International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 10, Issue 10, October 2019, pp. 244-258, Article ID: IJCIET_10_10_025
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=10
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT:
INVESTIGATING EGYPTIAN CONSTRUCTION
COMPANIES BEST PRACTICES
Hany Abd Elshakour Mohamed
Associate Professor, Construction Engineering and Utilities Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Egypt.

Ola Elhosseiney
M.Sc. Student, Construction Engineering and Utilities Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Egypt.

Ahmed Elyamany
Associate Professor, Construction Engineering and Utilities Department,
Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, Egypt.

ABSTRACT
The effective knowledge management (KM) at construction company level is
rapidly becoming a key organizational capability that adds a sustainable competitive
advantage. Managing intellectual asset is considered a challenge facing construction
firms in today’s business environment. However, these challenges can be overcome by
applying best KM practices. This study investigates practices that influence the
effectiveness of KM at the company level. During phase I of the study, a review of the
available literature was conducted to identify the implemented practices for KM.
Based on this review the main processes of KM system were compiled in a model and
a list of best practices for KM that are relevant to the local industry was introduced.
During phase II, questionnaires were used to collect quantitative data from 27
Egyptian construction companies. The main objectives of phase II is to prioritize KM
practices that were identified during phase I. The quantitative data analysis
demonstrated all practices mentioned in the questionnaire are important for
successful KM system. It was found that document management, training and support,
knowledge creation, and knowledge capturing and storing to be the top four practices
for KM. The results of this study assist construction organizations in leading the
implementation of KM practices. The results can be used not only in the planning
phase of implementation of KM practices but also in evaluating the completeness of
the implementation.
Keywords: Knowledge management practices; construction industry; Egypt

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 244 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management: Investigating Egyptian Construction Companies Best Practices

Cite this Article: Hany Abd Elshakour Mohamed, Ola Elhosseiney, Ahmed
Elyamany, Knowledge Management: Investigating Egyptian Construction Companies
Best Practices. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 10(10),
2019, pp. 244-258.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=10&IType=10

1. INTRODUCTION
To gain a sustainable competitive advantage, construction firms must know that knowledge as
intellectual asset becomes more vital for organizations than other tangible assets like financial
resources and technology. Managing knowledge is a process that helps organizations find,
select, organize, disseminate, and transfer important information and expertise necessary for
activities such as problem solving, dynamic learning, strategic planning and decision-making.
The essence of knowledge Management (KM) is to provide strategies to make the knowledge
of an organization available to those who need it in order to improve human and
organizational performance (Davenport and Prusak, 2000). There is increasing recognition
that KM is a key organizational capability for creating and sustaining competitive advantage
in today‘s construction business environment (Kululanga and McCaffer, 2001; Egbu, 2004;
Carrillo and Chinowsky, 2006; Pathirage et al., 2007; Maqsood et al., 2007). This means that
improving and enhancing this key organizational capability should be given high priority by
business executives (Wen, 2009) and construction management researchers. Improving this
organizational capability begins with the understanding and evaluation of firm KM practices.
Unfortunately, despite its importance, KM is still an emerging area of inquiries whose
practices are not yet clear (Foss et al. 2010). Therefore, the main problem facing KM in
construction firms is the lack of standard practices and procedures for managing and
evaluating the intellectual asset. Based on this fact, there is a need for KM model with
specific practices that can be used effectively. The objectives of this study are:
 To identify best practices for KM that when applied can result in the maximum benefit of the
intellectual asset.
 To prioritize and assign weights to the practices for KM to be used for measuring the levels of
implementation of the KM practices.

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.1. Concept of knowledge management
Knowledge can be defined as the facts, skills and understanding that one has gained,
especially through learning or experience, which enhance one's ability of evaluating context,
making decisions and taking actions (Tserng and Lin, 2004). The most common classification
of knowledge is the "explicit knowledge" and "tacit knowledge". Tacit knowledge is the
knowledge in an individual‘s head (Falqi, 2011). Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is
transferable in formal, systematic language, e.g. via reports and databases (Falqi, 2011).
According to Gasik (2011), many definitions of KM focus on processing the single
knowledge element and enumerate functions of its life cycle, while the others focus on the
whole knowledge possessed by individual and organizations and the benefits of its
application. ISO 30401/2018 defined KM as a discipline focused on ways that organizations
acquire, create, share and use knowledge. There are many well-known barriers to successful
KM that still need to be overcome, and many common misconceptions about how to manage
knowledge effectively. One of these barriers is that there is no standard terminology and
definition for different KM processes.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 245 editor@iaeme.com

 Hany Abd Elshakour Mohamed, Ola Elhosseiney, Ahmed Elyamany

Based on the review of the various definitions of KM in the literature, the authors define
KM as; a set of distinct and well-defined processes and techniques, that motivate effective
creation, capturing and storing, reusing and sharing, distribution, renewing and approving of
both useful tacit and explicit knowledge to enable individuals of the organization to make
right decisions and to be more effective and productive in their work in order to generate
value for the projects and the organizations.
Knowledge management system (KMS) refers to the technological and non-technological
components of KM that may include the organization‘s knowledge management culture,
structure, governance and leadership; roles and responsibilities; planning, technology,
processes and operation (ISO 30401/2018). To improve company performance, the
organization should establish, implement, maintain and continually improve a KM system.

