Knowledge
6 Lesson
Manager

Filter
Similarity Tag

Searh Knowledge
Seeker

Fig. 3. Process model.

Define Contract Type

Calculate Similarity

Define Project Type <<extend>>

<<extend>>
Define Search Objective and
Define Partnership Type <<extend>> Select Search Option

<<include>>
<<extend>> <<extend>>
Create List of Related Lessons
Add Project
<<include>> Knowledge Seeker

<<extend>>
<<include>> Review Lesson Learned
Project Coordinator
Define Technologies <<extend>>

<<extend>> Create Lessons Learned Database

Add Actor <<include>>

Approve Lessons Learned

<<extend>>
<<extend>>
<<extend>>
Add Lessons Learned
<<extend>>
Edit Lessons Learned
<<include>> <<extend>>
Knowledge Source
Knowledge Manager
Specify Related Tags
Delete Lessons Learned

<<extend>>

Edit Tag Tree

Fig. 4. Use case diagram of LLMPM.

6
G. Eken, et al. Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977

Enter Lesson Learned

Does related project is available in the system ?

No

Create Project

No Are necessary project inputs available ? No

Yes
Yes
No

Define Project Inputs in the

Is project creation completed ?
System

Yes

Are necessary lesson inputs available ? No

Yes

Define Lesson Related Inputs

No Are necessary tags available ?
in the System

Yes

Modify Tag Tree Is lesson learned creation completed

Yes

Review Lesson Learned

Edit Lesson Learned No Is lesson satisfy requirements ? No Delete Lesson Learned

Yes

Approve Lesson Learned

Approved Lessons Lessons Learned

Learned Database

Fig. 5. Flowchart of the lesson entry.

been entered into the system earlier, it has to be created with necessary
project inputs by the “project coordinator” before adding any lesson.
Lesson entry is in the responsibility of the “knowledge source” role;
however, quality checking of the entered lesson is done by “knowledge
manager”. Once a lesson is created, it is stored in the database, but it is
not presented to the user until it is approved. “Knowledge manager” can
edit lesson before approving or can delete it without approving. After a
lesson is approved, it can be reused by other employees in order to
fulfill company objectives easily.
Creating a structure that would be capable of facilitating retrieval of
the right lesson when it is required is an important and challenging
process in developing a knowledge management system. The model
presents three search options as the retrieval mechanism for lessons.
Flowchart presented in Fig. 6 summarizes the lesson retrieval system
developed under this research. Search can be done according to the
project attributes through “filtering” and “similarity” search while it
can also be based on lesson content through “tag based” search. In the
proposed model, related lessons are listed following the search, and
user can use “secondary search” option to narrow down the results
according to the specific lesson attributes. After that, the listed lessons
are reviewed by the user and knowledge transfer is completed.
The main structure of the developed database, which is necessary to
store and retrieve the lessons learned, is depicted through entity re-
lationship diagram provided in Fig. 7. The diagram includes all tables
that are related to projects and lessons in order to present the relations
between the inputs that would be entered by the system users.

7
G. Eken, et al.
Fig. 6. Flowchart for the lesson retrieval.
Details of the project entry form, lesson entry form, and search
mechanisms will be further explained within the section on details of
LinCTool. Building blocks of LinCTool that are found as a result of a
survey conducted are project attributes to be utilized in the system,
project similarity calculation method for lesson retrieval, and con-
struction taxonomy as the reference structure for lesson categorization
(i.e., tagging system) in the developed model.
3.3. Project similarity survey
A survey was conducted among construction professionals to iden-
tify project attributes that can be used for defining similarities between
projects. The survey was designed as an online questionnaire and 280
construction professionals were invited to participate. 108 professionals
participated and completed the survey successfully. All participants
were working in the construction sector and were experienced with
different project types. 66% of respondents had at least M.Sc. degree.
Education level, experience, and their current positions are given in
Fig. 8 in addition to age and turnover range of the companies that the
participants were working.
The survey was designed to identify the significant project attributes
and their weights for similarity calculations. In the survey, importance
of each attribute was asked to the participants in 1 to 5 Likert scale,
8
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
where “1” means the least important and “5” means the most im-
portant. Survey results show that “country”, “project type”, “client”,
“technology” and “contract type” are the most important attributes to
define similarities between projects. Responses are summarized in
Fig. 9 and weights utilized during similarity assessment based on these
responses are depicted in Table 2.
The major idea in the paper is that people can still learn from pre-
vious projects even if they are not the same in terms of all project at-
tributes. The tool retrieves information about previous projects even if
they do not match with the current project 100% but share some in-
formation that may be relevant/useful. For example, even if the two
projects are not the same (such as a highway project and a HEPP) but
carried out in the same country, some lessons learned about country
conditions such as bureaucracy and working culture can be shared. If
decision-makers aim to utilize only the projects that match 100% for
learning, some valuable lessons learned could be wasted.
3.4. Similarity calculation method
Similarity calculation is based on “overlap” similarity measure
where the categorical data similarities in terms of the number of
matching attributes between two projects add up to overall similarity
between two projects [50]. With this regard, attributes of the selected
G. Eken, et al.
Fig. 7. Entity relationship diagram of the database.
project are compared with the attributes of other projects in the data-
base and “similarity rates” are calculated between the project in ques-
tion and the others. In this model, each attribute has a weight, which
was obtained from survey results, and when the project attributes are
matched, the project similarity rate is increased by the amount of the
attribute weight. For example, when all the attributes are matching for
two projects, the similarity rate is calculated as 100%, similarly, if only
the “country” and “client” attributes are matching, similarity rate is
calculated as 40.44%. The procedure of the similarity value calculation
is presented in Fig. 10.
Calculation method can be formulated as given below;
nk
S (A, B ) = wk sk (Ak , Bk )
k=1
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
100% if Ak = Bk
sk (Ak , Bk ) = k = 1, …, nk
0 otherwise (2)
where; A and B implies projects and S(A, B) stands for total similarity
rate for those projects. wk is the weight of attribute k, sk(Ak, Yk) is the
per-attribute similarity, and nk is the maximum number of attributes,
which is used to define total similarity.
3.5. Construction taxonomy
Construction taxonomy was generated based on literature review
findings. Developed taxonomy covers 2043 items in a tree structure that
has eight levels. It was structured upon four main categories as “pro-
(1) ject”, “process”, “actor”, and “resource”.
“Project” category is composed of “125” items that can be used to
label lessons according to project types. Within this context, three
9
G. Eken, et al. Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977

EDUCATION EXPERIENCE COMPANY TURNOVER

PhD. M.Sc. B.Sc. 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 and more

7% 0-100 Million TL
16%
28% 24%
34% 100-500 Million TL
11%

58% 500 Million TL and

18%
59% More
22% 23%

POSITIONS COMPANY AGE

Head Office Manager

8%
3% Technical Office Engineer / Expert
4% 24% 18% 0-10 years
5% Planning Department Engineer
11-20 years
9% General Manager / Assistant General Manager / Shareholder 41%
14% 21-30 years
Project Manager
17%
31-40 years
14% Bid Prepareation Engineer
17% 41 years and
16% Conctract Management Engineer 10% more
Cost Control Engineer
Others

Fig. 8. Information about survey participants.

