Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94 104

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

The unlearning dimension of organizational learning in construction projects

Peter S.P. Wong a,, Sai On Cheung b , Regina L.Y. Yiu b , Mary Hardie c
a

School of Property Construction & Project Management, RMIT University, Australia

Construction Dispute Resolution Research Unit, Department of Building and Construction City, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
c
School of Engineering, University of Western Sydney, Australia
Received 5 August 2010; received in revised form 4 April 2011; accepted 14 April 2011

Abstract
It has been suggested that contracting organizations in construction projects do not seem to adapt resiliently under changing market conditions.
Interestingly, recent organizational management literature reveals the essential role of practicing unlearning for generating more resilient
performance improvement actions. This paper reports on a study that aims to test empirically the contingent effect of unlearning on the
relationship between organizational learning (OL) and organizational success. A conceptual model which depicts the hypothesized relationship
among OL, unlearning and organizational success is presented. Data were obtained from a questionnaire survey. To test the conceptual model,
Pearson Correlation Analysis and Multiple Moderated Regression Analysis were employed. The study hypothesized that interaction between the
practice of OL and unlearning have a moderating effect on organizational success. The hypothesis was only partially supported by the results of
the MMR analysis. Only the practice of double-loop learning was found to be symbiotic with the practice of unlearning for achieving
organizational success. The effect was found to be more significant when organizational success was evaluated in terms of meeting the client's
expectations on project cost.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Unlearning; Organizational learning; Project success

1. Introduction
Organizational learning (OL) is recognized as vital for a
contracting organization's1 enhanced performance. Therefore, it
is hardly surprising that OL has become topical in the project
management literature (Jashapara, 2003; Kululanga et al., 1999;
Wong and Cheung, 2008). One focus of attention in the research
area is the effect of OL on project outcomes (Love and
Josephson, 2004; Murray and Chapman, 2003). Based on case
Corresponding author at: School of Property Construction & Project
Management, RMIT University, City Campus, 360 Swanston Street (Bldg 8.
Lvl 8), PO Box 2476, Melbourne, 3001 VIC, Australia. Tel.: +613 99253978;
fax: +613 99251939.
E-mail address: peterspwong@rmit.edu.au (P.S.P. Wong).
1
Contracting organization in this study refers to the organizations
collaborating in a construction project. This includes the architect, engineering
and surveying consultants employed by the developers, the main contractors and
the sub-contractors.

studies of construction projects in Sweden, Love and Josephson

(2004) found that project cost savings can be attained by those
contractors who are able to actively learn from experience.
Research findings derived from a questionnaire survey conducted by Murray and Chapman (2003) in Australia indicate
that an organization's performance in construction projects is
positively linked to its learning competencies.
Nevertheless, some scholars have argued about whether
contracting organizations, under the current project environment,
can be prudent learners (Chan et al., 2005; Love et al., 2004).
Based on a literature review, Chan et al. (2005) observed that few
contracting organizations are able to systematically convert their
lessons learned into improvement actions. However, possible
reasons that disengaged contracting organizations from learning
were not discussed. In this regard, Love et al. (2004) reported that
the transient nature of construction projects offers no guarantee of
future dealing among team members and, consequently,
contracting organizations thus often lack the necessary degree