2.2. KM Processes
Identifying, understanding and managing KM processes contribute to the organization's
effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its objectives. There are many papers that deal with
the various processes of KM. Inconsistencies in the relevant literature regarding the
identification and definition of KM processes are to be noted. A summary of available
previous studies on KM processes are shown in Table 1. The model proposed in this paper
uses Ahmad (2010) KM process model because his model is sufficiently broad to permit a
complete identification of KM processes and commonly used in KM studies. In this study
KM processes are: knowledge creation, knowledge capturing and storing, knowledge reusing
and sharing, and knowledge reviewing and approving. The basic concept of the above
mentioned four KM processes are presented in the following sections.
2.2.1. Knowledge creation
Knowledge creation requires active interaction among employees to combine individuals‘
existing tacit and explicit knowledge in order to refine current activities and explore new
possibilities (Kodama, 2006). It has been found that the main incentives for knowledge
creation in the construction industry are the need to solve problems, innovate and manage
changes (Egbu et al. 2004). Falqi (2011) suggested that knowledge can be created through
continuous interactions between tacit and explicit knowledge to form four modes presented in
the SECI (Socialization, Externalization, Internalization and Combination) model. Ahmad
(2010) defined socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization as:
 Socialization (tacit to tacit) is to share experiences or other tacit knowledge through direct
contact among individuals.
 Externalization (tacit to explicit) is to transform tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge to
enable its communication.
 Combination (explicit to explicit) of various elements of explicit knowledge is the third form
of knowledge creation.
 Internalization (explicit to tacit) means that the explicit knowledge transformed into
experiences through reapplying knowledge so that knowledge can be updated according to the
new experiences gained.
This new tacit knowledge can be shared among individuals through direct contacts
(Socialization) to start a new iteration of the continuous spiral.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 246 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management: Investigating Egyptian Construction Companies Best Practices

Table 1 Summary of Available Previous Studies on KM Processes

No Author Year KM Processes
1- Creation 2- Sourcing, Compilation 3- Dissemination 4-
1 Wiig 1993
Application, value Realization
1996 1- Creation 2- Retention, Refinement 3- Knowledge dissemination
2 De Jarnett*
4- Knowledge interpretation, use
O'Dell 1- Identify, Create 2- Collect, Adapt, Organize 3- Share
3 1996
4- Apply
4 Quintas et al. 1996 1- Creating, Acquiring 2- Capturing 3- Sharing 4- Using
5 Beckman* 1997 1- Identify, Create 2- Capture, Select, Store 3- Share 4- Apply, Sell
6 Ruggles* 1997 1- Generating 2- Codification 3- Transfer
7 Scarbrough et al* 1999 1- Acquiring 2- Capturing 3- Sharing 4- Using
8 Kazi et al.* 1999 1- Capture, Consolidation 2- Dissemination 3- Reuse
9 Alavi and Leidne* 2001 1- Creation 2- Storage 3- Transfer 4- Retrieval, Application
10 Staab et al.* 2001 1- Create &/or Import 2- Capture 3- Retrieve/Access, Use
Grover and
11 2001 1- Generate 2- Codification 3- Transfer 4- Realization
Davenport*
12 Egbu and Botterill 2001 1- Creation 2- Capturing 3- Sharing 4- Implementation
Kululanga and
13 2001 1- Acquiring 2- Creating 3- Sharing 4- Storing 5- Utilizing
McCaffer
14 Blair* 2002 1- Identifying 2- Capturing, Evaluation 3- Sharing 4- Retrieving
1- Creating 2- Securing 3- Capturing, Combining 4- Distributing 5-
15 Tserng and Lin 2004
Retrieving
1- Capturing and Storing 2- Reusing and Sharing 3- Reviewing and
16 Ahmad 2010
Approving 4- Creating
17 Kale and Karaman 2011 1- Acquisition 2- Conversion 3- Application 4- Protection
1- Acquisition 2- Creation 3- Application 4- Transfer 5-
18 Gasik 20011
Documentation 6- Sharing
1- Acquiring new knowledge 2- Applying current knowledge 3-
19 ISO 30401 2018
Retaining current knowledge 4-Managing invalid knowledge
* Compiled from Falqi (2011)
2.2.2. Knowledge capturing and storing
Knowledge capture can be defined as the process of eliciting knowledge that resides within
people or organizational entities (interior and exterior), and representing it in an electronic
form such as a knowledge-based system for later reuse or retrieval (Falqi, 2011). According to
Kululanga and McCaffer (2001), construction organization can capture knowledge internally
by:
 Tapping knowledge from its staff,
 Conducting internal benchmarking studies, and
 Learning from experience.
Construction organizations can capture knowledge from their external business
environments by:
 Attracting staff from innovative organizations,
 Use of experienced practitioners to address their knowledge requirements,
 Conducting external benchmarking,
 Collaborating with other organizations,
 Reviewing innovations in the business environment, and

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 247 editor@iaeme.com

 Hany Abd Elshakour Mohamed, Ola Elhosseiney, Ahmed Elyamany

 Attending conferences on new developments.