Fig. 9. Responses to the survey.

different sources, which are published by EuroStat [51], International were merged in a single body to develop a project taxonomy that would
Organization for Standardization [52], and Construction Project In- be comprehensive enough to label lessons. The main objective of
formation Committee [53] were used for developing the “project” ca- creating the “actor” taxonomy was labeling the lessons with the related
tegory. These documents were analyzed and the extracted concepts information of the parties. “Actor” taxonomy was designed not for

10
G. Eken, et al. Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977

Table 2 equipment” are mostly taken from ISO/TR 12603: 2010 [70], in addi-
Survey results and attribute weights. tion to the work of Peurifoy et al. [71]. Other four sub-categories were
Attribute Standard Average Ratio Weight in compiled by using resources provided by El-Diraby et al. [56], Hughes
deviation terms of % and Murdoch [54] and International Organization for Standardization
[52].
Country 0.78 4.17 4.17/19.98 = 0.2087 20.87
The overall construction taxonomy is provided in a tree format to
Project type 0.73 4.41 4.41/19.98 = 0.2207 22.07
Client 0.88 3.91 3.91/19.98 = 0.1957 19.57
facilitate the process of finding necessary tags by providing main ca-
Technology 0.93 3.89 3.89/19.98 = 0.1947 19.47 tegories at first. In the proposed system, when a sub-item is assigned to
Contract type 1.05 3.60 3.60/19.98 = 0.1802 18.02 a lesson as label, the ancestor categories are automatically assigned to
Total 19.98 100 the lesson. With this feature, lessons can be retrieved in case of a
general search with an upper-level category rather than only providing
a specific search with the exactly assigned tag. First three levels of the
capturing the actors in person (i.e., names of the actors), it was de-
developed taxonomy are given in Appendix A.
signed to present information about related parties in terms of titles.
This means that lessons can be labeled with information such as de-
partments, sub-contractors, employees using this category of the tax- 3.6. Validation of the lessons learned management process model
onomy. The “actor” taxonomy contains “71” items and these items were
collected from two different main sources, which are Construction Validation of the LLMPM was done by an expert review meeting,
Project: Analysis and Terminology [54] and ISO Standard No: 6707- which was held with four different experts having different capabilities.
2:2014 [55]. “Process” category was divided into five sub-categories as Two of them were from the academia and other two participants were
“feasibility”, “design”, “contract formation”, “construction”, and construction professionals. One of the experts was working in a soft-
“management” all of which contain “1588” items in total. “Feasibility”, ware company that is specialized in software development for con-
“design”, and “contract formation” categories were mainly developed struction companies. The other construction professional was working
according to Roles in Construction Projects: Analysis and Terminology as a knowledge manager in a construction company that is listed among
[54]. Also, works of El-Diraby et al. [56] and Dykstra [57] are the other the top construction companies in the Engineering News-Record 250
two resources, which were used to develop these sub-categories. (ENR-250) list. A prototype was prepared, and access link to the pro-
“Construction” sub-category was structured with the help of four dif- totype were sent to experts 10 days before the meeting date.
ferent sources but it mainly depends on the classification of Construc- Participants found a chance to analyze the system within these 10 days.
tion Specifications Institute (CSI) [58]. Other three resources, which After the pre-evaluation period, all participants were invited to a
were used to develop the taxonomy for this sub-category, can be listed meeting where research team made a presentation about the developed
as works of El-Diraby et al. [56], Hughes and Murdoch [54], and system before the question and answer session. Then, an evaluation
Chudley and Greeno [59]. Arditi et al. [28], Bilgin [60], Dykstra [57], form was distributed to the participants to get their feedback on the
Fewings [61], Hinze [62], Kerzner [63], Nicholas [64], Peterson [65], proposed system. 17 questions under six categories were asked and
PMI [66], Schaufelberger and Holm [67], Sears et al. [68], Yıldız [69] obtained average scores (1–7 Likert Scale) are given in Table 3. Results
are referenced to define “management” taxonomy. “Resource” tax- show that the proposed model generally meets the expectations of the
onomy contains “258” items, which are divided into six categories as experts.
“sub-contractor”, “construction machinery and equipment”, “software”, Expert recommendations to further revise the model mainly in-
“manpower”, “personnel”, and “material”. “Sub-contractor” category cluded two critical issues. One of them was the necessity of a search
was developed using [54]. Items in the “construction machinery and mechanism in the tagging structure, which may decrease the necessary
time to find intended tags. Finally, improving the lesson approval

Fig. 10. Project similarity calculation procedure.

11
G. Eken, et al. Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977

Table 3
Expert meeting evaluation form results.
Expert Completeness/coverage Suitability/accuracy Usefulness Usability Receptiveness Overall Average

1 5.5 5.5 7 5.6 6 6.14 5.77

2 6.25 6.5 7 6.4 5.67 6.14 5.97
3 6.25 6 7 6.6 6.67 6.14 6.50
4 6 6 5 6 5 5.43 5.75
Average 6 6 6.5 6.15 5.5 5.83 6

mechanism in order to ensure the quality of stored lesson learned and

decreasing knowledge overload was proposed. All these suggestions Lesson Entry
were taken into consideration in the development of LinCTool.