0263-7863/$36.00 - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.04.001

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

of proximity to derive learning from each other. They contended

that the way of coupling organizations in construction projects
can be one of the barriers of learning and thus organizational
success. Nonetheless, the work of Love et al. (2004) falls short of
empirical evidence to unveil how the barriers are affecting the
effect of learning on success. Ruuska and Vartiainen (2005)
suggest that learning from feedback is vital for a contracting
organization's performance improvement. Nevertheless, they
noted that many project monitoring systems are not well designed
to provide useful feedback in order to facilitate learning from
mistakes. Jashapara (2003), in extending the work of Argyris and
Schn (1978), identified the fact that contractors typically exhibit
two types of OL: single-loop learning (SLL) and double-loop
learning (DLL). SLL refers to a detection and correction of errors
without scrutinizing the organizational basic premises and norms
that had led to the divergence between the expected and the actual
outcomes (Argyris and Schn, 1978). DLL is attained when
organizations detect and correct errors by inquiring into, and
modifying if necessary, their underlying norms and assumptions
(Argyris and Schn, 1978). Based on a questionnaire survey
conducted in the U.K. with 181 valid responses collected from the
contracting organizations, Jashapara (2003) found that practicing
DLL has a more significant effect on organizational performance
than practicing SLL. Nevertheless, he criticized contracting
organizations as generally not competent at generating improvement through practicing DLL. Similar findings were also reported
by Kululanga et al. (1999) who found that contracting
organizations in construction mainly practice SLL only. The
authors argued that without moving to DLL, performance
improvement actions generated by contracting organizations
may no longer be effective when market needs change. However,
the reasoning behind the organizations' incompetence inDLL
practice was not discussed in these studies. Based on a
questionnaire survey conducted in Hong Kong, Wong et al.
(2009) reported that contracting organizations often improve
performance through detecting and correcting errors (i.e.
practicing SLL) and yet rarely look into the root causes of these
errors or identify the new behaviors needed to prevent
reoccurrences (i.e. practicing DLL). Despite supporting the contention that the practices of SLL and DLL are both imperative for
performance improvement, Wong et al. (2009) argued that
practicing SLL only is not sufficient for contracting organizations
to sustain performance in response to the changes of market
demands What has caused hindrance to the practice of DLL, and
thus success was then described as valuable for further research.
The above review indicates that contracting organizations do
not seem to learn in a manner that fosters organizational resilience
in coping with changes of market demand. However, while
drawing a conclusion that contracting organizations should learn
more effectively, the possible conditions that are detrimental to
the practice of OL were rarely delved into in previous studies.
From the non-construction field, McGill and Slocum (1993)
argued that not many organizations are capable of learning in an
introspective manner. Supported by a literature review, they noted
that organizations rarely accept an operational change that does
not fit their core values. Such organizations are often prone to limit
themselves to acquiring knowledge that fits for achieving their

95

pre-determined goals and pre-defined best performance. Nevertheless, the organization's understanding about the client's
requirements may no longer be valid when the market environment changes. Thus, if knowledge was processed under rigid
sets of beliefs and core values, the possible improvement actions
derived may have outlived their effectiveness to meet changing
market demand. Akgn et al. (2006) pinpointed the fact that with
cumulative experience, organizations often develop a set of beliefs
and routines in their operations. Performance change may become
difficult if the required response to the environmental change
clashes with their core values. As such, the rigidities of attitude
formed in acquiring new knowledge hinder the organization's
adaptation to changing conditions.
The above studies found from the non-construction field
collectively support the idea that OL is not merely a detection and
correction of errors system for attaining a pre-determined performance standard. Instead, OL involves a process of identifying
and discarding obsolete beliefs and routines (Akgn et al., 2006).
Hedberg (1981) used the term unlearning to describe such
processes and emphasized that organizations may not learn
effectively without first unlearning irrelevant ideas from the past.
Researchers have also pointed out that it may be an uncomfortable
process to unlearn those beliefs and routines that may have taken
years to establish (Akgn et al., 2006; Mezias et al., 2001). In
particular, the established beliefs and routines may have led the
organizations to business success in the past and the organizations
may also have invested a lot of effort in developing these routines
(Akgn et al., 2006; Mezias et al., 2001). This reluctance may
help to explain why the inability to unlearn has been highlighted
as a critical weakness of many organizations (Akgn et al., 2007a,
b). While OL has emerged as a popular research topic in construction project management, the above literature review reveals
that previous studies about the concept of OL were rarely
addressed from an unlearning perspective (Love et al., 2000;
Wong and Cheung, 2008). This paper reports a study that aims to
examine the effect of learning on the contracting organization's
success in an unlearning perspective. It seeks to investigate if
effective learning is contingent on the contracting organization's
practice of discarding obsolete beliefs and routines (i.e. unlearning). From an academic point of view, this study contributes to a
deeper understanding of the underlying dynamics of OL. Furthermore, it complements existing research on factors fostering
and supporting OL (Schilling and Kluge, 2009). For practitioners,
it is believed that a better understanding of the inter-relationship
among OL, unlearning and organizational success can provide
valuable insights for management wishing to devise ways and
means of enhancing a contracting organization's performance.
To accomplish the research objective, the following hypotheses are tested in this study:
H1. The practice of OL is contingent on the contracting
organizations' practice of unlearning;
H2. The interactions between the practice of OL and unlearning
have moderating effect on organizational success.
This paper is organized as follows: Firstly, a conceptual model
which depicts the hypothesized relationships among learning,