Storage of knowledge means keeping of intellectual assets preserved in repositories, so as
it can be retrieved and utilized (Ahmad, 2010). Such repositories should be structured around,
functions, locations, business-process objectives and learning needs of construction
organizations.
2.2.3. Knowledge reusing and sharing
Ahmad et al. (2008) stated that KMS should addresses the knowledge requirements of end-
users and support their existing practices while guarantee security and confidentiality.
Successful KMS should provide the ability to search and find desired knowledge easily.
Unfortunately, most construction organizations have not always been successful in collecting
and sharing tacit knowledge (Carrillo et al., 2006). It can be essential for the KM system to
capture and store knowledge in repositories. This stage involves:
 Using the intranet to share and transfer knowledge,
 Using searching tools to find required knowledge, and
 Showing contact details and experiences of the employees.
2.2.4. Knowledge Reviewing and approving
Ahmad (2010) stated that knowledge collected by employees of the organization needs to be
reviewed and edited. The knowledge needs to be classified in order to facilitate knowledge
searching and reusing functions. Knowledge approval is about all the activities involved in
transforming knowledge content from non-approved, invalid knowledge into knowledge
contents that is valid and available for authorized end-users of the KMS. The continuous
activities of knowledge approval can help to identify new shapes and formats of important
knowledge that the existing system does not deal with. According to Ahmad (2010), many of
KM activities and processes not necessarily work in sequence, so it can be said; although
knowledge creation implemented at the first, also it can be implemented at the end to improve
the captured knowledge.

2.3. KM Models
The characteristics of construction industry (i.e. project-based, knowledge-intensive, demand-
driven, and fragmented) increase the difficulty of applying KM successfully. So that many
models have been developed to provide a standard approach to understand, implement, apply
and evaluate KMSs. The following paragraphs illustrate the main features of the available
developed models in literature.
O'Dell and Gayson's (1998) proposed a KM model consists of seven steps comprising:
information identification, information collection, information organization, information
sharing, knowledge adaptation, the use of knowledge, and creation of new knowledge. These
KM steps require the support of four enablers namely, culture, measurement, infrastructure,
and information technology in order to work successfully. Another model was introduced by
(Egbu, 2001), this model acts as a road map for developing frameworks and models; since it
charts the major factors of KM in project environments (people, processes, content and
technology), and the relationships between those factors. Wetherill et al. (2002) developed a
model that consists of eight phases: preparation of organization for KM implementation,
understanding and modeling core business processes, case study definition, capture KM
practice, specification of KM solution and building KM strategy, implementation of KM
solution, KM solution trial, and evaluation of KM solution. Kamara et al. (2002) developed
the CLEVER model, which aims to illuminate KM problems into a set of specific KM issues,
set within a business environment. This model consists of four stages namely, define KM
problem, create overview of ‗to-be‘ solution, identify critical migration paths, and select

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 248 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management: Investigating Egyptian Construction Companies Best Practices

appropriate KM processes. Fong (2003) developed a model of knowledge creation within

multidisciplinary project teams. In the model, the five processes of knowledge creation are
identified, including the processes of boundary-crossing, knowledge-sharing, knowledge
generation, knowledge integration and collective project learning. The interrelationships of
these five processes are explained to enable a thorough understanding of them. The
knowledge creation processes within multidisciplinary teams are not linear. Instead they are
interlinked, occurring throughout projects. Robinson et al. (2004) developed the IMPaKT
(Improving Management Performance through Knowledge Transformation) model. It is a
three-staged model that concentrates on the importance of organization's management and the
need to convince senior management and other stakeholders about the business benefits to
justify a KM strategy. This approach aims to formulate a business improvement plan, a KM
strategic and transformation plan, and a KM evaluation strategy and implementation plan.
Robinson et al. (2005) proposed STEPS model. The model helps organizations to structure
and implement KM and to benchmark their implementation efforts. The model was developed
to investigate the relationship between KM and business performance. It consists of five
stages (Startup, Take off, Expansion, Progressive, and Sustainability); these steps reflect
varying levels of KM maturity. Gasik (2011) introduced the concepts of the project micro-
knowledge life cycle and project macro-knowledge life cycle and used the concept of vertical
knowledge flow to systematically define all the processes operating on both these types of
knowledge and their relationships.
The above-mentioned studies, which developed models for KM implementation and/or
application are still far from sufficient and many of them lack important characteristics that
may limit KMSs to be applied efficiently and effectively in the construction organizations.
Gaps of the current KM models can be summarized according to Ahmad (2010) as follows:
 Many of general models lack details that help to enhance KM awareness, and to satisfy the
needs of the construction industry.
 Most KM models only discuss KM activities without referring to other environmental factors
or enablers that may affect KM efforts.
 Many KM models do not present methods for evaluating KM processes and tools in terms of
validity, applicability and usefulness, and these models do not provide feedback-collection
mechanisms.
 Most of the existing KM models show that KM activities and processes can only work in
sequence, i.e. before next activity starts, the first activity must be completed. In fact many of
KM activities can work in parallel.

