MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623725241 · doi:10.1108/jkm-07-2016-0273

Capturing knowledge from lessons learned at the work package level in project engineering teams

2017· article· en· W2623725241 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Knowledge Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningComputer scienceProject managementKnowledge managementProcess (computing)Context (archaeology)Scope (computer science)Work breakdown structureProject planningEngineering managementProcess managementOPM3EngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the knowledge management (KM) loop process in a work package (WP)-based project engineering management method. The purpose of the KM loop is the routine capture of learnings to improve work practices in both the project and the firm. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual model for a project KM loop is developed by researching various KM theories found in the literature and incorporating the most applicable concepts and bridging any gaps in an attempt to overcome the reported impediments to learning in projects. A specific WP-based project engineering method (the STBQ method) is chosen as the framework for illustrating the workings and advantages of the KM loop. The author’s experiential judgement is used in applying selected academic concepts to create a KM process particularly useful for consulting engineering firms engaged in the detailed design phase of heavy industrial projects notwithstanding the fact that it may be beneficial in other project environments. Findings Completion of a WP can be used as a natural point in time for the collection of lessons learned (LL). At post-WP debriefing meetings, intuitive learnings can be contributed by individuals and interpreted in the context of the recently completed WP. When seen to be applicable, the project engineer integrates this newly gained experiential knowledge into the project’s job instructions for immediate implementation on other WPs remaining in the project scope. Through the project manager, these new or revised job instructions are proposed as candidates for new or revised standard practices to the senior managers of the engineering firm who can institutionalize them by approval for use in other in-progress or future projects. Research limitations/implications The KM loop described here is specifically intended to be used with the STBQ method where the 100 per cent rule is applied and where each WP sub-team is tasked with the delivery of their WP safely, on-time, on-budget and with no quality deficiencies as the criteria for success of their WP. A research limitation is that capturing learnings throughout the project does not solve the problem of capturing post-project learnings from design errors surfacing during construction, in commissioning, or after start-up during on-going operations and maintenance. Nonetheless, innovative ideas and improvements can be found during the detailed engineering phase and the KM loop captures these for intra-project and inter-project use. Practical implications The extra effort of decomposing requirements into WPs not only helps control project costs, schedule, quality and safety but also provides an effective way to capture knowledge from project learnings for intra-project and inter-project use. Social implications The lessons-learned sessions held at the completion of each WP provides an opportunity to provide motivation and morale boosting to the WP sub-team members. Originality/value This paper contributes what is believed to be the first WP-based KM loop in project engineering management using a specific application of the 4I framework of organizational learning. In addition, when applied in the STBQ method or any other method that uses interim WPs for both planning and reporting, the LL sessions can be pre-scheduled and budgeted separately from the subject WP. This helps to overcome the problem widely reported in projects that not enough calendar time or person-hours can be spared to attend the LL sessions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it