96

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

unlearning and organizational success is presented; Secondly,

research methodologies used to examine the hypothesized relationships are introduced; Finally, the findings and the implications
thereof are discussed.
2. Conceptual model development
Summarizing from the literature review, a conceptual model
which depicts the energizing effect of unlearning on the practice
of learning and organizational success is developed and presented
in this paper. The conceptual model is underpinned by three
streams of studies: Practice of OL, Practice of unlearning and
Organizational success.
2.1. Practice of OL
The first stream of literature is related to the contracting
organization's practice of OL. The concept of OL was first
derived from work of Cyert and March (1963) who used Adaptive
Learning theory to describe organizations as anthropomorphic
entities (Chan et al., 2005; Pawlowsky, 2001). Cyert and March
(1963) assumed that the learning process for an organization is
similar to that for an individual. They described OL as a mechanistic stimulusresponse process. Consequently, an organization's improvement actions are based on its memory of the
stimulusresponse combinations (Cyert and March, 1963). Such
conceptualizations were later challenged by Argyris and Schn
(1978) who argued that OL should not be conceived as a selfproductive process. Argyris and Schn (1978) emphasized that
members of an organization are not merely a storage bin of the
past rational experiences. They suggested that an organization's
knowledge exists through integrations of its member's knowledge. Argyris and Schn (1978) conceptualized OL as a process
that imbibes and applies knowledge integrated among the members in an organization, in order to produce performance change.
Such performance change may include improvements in profitability, project delivery times or project quality. In the time since
Argyris and Schn's study, a number of researchers have further
advanced the study of OL. Duncan and Weiss (1979) reaffirmed
Argyris and Schn's (1978) concepts and defined OL as a
cognitive system that is developed and shared by members of an
organization. Fiol and Lyles (1985) further defined OL as a
modification of a knowledge system that facilitates collective
learning. Based on conceptualizations from Argyris and Schn
(1978), Inglis (1994) defined OL as a process of knowledge
development and implementation for business performance
improvement. Pedler et al. (1997) defined OL as an organization's
process of cognitive and behavioral change for performance
improvement. The current study benefited from this wealth of
studies and defines the OL process of contracting organizations as
a process of imbibing and applying knowledge integrated from
individuals for organizational success (Wong et al., 2009).
Given that organizations may display different practice patterns of knowledge acquisition and integration, some researchers
have attempted to distinguish these practice patterns by OL types
(Argyris and Schn, 1978; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Senge, 1990).
Argyris and Schn (1978) reported that organizations mainly

exhibit two major types of learning: Single-loop learning (SLL)

and Double-loop learning (DLL). Fiol and Lyles (1985) proposed
Behavioural Learning and Cognitive Learning as the major
learning styles of organizations. Behavioural Learning can be
viewed as new responses or actions based on existing interpretations. Cognitive Learning refers to the continuous review
and modification of ways of working for performance improvements. Senge (1990) suggested two types of learning: adaptive
learning (knowledge gained through small-scale adjustment of the
past decisions) and generative learning (knowledge gained
through challenging, questioning, and repudiating decision
making assumptions). Despite the divergence in terminologies,
Pawlowsky (2001) found that the underlying construct of various
OL types are similar and indeed compatible. This may due to the
fact that many OL type taxonomies are indeed an extension on the
work of Argyris and Schn (1978). In this connection, Pawlowsky
(2001) proposed two types of OL practice: SLL and DLL.
Likewise, similar findings were also reported by Chan et al. (2005)
who reported that Argyris and Schn's (1978) conceptualization
of OL was cited widely as describing the contracting organization's learning practice in construction. This study employs the
work of Argyris and Schn (1978) and addresses contracting
organization's learning practice by two OL types: SLL and DLL.
Previous studies have suggested that the practice of SLL can
be identified by the following responses: (i) Working under a set
of clearly identified project goals (L1); and (ii) Referring the
firm's past experience to interpret the performance feedback
(L2) (Kululanga et al., 1999; Murray and Chapman, 2003;
Wong and Cheung, 2008). Furthermore, the practice of DLL
can be characterized by: (i) Identifying the root of the problem
before taking improvement action (L3); and (ii) Seeking and
adopting new management and working approaches through
evaluation of current practice (L4) (Table 1 refers).
2.2. Practice of unlearning
The second stream of literature is related to the contracting
organization's practice of unlearning. Many of these studies have
reported that the concept of unlearning was firstly introduced by
Hedberg (1981) (Akgn et al., 2006; Tsang, 2008; Tsang and
Zahra, 2008). Hedberg (1981) theorized that knowledge grows,
and simultaneously becomes obsolete as reality changes. He
argued that knowledge that becomes obsolete must be renewed or
organizations may lose their competitiveness under changing and
turbulent environments (Hedberg, 1981). In his study, the term
unlearning is used for describing a process of clearing out old
routines and beliefs that no longer meet the current challenges
(Hedberg, 1981). Nystrom and Starbuck (1984), in extending the
work of Hedberg (1981), proposed that, before organizations will
try new ideas, they must first unlearn old ones by discovering their
inadequacies and then discarding them. They further conceptualized unlearning as a process preceding learning. Klein (1989)
described unlearning as a process of replacing the new response
by eliminating the old one. De Holan and Phillips (2004) defined
unlearning as a process of discarding old routines and understandings that are no longer useful and may be blocking muchneeded learning. Likewise, Navarro and Moya (2005) described