3. DEVELOPING KM MODEL
The lack of standard processes and systematic procedures, combined with the lack of
awareness of the importance and future benefits of KM, create the need for a more coherent
and structured approach for managing and utilizing the different types of knowledge within
organizations (Hari et al., 2005; Robinson et al., 2005).
The proposed KM model includes KM resources, initiatives, roles, system specifications,
system architectures, and enablers for construction organizations. Fig 1 shows the
components of the proposed KM model.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 249 editor@iaeme.com

 Hany Abd Elshakour Mohamed, Ola Elhosseiney, Ahmed Elyamany

Planning
 KMS Preparing and organizational Context
 KMS Design
Plan  KM Processes Do
 KMS Tools
 Organizational Infrastructure & Information
Technology
 Organizational Culture
 KMS specifications

Improvement Execution
Management
Improvement
Leadership & Support KMS
-Corrective action
-Preventive action Implementation
-Continual Improvement

Evaluation
Performance Evaluation
 KMS Monitoring and
Maintaining
 KMS Measurement
Act  KMS Evaluation Check

Figure 1 Proposed KM Model

As shown in Fig 1, the proposed model follows the PDCA methodology. When the
organization plans to apply KM, it shall determine;
 What will be done,
 What resources will be required,
 Who will be responsible,
 When it will be completed, and
 How the results will be evaluated.
Planning starts from a good preparation by conducting questionnaires and interviews with
employees to identify their background on KM and their understanding of this concept, then
identifying data and knowledge available and important for the organization. The context of
the organization should be addressed to start in designing the system of KM and identifying it
processes, tools, and specifications. KMS design starts with defining aims and objectives of
KM followed by preparing an action plan and guidelines for KM implementation. The
organizational KMS should include and explain practices managing knowledge effectively
through its processes which explained in section 2.2. Information technology tools
appropriate to support achieving KMS objectives should be identified through appointing
knowledge team to ensure of sufficient human resources and their competencies to support
KM initiatives, and specify tasks, roles, and responsibilities.
Trust and respect are vital for effective KM, so that developing knowledge-oriented
cultures, motivating individuals to share and use knowledge, building up awareness and
providing training on the use of KMS, and encouraging collaboration and teamwork among

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 250 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management: Investigating Egyptian Construction Companies Best Practices

employees are supportive for successful KMS implementation. Finally knowledge team
should ensure that the system is easy to be used by employees and they can find useful
information for problem solving easily, the system collects knowledge that's important and
ignores unimportant knowledge for the organization, the system facilitates knowledge sharing
between employees and maintains good relationships between customers and other partners.
During the execution phase, the design is transformed into the form that will be used by
end users. This phase is the actual application of the plans that are made in the previous phase,
and the organization should control the processes needed to meet requirements. To implement
what was planned a prototype of KMS should be implemented before applying the system in
a wide range, KM offices should be appointed to provide training and support to employees,
and KM activities should be embedded into employees' work.
Accordingly, performance should be evaluated by maintaining, monitoring, measurement,
and evaluation of the system implemented in the organization. To maintain and monitor
KMS, feedbacks from employees regarding improvement requirements should be collected,
the differences in operations after and before implementation should be observed, and
employees' culture, technological factors, and management strategy should be monitored.
After that, KM team should develop indicators for measuring KMS' benefits and the team
should monitor and analyze effectiveness of the system performance showing bottlenecks.
Finally the team evaluates the system correctness, alignment with the design, usefulness, ease
of use and applicability.
Finally, Improvements for the system should be applied by taking corrective and
preventive actions to control and eliminate the nonconformity. The organization should
continually improve the sustainability and effectiveness of the KMS. It should plan,
implement and control activities needed to guarantee continual improvement, in two aspects:
 Benefits derived from KM solutions implemented.
 New additional solutions for existing and developing needs of the organization.
The application of this model requires leadership management and support. This means
that in order to successfully capture knowledge, share experiences and know-how among
users, and reuse captured and shared knowledge in practice to update content and create new
valuable knowledge, the organization should maintain and support environmental factors.
Leaders should encourage and support knowledge creation, sharing, and using, development
of KM strategy with clear objectives and definite goals, providing sufficient financial
resources for building up a technological system, and matching KMS with KM objectives and
user's need, knowledge managers constantly search for new approaches to KM.
This research concentrated on the practices of preparing, designing, implementation,
maintaining and monitoring, and evaluation of KMS. Key success factors (e.g. Leadership
and support, Organizational culture, Organizational infrastructure, and Information
technology) of KMS extend beyond the scope of this paper. This research may need to be
followed up with a study that identifies the critical success factors and barriers for effective
implementation of KM in the Egyptian construction companies.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 251 editor@iaeme.com