Knowledge Source
4. Learning in construction tool - LinCTool

Learning in Construction Tool (LinCTool) is a web application, Lesson View

which is hosted in Microsoft Web Server and was developed on top of
ASP.NET MVC framework. The tool is compatible with the most used Knowledge Seeker
web browsers as well as mobile devices. Users do not have to install any
extra program in the client device to access the tool. All calculations are
Lesson Approval
done at the server side that was programmed with C# and an SQL
server is used as a database to store all information. Users can access to Knowledge
the current version of the tool through “https://www.linctool.com” Manager
web address. The tool contains “25” screens, which were developed to
respond all functions defined in the process model. The tool functions Lesson Editing
can be divided into four main categories, which are “administrative
settings”, “lesson categorization information”, “entry of lessons Project
learned” and “retrieval of lessons learned”. Coordinator

4.1. Administrative settings Project Creation

The tool was designed with the functionality of providing flexibility

for improving lesson tagging system, modifying user roles, and chan-
ging attribute weights in similarity calculation according to company
needs and preferences. The developed construction taxonomy is in-
tegrated to the tool as a tagging system. Taxonomy is provided to be
modified to meet company specific requirements by adding new tags
into the hierarchy through the editing area. In addition to that, simi-
larity survey results were used as default values, but the weights of the
attributes can also be modified according to company preferences from
the project similarity coefficient screen.
Access to the system is enabled through identified usernames and
passwords for the users. A user management system can be established
through addition of new users by the system administrator through
entering contact information and assigning roles from the designated
area. Roles are used for defining the privileges of users in terms of al-
lowed actions and accessibility to screens. Proposed LLMPM defines
user types such as “knowledge manager”, “knowledge seeker”, etc., and
LinCTool is capable of realizing this function through created roles.
Tool functions are divided into seven categories as “lesson approval”,
“lesson editing”, “lesson entry”, “lesson view”, “project creation”, “user
management”, and “system administration”. “System administration”
role is the main role that is privileged to execute all actions required for
fully utilization of LinCTool. “Lesson approval” and “lesson editing”
roles were designed to access areas related to approval and editing
respectively where the same logic also applies “lesson entry” and
“lesson view” roles. “Project creation” role was designed to give the
ability to selected users for creating projects and editing necessary
project inputs. “User management” role is provided for the authorized
user for creating new users in the system and assigning roles to them.
Relations between LinCTool roles and user types that are defined in the
LLMPM section are presented in Fig. 11. Additionally, new user roles
can be defined, user roles and their privileges can be modified ac-
cording to company needs through the related screen located in the
tool.
Descriptive Roles of User Types
Supplementary Roles of User Types
Fig. 11. Relation between user types and roles.
4.2. Lesson categorization information
Captured information in this system can be divided into two cate-
gories as “general attributes” and “lesson specific information”. General
attributes are composed of data related to actors and project informa-
tion that is only used to categorize and retrieve lessons, while lesson
specific information is directly and only related to identification of
unique lessons. A database was developed in order to capture “actor”
data in a structured form and simplify the actor-adding process for the
projects and the lessons. This database contains “name” and “contact
information” of people, companies, and institutions. This method pro-
vides a solid structure for recording actors related to lessons and pro-
jects. Similarity calculation is based on client information, so use of
actor database for adding clients to projects prevents possibility of
miscalculation of similarities due to the misspelling of client informa-
tion. Actor database is also used in lessons learned capture procedure to
add related individuals. Storing actors in a structured form together
with contact information improves accessibility of the actors when they
are needed for further information.
Recorded project attributes such as the “project types”, “contract
types”, “partnership types”, and “technologies”, are used in “similarity”
and “filter” searches during the lesson retrieval processes. These four
attributes can be predefined in the database so that user can directly
select them from inputs in creation of a new project. This ability was
found necessary to eliminate possible mismatch due to expressing the
same thing with different wordings or miswriting of the same attribute.
Two of the developed lesson retrieval systems are based on linking

12
G. Eken, et al.
lessons with projects, as a result, projects need to be created before
entering related lessons to the system. Projects are recorded with pre-
defined attributes and managed by “project coordinator” with the
purpose of facilitating lessons retrieval process and providing extra
information about lessons. Projects are created by entering “14” data
that is specific to a project. Seven of them, which can be listed as
“project type”, “client”, “country”, “partnership type”, “partner com-
pany”, “contract type”, and “technologies”, are stored in the project
inputs database and the actor database. Other recorded project attri-
butes are “project name”, “project scope”, “start” and “end dates”,
“planned project duration”, “contract price” and “expected cost”, which
are entered through different entry options specific to type of data.
4.3. Entry of lessons learned
A pre-defined structure as the lesson entry form is provided for
systematic categorization of lessons where flexibility is to be provided
through free-text areas and customizable tag tree. In this system, les-
sons learned are mainly captured through free text areas that provide a
chance to enter freely every detail of an event without limitations. Two
free text areas that are named as “event description” and “re-
commendation” are used to share knowledge among the company for
future projects. The system does not contain a “document upload and
share system” since the probability of causing problems in terms of
confidentiality of documents. However, it is known that contracts,
images, and other documents may be needed to fully describe the si-
tuation as the explicit data. These types of documents can be attached
to the lesson by adding access links to provide extra information in
addition to narratives. Sharing materials through a cloud system pro-
vides a chance to restrict access to documents even though users are
authorized to access lessons. The “project title”, in which the event had
occurred, is entered from the project database to the lesson learned in
order to use it in the retrieval process and not to lose the context of the
project. “Project title” creates a relationship between lesson and the
project.
LL form has a “title” section, which is used as brief introductory
information about a lesson. This title is used in quick representation of
the case to the users as the summary listing of lessons in the retrieval
mechanisms of lessons learned. “Best practice” checkbox is used to label
and categorize lessons to distinguish them as best practices or failures.
Ultimately, lesson learned can be related to a best practice or a failure;
however, users may not be willing to select the failure option while
entering information. To decrease this effect, the tool is developed in a
way that lessons, which were not labeled as a best practice, are im-
plying that they are associated with a failure/problem.
“Effect” of an event on “project duration” and “cost” is recorded
separately in order to help to categorize lessons and improve the search
capability. The “degree of the effect” can be entered in the system
through a 5-point scale in addition to its entry in “actual” units in order
to simplify required data. Each effect can be labeled with one of the
provided scale as “very low”, “low”, “medium”, “high”, and “very
high”. “Actual amounts” may also be recorded through designated
areas; however, capturing actual amounts may not be possible when
amounts are not exactly known or difficult to calculate distinctly due to
concurrent factors, this is why they are left as optional entry areas.
“Actor” information, which is necessary for improving search cap-
ability and providing contact information of the involved actors, can be
added from the actor database. However, this is not compulsory for
creating a lesson. This system does not provide any information about
the role of an actor in a lesson; rather it provides contact information
about the actors, which are mentioned in the event description part of a
lesson.
The complete list of “construction taxonomy” is provided in the
lesson entry screen as an extendable tag tree, and related tags can be
added from this tree structure to the lesson. As mentioned before,
construction taxonomy contains “2043” concepts in total, which makes
13
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
it hard to search all the items manually. Search function among con-
cepts on the tag tree was developed to ease finding the intended tags.
Results are displayed simultaneously with their position in the hier-
archy. This search option dramatically decreases the necessary effort
needed to assign tags. Conservation of the tree structure is important in
the labeling process as well, since the upper-level (parent) tags are
added to the lesson together with the selected (child) tag. The search
function in the tag tree was created with the ability that provides in-
formation about the location of the results. So that, hierarchical loca-
tions of the tags are preserved in the results to exhibit which upper-level
tags will be assigned together with the selected tag. Upper-level tags are
added automatically for preserving connection between main headings
and the lesson and this provides a chance to retrieve lessons when a
user initiates a wider scope search by preferring upper-level tags.
Additionally, lesson creation “date” and the “user” who creates lessons
are saved automatically to link the lessons with timeline and in-
dividuals.
4.4. Retrieval of lessons learned
The search functions were developed in three modes, which are
“filter search”, “similarity search”, and “tag-based search” to provide
flexibility to the user for finding related lessons in different situations.
“Filter search” and “similarity search” use project attributes to list re-
lated lessons based on benchmarking similar projects, on the other
hand, “tag-based search” uses the tag tree to find lessons, which may be
useful for in depth investigation of content specific lessons.
“Filter search” is based on finding related projects according to five
project attributes that are defined in the project creation phase. Project
attributes, that are used in filtering, are “country”, “project type”,
“contract type”, “client”, and “partner company”. Search inputs are
automatically filled from the database through dropdown menus and
keyword search areas, which are directly connected to the database.
This prevents empty search results, which may be faced when the
search is done according to text entered freely by users. The user is
allowed to make multiple selection on fields to narrow down the scope
of the search. For example, a search can be done according to “office
building” projects, which were constructed in “country a” and executed
under conditions of “contract type b”. Search results are provided as a
joint list of the three attributes, which includes list of related projects
and the lessons that were entered to the projects previously.
Developed project similarity calculation method is used to find si-
milar projects to the project in question. The project should be defined
in the system through the project creation system to use the similarity
search. As mentioned before, the similarity calculation depends on
matching of five project attributes that can be listed as “country”,
“project type”, “contract type”, “technology”, and “client”. Each attri-
bute has different weight, and similar projects list is presented with
similarity ratios, which are calculated according to predefined weights.
Result screen of “similarity search” is similar to the “filter search”.
Projects in the order of similarity and their lessons are presented to the
user for review.
Last lesson retrieval option is the “tag-based search”. Construction
taxonomy, which was used as a tagging structure, is used to search
among previous lessons by matching the selected tags and the assigned
tags. The “tag-based search” screen was developed to provide the
ability to the user to select intended tags from the tag tree that is lo-
cated in the search screen. Similar to tag assignment in the lesson entry
process, the tree structure is presented up to two levels in its default;
however, the user can manually expand it to see all the levels according
to depth of investigation or can use the keyword search mechanism,
which is also used in the tag assignment screen. When a keyword is
entered by the user, the corresponding results are displayed simulta-
neously even if the tag is not open/visible in the current outline level.
Lessons are listed for the review if selected search tags are matching
with the tags, which were assigned to the lessons learned entries in the
G. Eken, et al.
Fig. 12. Similarity search result screen.
Fig. 13. Lessons learned card.
database. As an example, the similarity search result screen is provided
in Fig. 12.
In addition to the three main search mechanisms, a “secondary
search” area was developed to help users to narrow down search re-
sults. The secondary search area can be used in combination with all
search mechanisms. All “tags” that were assigned to the lessons listed in
the results become selectable through a dropdown menu in the sec-
ondary search area for selection for further filtering. This helps users to
focus on specific lesson topics in filtering and similarity-based searches.
The secondary search area also provides the ability to filter main search
results through the attributes of “effect on project duration”, “effect on
project cost”, and “best practice/failure”; moreover, it eases to find
lessons that are related to the specific “actors”. The user can retrieve
lessons that specific actors are involved or focus only lessons that have
high effects on duration and cost. Additionally, filtering the results
according to “date” of lesson capture is another function of secondary
search option. Filtering option according to “approval status” of a
lesson is integrated to facilitate finding and viewing newly created or
unapproved lessons by the authorized users, which are namely the
“knowledge managers”, and this option can be used only by authorized
users. Secondary search is optional and it can be used to decrease the
volume of lessons listed if the scope of the search is clear. The lesson
14
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
review process can be done by opening the lesson cards from search
results. An example of a lessons learned card is given in Fig. 13.
5. Testing and validation of the tool
As initial effort on testing, validation study of the LLMPM was
mainly carried out by the “expert review meeting” as it is presented in
the previous section with the participation of four professionals
working in the private sector and academia. For the verification of
LinCTool, researchers conducted an initial evaluation of tool functions
by black-box testing methods. Within this context, a sample case, which
was aimed to be representative for typical processes in utilization of
LinCTool, was developed by researchers by defining “11 hypothetical
projects” and “39 LL”. Researchers tested the tool operations such as
search mechanisms and similarity calculations. In addition to that, user
type privileges were controlled to be sure that the tool is working as
expected and capable of establishing a user management system.
Generation and analysis of the sample case mainly served for verifica-
tion of LinCTool. “Validation” testing of LinCTool was carried out with
the contribution of different company professionals using the same
hypothetical cases utilized during verification.
G. Eken, et al.
Table 4
Participant responses to predefined interview questions.
Expression
1. Lesson learned entry form is suitable to capture an event without losing information.
2. Project information, actor information, effect levels, and tags provide necessary information for categorizing lessons in the purpose of retrieving
them.
3. Developed construction taxonomy to label lessons according to their context is very functional.
4. Event Description and Recommendation sections as a free text are suitable for capturing details of the lessons.
5. The filtering method according to project attributes is very useful to retrieve lessons.
6. Retrieving lessons by calculating project similarities is very logical and useful.
7. Using the tag tree to label lessons according to context and retrieve them is very useful.
8. LinCTool provides the ability to find related lessons easily with the help of three search mechanisms.
9. My general opinion about the proposed system is positive.
Overall
5.1. Interviews with company professionals
Four company professionals from three different companies, who
are different from the participants in the initial workshop about the
process model, attended to the workshop held for the validation process
of LinCTool. All participants had more than 10 years of experience in
the construction industry and been working in construction companies,
which were listed in the ENR top 250 construction companies list. All of
the participants were familiar with the concept of organizational
learning and LL systems. “Participant 1” previously started an initiative
to develop a lesson learned management system in his company but this
initiative could not have been concluded. The company, which
“Participant 2” and “Participant 3” were working, has been already
utilizing a lesson learned management system. “Participant 3” was re-
sponsible for developing and managing the LL system in this company.
The company of “Participant 4” has been also trying to develop a lesson
learned management system but the efforts have been very limited in
the period that the interview was made.
At the beginning of the workshop, the proposed system as the basis
of model, especially capture and search mechanisms of LinCTool, were
explained to participants. After the informative introduction, specific
functions of LinCTool were demonstrated using hypothetical cases.
After the discussions, a set of questions that was prepared to test
LinCTool's functionality was administered to the participants. Some
findings about the strengths and weaknesses of LinCTool from the
workshop are listed as follows:
• The “similarity search” option was appreciated by “Participant 1”,
“Participant 2” and “Participant 3”. It was stated that using project
similarities to determine possible problems and improvements in the
previous work processes could be very useful and this might help to
get an overall idea about the new project. However, they also un-
derlined that “reporting” options should be included to get full
benefits of similarity search. Lack of saving and reporting mechan-
isms was seen as a drawback of the system. On the other hand,
“Participant 4” argued that “project similarity calculation” could not
be generalized for all project types, weights might be customized for
different types of projects.
• All participants appreciated the content of “construction taxonomy”,
its representation and editing option of the tag tree to modify it
according to company specific needs. According to “Participant 2”
and “Participant 3”, new tags might be needed such as materials
used, etc.
• “Participant 2”, “Participant 3”, and “Participant 4” mentioned that
they faced some problems in practice, which were mostly related to
the “lesson retrieval process” and the “quality of lessons”. They
confirmed that “search options” provided in LinCTool might solve
lesson retrieval problems. “Participant 2” and “Participant 3” con-
veyed that they achieved to collect too many lessons when they
15
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
Participant Avg.
1 2 3 4
5 6 5 6 5.50
5 5 5 5 5.00
5 6 5 6 5.50
6 6 5 6 5.75
5 6 5 5 5.25
6 6 5 3 5.00
5 5 5 6 5.33
5 5 5 6 5.25
5 6 5 6 5.50
5.2 5.6 5.0 5.4 5.34
started a reward mechanism within the company; however, they
complained that they could not obtain a standard in the quality of
the lessons learned. It was concluded that assigning a person as the
“knowledge manager”, who collects necessary information from the
related managers to approve or reject lessons, might be a solution
for the identified quality problem as it is proposed in this research.
• “LL capture system” of LinCTool was found usable by all of the
participants. Free text areas were considered sufficient to capture
and disseminate event details and personal evaluations. Also, au-
tomatic addition of upper-level tags was seen as a useful feature in
terms of providing the necessary flexibility to users in the retrieval
steps. Interview results showed that capturing the “effect on dura-
tion” and “cost” in the “1–5 scale” could provide enough detail for
evaluating the severity of an event. “Participant 2” proposed to
capture also the “effect on quality”.
• Proposed “user types” and “roles” were found satisfactory by all of
the participants; however, a common comment was implementing
this structure in a real company to measure its efficiency.
“Participant 1” raised some doubts related to the company organi-
zational structure that limits information flow inside the company.
On the other hand, “Participant 2” and “Participant 3” focused on
“knowledge manager” role to see whether it would be capable of
solving the quality problem, which they were faced with in their
previous initiatives, or not. The “online structure” of the tool was
appreciated and found essential for this type of systems.
Following the discussions, the participants were asked to grade the
expressions given in Table 4, on a “1–6 scale” As a result, the overall
impression of the participants about LinCTool can be stated to be
“positive”.
Results of the interviews show that LinCTool has the potential to
solve some of the problems that have been faced by the participants in
their companies. According to participants, LinCTool with its “online
structure” and “retrieval options” has the potential to disseminate
knowledge within the company if company culture allows employees to
enter their experiences to the system without any barrier. Company's
enthusiasm about establishing LL management system together with a
well-designed IT solution in order to create a company memory plays
an important role in overcoming most of the problems. Some barriers
that originated from employee attitude might be solved with in-house
training, encouragement and well-defined responsibilities.
6. Conclusions
This study aims to propose a process model for management of
lessons learned in construction companies at the organizational level
and demonstrate development of a tool, namely LinCTool, using the
proposed process model. Research findings demonstrated that mapping
the lessons learned through a taxonomy can facilitate categorization of
G. Eken, et al. Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977