 Hany Abd Elshakour Mohamed, Ola Elhosseiney, Ahmed Elyamany

4. KM PRACTICES
Based on the proposed model presented in the previous section, a list of practices for
knowledge management was identified. Table 2 lists the KM practices and their codes.

Table 2 KM Practices and Codes

Model
KM Activity Code KM Practice
Phase
Ability to conduct questionnaires and/or interviews with employees
PP.1
to identify its real estate related to KM application.
KMS Preparing
PP.2 Ability to identify data & knowledge available and important.
PP.3 Ability to identifying what tools appropriate for KM system
PD.1 Ability to define aims and objectives for KM
Ability to using KM models to represent KM activities, methods,
PD.2
KMS Design and components.
Ability to prepare an action plan and guidelines for KM
PD.3
implementation
Ability to capture data and information (like: lessons learned,
PKC.1
Problems solutions)of projects in paper files and folders
Ability to capture data and information (like: lessons learned,
Knowledge PKC.2
Problems solutions)of projects in electronic repository
Creation
Ability to use data mining, data analysis, and reporting tools (i.e.
Knowledge Management Processes

PKC.3 user manuals help desk, Document management) to record

knowledge and information
Ability to record problem solutions & experiences in electronic
PKCS.1
repository.
Planning Knowledge Ability to refer knowledge to its sources (experts, projects, books,
PKCS.2
Capturing & or websites)
Storing PKCS.3 Ability to record new ideas and perceptions of experts
Ability to attach Pictures, videos, and text files to clarify knowledge
PKCS.4
contents
Knowledge PKRS.1 Ability to use the intranet to share and transfer knowledge
Reusing & PKRS.2 Ability to use searching tools to find required knowledge
Sharing PKRS.3 Ability to show contact details and experiences of the employees
Knowledge PKRA.1 Ability to using intranet to publish and edit knowledge
Reviewing PKRA.2 Ability to review knowledge contents by experts or knowledge team
& Ability to classify knowledge to facilitate knowledge searching
PKRA.3
Approving functions
Availability of user manuals and help desk to reuse and share
PT.1
knowledge
Availability of data mining, analysis, and reporting to create
PT.2
KMS Tools knowledge.
Availability of document management to facilitate saving and
PT.3 recording the information of documents and reports of projects in
digital forms.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 252 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management: Investigating Egyptian Construction Companies Best Practices

Table 2 KM Practices and Codes

Model
KM Activity Code KM Practice
Phase
Availability of photos and/or videos management to facilitate
saving videos, photos and drawings, and also to facilitate
PT.4
attaching them to digital records to simplify understanding of
contents.
Availability of training and support (E-Learning) for all users of
PT.5
the KMs to help them.
Availability of yellow Pages and/or contact details to provide the
Planning KMS Tools
PT.6 contact information of experts and other employees with
information about their professions and experiences.
Availability of E-Meeting, Messaging, Chatting and Discussion
PT.7 board/forum to facilitate knowledge creation, capturing and
sharing.
Availability of decision support system and/or intelligent agents
PT.8
to support organizational decision-making activities
Ability to implement of a prototype before applying wide range
EI.1
KM system
KMS Ability to appoint KM offices to Provide training and support to
Execution EI.2
Implementation employees
Ability to embed KM activities into employees' work processes
EI.3
and activities
Ability to collecting feedbacks from end users regarding
EMM.1
improvement requirements
KMS Maintaining Ability to observe the differences in operations after
EMM.2
& Monitoring implementing KM
Ability to monitor the environmental factors such as management
EMM.3
Evaluation strategy, employees‘ culture, and technological factors
EE.1 Ability to investigate business process improvements
Ability to evaluate the system correctness and alignment with
EE.2
KMS Evaluation design specifications
Ability to evaluate the system usefulness, ease of use, and
EE.3
applicability