lessons and their retrieval when needed. The centralized system and
user management capability result in an approval mechanism under the
control of authorized users ensuring quality of the lessons learned. The
process model, namely LLMPM, similarity assessment method and
construction taxonomy within LinCTool can be listed among contribu-
tions of LinCTool to organizational learning literature.
LinCTool can be easily integrated into companies' information
technology infrastructure with minimal modifications. Defined user
types require a minimum effort to manage and maintain a company
specific LL management system. LinCTool facilitates management of all
types of LL that may be encountered in all project types at a single
platform, which is not covered in previous works. Capturing all LL in-
formation in a single system may help the user to oversee/consider all
possible problems and most critical stages of the project in question at a
single search.
However, as highlighted by various researchers, there are various
limitations/barriers in the implementation of LL systems in practice due
to human and cultural issues such as hindering the actual causes of
problems/failures due to possible negative consequences of acts, re-
luctance to obtain external advice and internal competition. Companies
aiming to utilize LL systems are advised to formulate necessary strate-
gies to minimize these limitations before implementing the relevant LL
tools. Moreover, data confidentiality and security can be barriers for
implementation of LL systems. LinCTool works in Windows server with
minimal firewall protection because it is used as a prototype. Further
improvements shall be made to ensure data security before it can be
implemented in companies.
There are some limitations and/or assumptions in this study.
Developed lessons learned entry form can successfully capture the in-
formation related to an event and categorize them; however, quality of
the lessons highly depends on user inputs/behavior. It is believed that
users can be guided in the LL entry process by addressing predefined
questions; however, each topic may necessitate framing different
questions. For example, “Did any fatal accident occur or not?” question
might be needed for health and safety related lessons, on the other
hand, “What was the weather temperature?” would be an important
question for cast in place concrete lessons. In this research, it is assumed
that knowledge sources are qualified to enter all the necessary in-
formation related to an event to the provided free text areas. Therefore,
performance of LinCTool can be improved by incorporating necessary
explanations and guiding questions for lessons learned entry.
Although the benefits of utilizing LinCTool in companies are high-
lighted by the company professionals involved in this study, the time
and effort spent on developing this system, should also be considered to
understand its feasibility. Further studies should be conducted to reveal
whether the return on investment justifies deploying such a system.
Another limitation of this study is the interoperability capability of
LinCTool. LinCTool is designed to work as an online tool; however, data
import and export capability limits its usability. This was also specified
by the participants at the validation interviews. All of the participants
mentioned that creating reports and exporting to Excel sheet options
would be very important to enhance usability of such a system. Thus,
the function of exporting data to a commonly used software platform
such as Microsoft Excel may be considered in the future.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant from The Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [grant number
213M493]. TUBITAK's support is gratefully acknowledged.

Appendix A

Table A.1
First 3 levels of the construction taxonomy.

Number Items

1 Project
1.1 Buildings
1.1.1 Permanent buildings
1.1.2 Mobile and temporary buildings
1.1.3 Underground buildings
1.2 Civil engineering works
1.2.1 Ground contouring
1.2.2 Transport infrastructures
1.2.3 Harbors, waterways, dams and other waterworks
1.2.4 Pipelines, communication and electricity lines
1.2.5 Complex constructions on industrial sites
1.2.6 Other civil engineering works
2 Actor
2.1 Client
2.1.1 Project sponsor, funder
2.1.2 Client's representative
2.1.3 Client liaison officer
2.2 Constructors
2.2.1 Main contractor
2.2.2 Design contractor
2.2.3 Management contractor
2.2.4 Principal contractor
2.2.5 Partial responsibility
2.2.6 Direct contractor
2.3 Dispute resolvers
2.3.1 Adjudicator
2.3.2 Arbitrator
2.3.3 Mediator
2.4 Regulators
2.4.1 Statuary authorities
(continued on next page)

16
G. Eken, et al. Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977

Table A.1 (continued)

Number Items

2.4.2 Local authority

2.5 Staff
2.5.1 Feasibility consultant
2.5.2 Construction manager
2.5.3 Design
2.5.4 Financial
2.5.5 Administration
2.5.6 Site inspector
2.5.7 Worker
3 Process
3.1 Feasibility
3.2 Design
3.2.1 Stage
3.2.2 Design branch
3.3 Contract formation
3.3.1 Define the work to be done
3.3.2 Agree on contractual terms
3.3.3 Identify the builder
3.3.4 Identify the price
3.4 Construction
3.4.1 Site works
3.4.2 Construction works
3.4.3 Conveying equipment
3.4.4 Mechanical systems
3.4.5 Electrical, communication and automation systems
3.4.6 Utilities
3.4.7 Transportation
3.4.8 Waterway and marine construction
3.4.9 Plant equipment
3.5 Management
3.5.1 Time management
3.5.2 Financial management
3.5.3 Quality management
3.5.4 Human resource management
3.5.5 Risk management
3.5.6 Claim management
3.5.7 Safety and environmental management
3.5.8 Procurement management
3.5.9 Communications management
3.5.10 Contract management
4 Resource
4.1 Sub-contractor
4.1.1 Domestic sub-contractor
4.1.2 Nominated sub-contractor
4.1.3 Labor-only sub-contractor
4.1.4 Specialist sub-contractor
4.2 Construction machinery and equipment
4.2.1 Earth-moving machinery and equipment
4.2.2 Foundation and drilling equipment
4.2.3 Equipment for preparing, conveying and compaction of concrete, mortar and processing reinforcement
4.2.4 Lifting machinery and equipment
4.2.5 Access machinery and equipment
4.2.6 Equipment for installation, finishing work and maintenance
4.2.7 Road construction and maintenance machinery and equipment
4.2.8 Machines and equipment for specialized works and processes in construction
4.2.9 General-use machinery and equipment used in construction
4.3 Software
4.4 Manpower
4.4.1 Foreman
4.4.2 Labor
4.5 Personnel
4.5.1 Feasibility consultant
4.5.2 Construction manager
4.5.3 Design
4.5.4 Financial
4.5.5 Administration
4.6 Material