5. DATA COLLECTION
The objective of data collection phase of the study was to prioritize KM practices. Data were
collected using a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire included two sections. In the first
part, each respondent was asked about the company name and specialization, and his position
and experience. In the second part of the questionnaire, the respondents were requested to rate
the relative importance of the KM practices, which were identified during the first phase of
the research. A scale of 1–5 is used to get better validity and reliability (Lozano et al. 2008;
Jamieson 2004); 1 for not important; 2 for slightly important, 3 for moderately important, 4
for important, and 5 for very important.
Although the questionnaire was rather long, the questions were straightforward and it took
about 20 min to complete. The questionnaire was sent to 40 companies. 22 companies
answered all questions providing a 55% response rate. Five out of 18 companies not
responded stated that they don‘t apply KM.
Tables 3 and 4 indicate some information about the respondents. The data from the study
was analyzed using the SPSS® software. The reliability of the questionnaire was satisfactory
by Cronbach‘s Alpha co-efficient equal 0.908.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 253 editor@iaeme.com

 Hany Abd Elshakour Mohamed, Ola Elhosseiney, Ahmed Elyamany

Table 3 Information about Position of Respondents

Position Number of respondents
Planning and cost engineer 1
Civil Engineer 4
Senior Engineer 3
Chief Engineer 4
Technical Office Engineer 1
Technical Office Manager 1
Planning Team Leader 1
IT Manager 1
Project Manager 3
Quality Manager 1
Contracts and Invoicing Manager 1
Tender and procurement 1
Total 22

Table 4 Information about Experience of Respondents

Years of Experience Number of Respondents
Less than 10 Years 6
Between 10 and 20 Years 9
More Than 20 Years 7
Total 22

6. DATA ANALYSIS
Based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1, not important, to 5, very important, 3 would
be considered as a number which shows medium degree of importance for each practice.
Therefore, values below 3 would be considered as less important practices. A Relative
Importance Index (RII) and Mean Value can be used for ranking purpose. According to Lam
et al. (2007), both methods produce similar rankings, but the RII method is used to derive
relative indices within the range of 0–1, which makes the relative comparisons of different
variables easy. Gurmu (2017) explained that many researchers in construction management
prefer RII because the relative comparison of variables whose indices are less than or equal to
1 is easier to perceive. Doloi (2012) stated that the mean and standard deviations are not
reliable statistics for assessing the overall ranking of the attributes and used the relative
importance weights as input for factor and regression analysis.
This research adopted the RII technique because it is suitable for ranking purposes and
recommended for inferential statistical analysis. The following equation was used for RII
computation (El-Gohary and Aziz 2013):
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
RII = (1)
( )
Where; n1 is the number of respondents who selected ―not important‖, n2 is the number of
respondents who selected ―slightly important‖, n3 is the number of respondents who selected
―moderately important‖, n4 is the number of respondents who selected ―important,‖ and n5 is
the number of respondents who selected ―very important‖. Table 5 indicates the level of
importance of each practice. These rankings demonstrate that almost all KM practices are
important for contractors (Mean values greater than 3), and playing a key role in KM
implementation. However, six KM practices which have the highest of mean values /RII were
identified. These practices comprise document management, training and support (E-
Learning) for all users of the KMs, decision support system and/or intelligent agents to

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 254 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management: Investigating Egyptian Construction Companies Best Practices

support organizational decision-making activities, capturing data and information, recording

problem solutions and experiences in electronic repository, and using the intranet to share and
transfer knowledge.

Table 5 Contractor's KM Practices Weight Factor

KM Activity Ranking Weight
KM
RII (Mean value) C=B-3 D=C/A Factor
Practice
(B) = (D*100)
PP.1 0.73 3.64 0.64 0.0213 2%
KMS Preparing PP.2 0.76 3.82 0.82 0.0273 3% 6%
PP.3 0.69 3.45 0.45 0.015 2%
PD.1 0.69 3.45 0.45 0.015 2%
KMS Design PD.2 0.68 3.41 0.41 0.0137 1% 6%
PD.3 0.75 3.77 0.77 0.0256 3%
PKC.1 0.85 4.27 1.27 0.0423 4%
Knowledge Creation PKC.2 0.81 4.05 1.05 0.03496 3% 11%
PKC.3 0.77 3.86 0.86 0.0286 3%
PKCS.1 0.84 4.18 1.18 0.0393 4%
Knowledge PKCS.2 0.75 3.77 0.77 0.0256 3%
13%
Capturing & Storing PKCS.3 0.76 3.82 0.82 0.0273 3%
PKCS.4 0.8 4.00 1 0.0333 3%
PKRS.1 0.85 4.27 1.27 0.0423 4%
Knowledge Reusing
PKRS.2 0.77 3.86 0.86 0.0286 3% 9%
& Sharing
PKRS.3 0.75 3.73 0.73 0.0243 2%
Knowledge PKRA.1 0.81 4.05 1.05 0.035 4%
Reviewing & PKRA.2 0.72 3.59 0.59 0.0196 2% 8%
Approving PKRA.3 0.77 3.86 0.86 0.0286 3%
PT.1 0.75 3.77 0.77 0.0256 3%
PT.2 0.79 3.95 0.95 0.0316 3%
PT.3 0.85 4.27 1.27 0.04229 4%
PT.4 0.76 3.82 0.82 0.0273 3%
KMS Tools 27%
PT.5 0.85 4.23 1.23 0.041 4%
PT.6 0.77 3.86 0.86 0.0286 3%
PT.7 0.78 3.91 0.91 0.0303 3%
PT.8 0.85 4.23 1.23 0.041 4%
EI.1 0.65 3.27 0.27 0.009 1%
KMS
EI.2 0.65 3.27 0.27 0.009 1% 4%
Implementation
EI.3 0.71 3.55 0.55 0.0183 2%
EMM.1 0.77 3.86 0.86 0.0286 3%
KMS Maintaining &
EMM.2 0.76 3.82 0.82 0.0273 3% 8%
Monitoring
EMM.3 0.71 3.55 0.55 0.0183 2%
EE.1 0.8 4.00 1 0.0333 3%
KMS Evaluation EE.2 0.81 4.05 1.05 0.035 4% 9%
EE.3 0.75 3.77 0.77 0.0256 3%
(A)= Sum C A=30.03 100%
Based on the calculated RII, a weight factor (Shariatfar et al., 2019) for each practice was
calculated. By defining a weight factor for each practice, a system for assessing the degree of
implementation of practices for KM in every construction firm can be created.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 255 editor@iaeme.com