17
G. Eken, et al.
References
[1] L. Argote, Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring
Knowledge, 2nd ed., Springer US, Boston, MA, 2013 (ISBN-13: 978-1461452508),
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5251-5.
[2] G.K. Kululanga, F.T. Edum-Fotwe, R. McCaffer, Measuring construction contractors'
organizational learning, Building Research & Information 29 (1) (2001) 21–29,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210150208769.
[3] A.H. Abu Bakar, M.N. Yusof, M.A. Tufail, W. Virgiyanti, Effect of knowledge
management on growth performance in construction industry, Manag. Decis. 54 (3)
(2016) 735–749, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2015-0006.
[4] P. Chan, R. Cooper, P. Tzortzopoulos, Organizational learning: conceptual chal-
lenges from a project perspective, Constr. Manag. Econ. 23 (7) (2005) 747–756,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500127021.
[5] P.E.D. Love, H. Li, Z. Irani, O. Faniran, Total quality management and the learning
organization: a dialogue for change in construction, Constr. Manag. Econ. 18 (3)
(2000) 321–331, https://doi.org/10.1080/014461900370681.
[6] M. Vakola, Y. Rezgui, Organisational learning and innovation in the construction
industry, Learn. Organ. 7 (4) (2000) 174–184, https://doi.org/10.1108/
09696470010342324.
[7] J.B. Yang, W.D. Yu, J.C.R. Tseng, C.S. Chang, P.L. Chang, J.W. Wu, Benefit analysis
of knowledge management system for engineering consulting firms, J. Manag. Eng.
30 (4) (2014), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000221.
[8] D.N. Ford, J.J. Voyer, J.M.G. Wilkinson, Building learning organizations in en-
gineering cultures: case study, J. Manag. Eng. 16 (4) (2000) 72–83, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2000)16:4(72).
[9] S. Kivrak, G. Arslan, I. Dikmen, M.T. Birgonul, Capturing knowledge in construction
projects: knowledge platform for contractors, J. Manag. Eng. 24 (2) (2008) 87–95,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2008)24:2(87).
[10] S. McLaughlin, R.A. Paton, D.K. Macbeth, Barrier impact on organizational learning
within complex organizations, J. Knowl. Manag. 12 (2) (2008) 107–123, https://
doi.org/10.1108/13673270810859550.
[11] L. Steiner, Organizational dilemmas as barriers to learning, Learn. Organ. 5 (4)
(1998) 193–201, https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479810228577.
[12] H.C. Tan, C.J. Anumba, P.M. Carrillo, D. Bouchlaghem, J. Kamara, C. Udeaja,
Capture and Reuse of Project Knowledge in Construction, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford,
UK, 2010 (ISBN-13: 9781444315448), doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781444315448.
[13] A.M. Alashwal, H. Abdul-Rahman, Using PLS-PM to model the process of inter-
project learning in construction projects, Autom. Constr. 44 (2014) 176–182,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.11.010.
[14] P.S.W. Fong, Aspects of learning and knowledge in construction projects, in:
Construction Research Congress 2005, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
VA, 2005: pp. 1–10, doi:https://doi.org/10.1061/40754(183)43.
[15] J.M. Kamara, C.J. Anumba, P.M. Carrillo, N. Bouchlaghem, Conceptual framework
for live capture and reuse of project knowledge, in: R. Amor (Ed.), CIB W78’s 20th
International Conference on Construction IT, Construction IT Bridging the Distance,
23-25 April 2003, Waiheke Island, New Zealand, 2003, pp. 178–185 https://www.
cs.auckland.ac.nz/w78/papers/W78-57.pdf , Accessed date: 16 September 2019.
[16] P. Chinowsky, K. Molenaar, A. Realph, Learning organizations in construction, J.
Manag. Eng. 23 (1) (2007) 27–34, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X
(2007)23:1(27).
[17] P.E.D. Love, F. Ackermann, P. Teo, J. Morrison, From individual to collective
learning: a conceptual learning framework for enacting rework prevention, J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 141 (11) (2015), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001013.
[18] G.B. Öztürk, D. Arditi, H.M. Günaydın, İ. Yitmen, Organizational learning and
performance of architectural design firms in Turkey, J. Manag. Eng. 32 (5) (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000455.
[19] Y.Y. Hua, I.Y.S. Chan, Development of a conceptual model for organizational
learning culture and innovation diffusion in construction, in: S.D. Smith,
D.D. Ahiaga-Dagbui (Eds.), 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, Reading 2013, UK,
2013, pp. 0–414 http://www.arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2013-0405-0414_
Hua_Chan.pdf , Accessed date: 16 September 2019.
[20] W.R. King, T.R. Chung, M.H. Haney, Knowledge management and organizational
learning, Omega 36 (2) (2008) 167–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.
07.004.
[21] D. Vera, M. Crossan, M. Apaydin, A framework for integrating organizational
learning, knowledge, capabilities, and absorptive capacity, in: M. Easterby-Smith,
M.A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge
Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015, pp. 153–180, ,
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207245.ch8.
[22] B.T. Pentland, Information systems and organizational learning: the social episte-
mology of organizational knowledge systems, Account. Manag. Inf. Technol. 5 (1)
(1995) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-8022(95)90011-X.
[23] N. Hayes, Information technology and the possibilities for knowledge sharing, in:
M. Easterby-Smith, M.A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Learning and
Knowledge Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012, pp.
83–104, , https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207245.ch5.
[24] J.C. Spender, Organizational learning and knowledge management: whence and
whither? Manag. Learn. 39 (2) (2008) 159–176, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1350507607087582.
[25] M. Easterby-Smith, M.A. Lyles, The evolving field of organizational learning and
knowledge management, in: M. Easterby-Smith, M.A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of
Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
18
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012, pp. 1–20, , https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207245.
ch1.
[26] P. Carrillo, K. Ruikar, P. Fuller, When will we learn? Improving lessons learned
practice in construction, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (4) (2013) 567–578, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.005.
[27] R. Weber, D.W. Aha, I. Becerra-Fernandez, Intelligent lessons learned systems,
Expert Syst. Appl. 20 (1) (2001) 17–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(00)
00046-4.
[28] D. Arditi, G. Polat, S. Akin, Lessons learned system in construction management,
International Journal of Project Organisation and Management 2 (1) (2010) 61–83,
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPOM.2010.031882.
[29] D.J. Teece, A. Al-Aali, Knowledge assets, capabilities, and the theory of the firm, in:
M. Easterby-Smith, M.A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Learning and
Knowledge Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012, pp.
505–534, , https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207245.ch23.
[30] K.U. Koskinen, Problem absorption as an organizational learning mechanism in
project-based companies: process thinking perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (3)
(2012) 308–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.08.008.
[31] G.K. Kululanga, R. McCaffer, A.D.F. Price, F. Edum-Fotwe, Learning mechanisms
employed by construction contractors, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 125 (4) (1999)
215–223, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:4(215).
[32] I.N.M. Zin, C. Egbu, A literature review on the challenges associated with im-
plementing knowledge management strategies in construction organizations, 25th
Annual ARCOM Conference, Nottingham, UK, 2009, pp. 779–789 http://www.
arcom.ac.uk/-docs/proceedings/ar2009-0779-0789_Zin_and_Egbu.pdf , Accessed
date: 16 September 2019.
[33] A.M. Al-Ghassani, C.J. Anumba, P.M. Carrillo, H.S. Robinson, Tools and techniques
for knowledge management, in: C.J. Anumba, C.O. Egbu, P.M. Carrillo (Eds.),
Knowledge Management in Construction, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK,
2005, pp. 83–102, , https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759554.ch6.
[34] M. Alavi, J.S. Denford, Knowledge management: process, practice, and web 2.0, in:
M. Easterby-Smith, M.A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Learning and
Knowledge Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012, pp.
105–124, , https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207245.ch6.
[35] E.W. East, M.C. Fu, Abstracting lessons learned from design reviews, J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 10 (4) (1996) 267–275, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-
3801(1996)10:4(267).
[36] N.A. Kartam, Making effective use of construction lessons learned in project life
cycle, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 122 (1) (1996) 14–21, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(1996)122:1(14).
[37] N. Kartam, I. Flood, Constructability feedback systems: issues and illustrative pro-
totype, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 11 (4) (1997) 178–183, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0887-3828(1997)11:4(178).
[38] T.H. Nguyen, E.W. East, J.A. Vanegas, The use of organizational knowledge within
public works engineering construction and maintenance agencies, USACERL Special
Report 98 (64) (1998), https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a342504.pdf ,
Accessed date: 20 April 2019.
[39] I.M.H. Saad, D.E. Hancher, Multimedia for construction project management: pro-
ject navigator, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 124 (1) (1998) 82–89, https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:1(82).
[40] P.M. Goodrum, M.F. Yasin, D.E. Hancher, Lessons learned system for Kentucky
transportation projects, Kentucky Transportation Center Research Report. (2003)
223, https://doi.org/10.13023/KTC.RR.2003.25.
[41] L. Soibelman, L.Y. Liu, J.G. Kirby, E.W. East, C.H. Caldas, K.-Y. Lin, Design review
checking system with corporate lessons learned, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 129 (5)
(2003) 475–484, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:5(475).
[42] H.C. Tan, P.M. Carrillo, C.J. Anumba, N. Bouchlaghem, J.M. Kamara, C.E. Udeaja,
Development of a methodology for live capture and reuse of project knowledge in
construction, J. Manag. Eng. 23 (1) (2007) 18–26, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0742-597X(2007)23:1(18).
[43] X. Ferrada, D. Núñez, A. Neyem, A. Serpell, M. Sepúlveda, A lessons-learned system
for construction project management: a preliminary application, Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 226 (2016) 302–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.
2016.06.192.
[44] A.H. Oti, J.H.M. Tah, F.H. Abanda, Integration of lessons learned knowledge in
building information modeling, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 144 (9) (2018) 04018081, ,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001537.
[45] T. Kim, S. Chi, Accident case retrieval and analyses: using natural language pro-
cessing in the construction industry, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 145 (3) (2019)
04019004, , https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001625.
[46] S. Hwang, Organizational issues affecting tacit knowledge sharing in construction
organizations, in: Construction Research Congress 2014, 19-21 May, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 2014, pp. 2074–2083, doi:https://doi.
org/10.1061/9780784413517.211.
[47] P. Carrillo, Lessons learned practices in the engineering, procurement and con-
struction sector, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 12 (3) (2005) 236–250, https://doi.
org/10.1108/09699980510600107.
[48] P. Paranagamage, P. Carrillo, K. Ruikar, P. Fuller, Lessons learned practices in the
UK construction sector: current practice and proposed improvements, Engineering
Project Organization Journal 2 (4) (2012) 216–230, https://doi.org/10.1080/
21573727.2012.681643.
[49] C.H. Caldas, G.E. Gibson, R. Weerasooriya, A.M. Yohe, Identification of effective
management practices and technologies for lessons learned programs in the con-
struction industry, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 135 (6) (2009) 531–539, https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000011.
[50] S. Boriah, V. Chandola, V. Kumar, Similarity measures for categorical data: A
G. Eken, et al.
comparative evaluation, in: C. Apte, H. Park, K. Wang, M.J. Zaki (Eds.), Eighth
SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Atlanta, Georgia, 2008, pp.
243–254, , https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611972788.22.
[51] EuroStat, Classification of Types of Constructions, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/
ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_NOM_DTL&StrNom=CC_1998&
StrLanguageCode=EN&IntPcKey=2984210&StrLayoutCode=HIERARCHIC,
(1998) , Accessed date: 29 March 2019.
[52] I.S.O. Standard, ISO 6707-1:2014: Buildings and Civil Engineering Works -
Vocabulary - Part 1: General Terms, https://www.iso.org/standard/60034.html,
(2014) , Accessed date: 9 March 2017.
[53] Construction Project Information Committee, Uniclass2, http://www.cpic.org.uk/
uniclass2/, (2013) , Accessed date: 29 March 2019.
[54] W. Hughes, J.R. Murdoch, Roles in Construction Projects: Analysis and
Terminology, Construction Industry Publications, Birmingham, 2001 (ISBN-10:
(1852638982)).
[55] I.S.O. Standard, ISO 6707-2:2014: Buildings and Civil Engineering Works -
Vocabulary - Part 2: Contract Terms, https://www.iso.org/standard/60035.html,
(2014) , Accessed date: 9 March 2017.
[56] T.A. El-Diraby, C. Lima, B. Feis, Domain taxonomy for construction concepts: to-
ward a formal ontology for construction knowledge, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 19 (4)
(2005) 394–406, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2005)19:4(394).
[57] A. Dykstra, Construction Project Management: A Complete Introduction, Kirshner
Publishing Company Inc., Santa Rosa, California, 2011 (ISBN-13: 978-
0982703496).
[58] Construction Specifications Institute, MasterFormat: Numbers and Titles, https://
www.csiresources.org/csiredesign/standards/masterformat/mf-sub, (2014) ,
Accessed date: 20 April 2019.
[59] R. Chudley, R. Greeno, Building Construction Handbook: Incorporating Current
Building & Construction Regulations, 8th ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,
2010 (ISBN-13: 978-856178051).
[60] G. Bilgin, An Ontology-Based Approach for Delay Analysis, Thesis, The Graduate
School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Middle East Technical University, M. Sc,
19
Automation in Construction 110 (2020) 102977
2011http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12613981/index.pdf , Accessed date: 20
March 2019.
[61] P. Fewings, Construction Project Management: An Integrated Approach, 2nd ed.,
Routledge, New York, NY, 2013 (ISBN-13: 978-0415613453).
[62] J.W. Hinze, Construction Planning and Scheduling, 2nd ed., N.J, Pearson Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2004 (ISBN-13: 978-0130928610).
[63] H. Kerzner, Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and
Controlling, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003 (ISBN-10:
(0471225770)).
[64] J.M. Nicholas, Project Management for Engineering, Business and Technology:
Principles and Practice, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, U.K., 2004
(ISBN-10: (0750678240)).
[65] S.J. Peterson, Construction Accounting and Financial Management, 2nd ed., N.J,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2010 (ISBN-13: 978-0135117804).
[66] Construction Extension to A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania USA, 2000 (ISBN-10: 1930699409).
[67] J.E. Schaufelberger, L. Holm, Management of Construction Projects: A Constructor's
Perspective, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2002 (ISBN-10:
(0130846783)).
[68] S.K. Sears, G.A. Sears, R.H. Clough, Construction Project Management: A Practical
Guide to Field Construction Management, 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008 (ISBN-13: 978-0471745884).
[69] A.E. Yıldız, Development of a Knowledge-Based Risk Mapping Tool for
International Construction Projects, Thesis, The Graduate School of Natural and
Applied Sciences, Middle East Technical University, M. Sc, 2012http://etd.lib.metu.
edu.tr/upload/12615342/index.pdf , Accessed date: 20 March 2019.
[70] I.S.O. Standard, ISO/TR 12603:2010: Building Construction Machinery and
Equipment - Classification, https://www.iso.org/standard/50886.html, (2010) ,
Accessed date: 9 March 2017.
[71] R.L. Peurifoy, C.J. Schexnayder, A. Shapira, Construction Planning, Equipment, and
Methods, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY, 2005 (ISBN-13:
978·0072964202).