 Hany Abd Elshakour Mohamed, Ola Elhosseiney, Ahmed Elyamany

7. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Table 5 shows the calculation method for defining weight factors. The 0.27 weight of ―KM
System Tools‖ which is the highest among the other activities, means that KM system tools
has the most importance in contractor‘s viewpoint and plays the most important role in KM
practices. The results also show that the technological tools of capturing and retrieving
explicit knowledge, such as documents, drawings, training and support, decision support
system and/or intelligent agents management tools, received the highest importance ratings
among other KM technological tools. Other tools, such as knowledge maps and yellow pages,
which can help users to navigate and find required contents and people, are known to be very
useful in processes such as problem solving and decision making. However, these tools
received the lowest importance rating values. This shows that there is still a need from the
construction companies and KM literature to enhance the awareness of people about the
importance of applying and using such tools, and to encourage providing more support and
motivation to use them.
"Knowledge capturing and storing‖ is at the second level of importance for contractors
(weight = 0.13), the most important practice within this process, and perhaps the main reason
for people to practice and use KMSs, is the recording problem solutions and experiences in
electronic repositories. The KM practice that has the lowest weight is KMS implementation.

8. CONCLUSION
There is increasing recognition that KM is a key organizational capability for construction
firms in today‘s business environment. Therefore, construction firms should develop or adopt
models, tools, and techniques that can enable them to evaluate and improve their KM
practices. This paper introduced a compiled model and a list of best practices for KM. The
study conducted a questionnaire survey to determine and prioritize the KM practices that
facilitate KM implementation and evaluation.
The measures attained from the quantitative analysis of questionnaire revealed that almost
all KM practices are important. The most critical practices that have the potential to manage
the knowledge effectively at a company level are document management, training and support
(E-Learning) for all users, decision support system and/or intelligent agents to support
organizational decision-making activities, capturing data and information, recording problem
solutions and experiences in electronic repository, and using the intranet to share and transfer
knowledge.
Grouping KM practices under ten categories and calculating the weight factors showed
that the system tools of KM plays the most important role in KM system achievement. It was
also found that knowledge capturing and storing is important for successful implementation of
KM in Egyptian construction firms.
The results of the study may be used in a number of ways to effectively manage the
knowledge, particularly as a basis and reference source for KM practices. The relative
weighting of the KM practices can be used in evaluating the degree of implementation of KM
practices at organizational level.
In future studies, the researchers could measure the degree of implementation of KM
practices in the construction companies and determine the critical success factors and the
main challenges and barriers of implementing KM within construction organizations.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 256 editor@iaeme.com

 Knowledge Management: Investigating Egyptian Construction Companies Best Practices

REFERENCES
[1] Ahmad, H.S. and An, M. KM implementation in construction projects: a KM model for
Knowledge Creation, Collection and Updating (KCCU). International Journal of Project
Organization and Management, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2008, pp.133–166
[2] Ahmad, H.S.M. Development of KM model for KM implementation and application in
construction projects. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, 2010.
[3] Carrillo, P. and Chinowsky, P. Exploiting Knowledge management: The construction and
engineering perspective. Journal of Management in Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 22, No. 1,
2006, pp. 2-10.
[4] Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000.
[5] Doloi, H. Cost overruns and failure in project management: Understanding the roles of
key stakeholders in construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/ (ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0000621, 2012, 267–279.
[6] Egbu, C.O. and Botterill, K. Information technologies for knowledge management: their
usage and effectiveness. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 7(8),
2001, pp.125-137.
[7] Egbu, C. O. Managing knowledge and intellectual capital for improved organizational
innovations in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 11, No. 5, 2004, pp. 301-315.
[8] El-Gohary, K. M., and Aziz, R. F. Factors influencing construction labor productivity in
Egypt. J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/ (ASCE) ME .1943-5479.0000168, 2013, 1–9.
[9] Falqi,N. I. Knowledge Capture and Retrieval in Construction Projects. Heriot-Watt
University. School of the Built Environment. PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, 2010.
[10] Fong, P. S. W. Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams: an empirical study
of the processes and their dynamic interrelationships. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(7), 2003, pp. 479-486.
[11] Foss, N., Husted, K., and Michailova, S. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations:
Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. J. Manage. Stud.,
47(3), 2010, 455-482.
[12] Gasik, S. A Model of Project Knowledge Management. Project Management Journal,
42(3), 2011, pp. 23-44.
[13] Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Manage. J.,
17(Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm, Winter), 1996, 109–122.
[14] Gurmu, A. T., & Aibinu, A. A. Construction equipment management practices for
improving labor productivity in multistory building construction projects. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 143(10), 2017, 04017081.
[15] Hari, S., Egbu, C.O. and Renukappa, S.H. Knowledge management for sustainable
competitiveness in small and medium surveying practices. Structural survey, 23(1), 2005,
pp.7-21.
[16] Holt, G. Note: Construction research questionnaires and attitude measurement: Relative
index or mean? J. Constr. Procurement, 3(2), 1997, 88–96.
[17] ISO draft (30401/2018). Knowledge management systems — Requirements
[18] Jamieson, S. 2004. Likert scales: How to (ab) use them. Med. Educ. 38 (12): 1217–1218.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 257 editor@iaeme.com

 Hany Abd Elshakour Mohamed, Ola Elhosseiney, Ahmed Elyamany

[19] Kalel,S., Karaman.E.A. Evaluating the Knowledge Management Practices of Construction

Firms by Using Importance–Comparative Performance Analysis Maps, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137, No. 12, 2011.
[20] Kamara, J.M., Anumba, C.J. and Carrillo, P.M. A CLEVER approach to selecting a
knowledge management strategy. International journal of project management, 20(3),
2002, pp.205-211.
[21] Kodama, M. Strategic community: foundation of knowledge creation. Research
Technology Management, 49(5), 2006, 49-58.
[22] Kululanga, G. K. and McCaffer, R. Measuring knowledge management for construction
organizations. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 8, No. 6,
2001, pp. 346-354.
[23] Lam, P. T., Wong, F. K., and Wong, F. W. Building features and site-specific factors
affecting build ability in Hong Kong. J. Eng. Des. Technol., 5(2), 2007, 129–147.
[24] Lozano, L. M., E. García-Cueto, and J. Mu˜niz.. Effect of the number of response
categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology 4 (2), 2008, 73–79.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73.
[25] Maqsood, T., Walker, D. H. T., and Finegan, A. D. Facilitating knowledge pull to deliver
innovation through knowledge management: A case study. Engineering Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2007, pp. 94-109.
[26] O‘Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J. If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal
Knowledge and Best Practice, The Free Press, New York, 1998.
[27] Palmer, J., and Platt, S. Business case for knowledge management in construction, CIRIA,
London, 2005.
[28] Pathirage, C. P., Amaratunga, D. G., and Haigh R. P. Tacit knowledge and organisational
performance: Construction industry perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.
11, No. 1, 2007, 115-126.
[29] Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., and Jones, G. "Knowledge management: a strategic agenda."
Journal of Long Range Planning, 30(3), 1997, pp. 385-391.
[30] Robinson, H., Carrillo, P., Anumba, C. and Al-Ghassani, A. Developing a business case
for knowledge management: the IMPaKT approach, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2004, pp.733-743.
[31] Robinson, H., Carrillo, P., Anumba, C. and Al-Ghassani, A. Knowledge management
practices in large construction organizations, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2005, pp.431-445.
[32] Shariatfar, M., Beigi, H. and Mortaheb, M.M. Assessing Lifecycle Success of
Petrochemical Projects–based on Client‘s Viewpoint. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, 23(1), 2019, pp.21-28.
[33] Tserng, H. and Lin, Y. Developing an activity-based knowledge management system for
contractors. Automation in Construction, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2004, pp.781-802.
[34] Wen, Y. F. An effectiveness measurement model for knowledge management.
Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 22, No. 5, 2009, pp.363-367.
[35] Wetherill, M., Rezgui, Y., Lima, C. and Zarli, A. Knowledge management for the
construction industry: the e-cognos project, ITcon, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2002, pp.183-196.
[36] Wiig, K. Knowledge management foundations, Schema Press, Arlington, TX, 1993.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 258 editor@iaeme.com