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

97

Table 1
Attributes for identifying the practice of SLL and DLL.
Practice of OL in terms of:

Practice of Single-loop learning (SLL)

Working (and considering corrective
actions if required) under a clearly
identified project goal. (L1)
Referring the firm's past experience to
interpret the performance feedback. (L2)
Practice of Double-loop learning (DLL)
Identifying the root of the problem before
taking improvement action. (L3)
Seeking and adopting new management and
working approach through evaluation of
current practice. (L4)

Kululanga
et al. (1999)

Pawlowsky
(2001)

Jashapara
(2003)

Kurtyka
(2003)

Murray and
Chapman
(2003)

Love and
Josephson
(2004)

DeVilbiss
and Leonard
(2000)

Wong and
Cheung
(2008)

unlearning as a dynamic process that identifies and removes

ineffective and obsolete knowledge and routines which block the
collective appropriation of new knowledge and opportunities.
While much work has been done with regard to the concept of
unlearning, some researchers have argued that few attempts have
been made to develop measures of unlearning (Akgn et al.,
2006). Based on an extensive literature review, Akgn et al.
(2006) found that previous studies generally share a common
view that unlearning refers to a process of discarding the obsolete
beliefs and routines. The term organization's beliefs refers to a
general and common understanding that directs members in an
organization to a specified course of action under different situations. Organization's routines refer to a repetitive pattern of
actions used by an organization to tackle problems'. The authors,
therefore, proposed to identify the practice of unlearning in two
aspects: (1) change of beliefs, (2) change of routines. Table 2
summarizes the attributes proposed for identifying the organizational change of beliefs and routines.
The proposed attributes were subsequently adopted in a
number of studies (Akgn et al., 2007a,b; Becker, 2010). The
most recent one was conducted by Becker (2010) who
investigated the effect of unlearning on individuals and
organizations during technology implementation. In view of the
fact that the set of attributes proposed by Akgn et al. (2006) has

*
*

*
*

been validated in a number of research studies (Akgn et al.,

2007a,b; Becker, 2010), this study employed the same set of
attributes to evaluate the contracting organization's practice of
unlearning in two aspects: (1) change of beliefs, (2) change of
routine.
2.3. Organizational success
The third stream of studies identified organizational success
as the ultimate goal of OL. Organizational success can be described as the value and the level of service provided to meet both
the organization's and the client's demands (Cooper and
Kleinschmidt, 1987). In terms of evaluating the organization's
business success, researchers have suggested identifying the
extent to which the organizations can meet their targeted service
quality (P1) and profit goals (P2) (Akgn et al., 2007a; Al-JiBouri,
2003; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987). In terms of meeting the
developer's demands, researchers typically relied on evaluating
the organization's compliance with predetermined criteria on time
(P3), cost (P4) and quality (P5) (Al-JiBouri, 2003; Law and Chuah,
2004; Wong et al., 2009; Xiao and Proverbs, 2003). In summary,
previous studies have suggested that organizational success of
contracting organizations can be assessed by the attributes as
shown in Table 3.

Table 2
Attributes for evaluating the unlearning practice.
Practice of unlearning in terms of
I. Belief change
The developer's concerns about project time/cost control/quality
control. (U1)
The project features that the end users demanded. (U2)
The technology/strategies available for use in practice.(U3)
II. Routine change
Pace of project development.(U4)
Development budget and cost plans. (U5)
The information sharing mechanisms (memos, e-mails, teleconferencing)
among collaborating firms in the project. (U6)
The use of performance feedback derived from the project
monitoring system. (U7)

Akgn et al.
(2007a,b)

Akgn et al. De Holan and

(2006)
Phillips (2004)

LeonardBarton (1995)

*
*

*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*

Meyers and
Wilemon (1986)

98

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

Table 3
Attributes for evaluating the organizational success.
Evaluating organizational success in terms of:

Wong et al. Akgn et al. Law and Chuah Xiao and Proverbs Al-JiBouri S.H. Cooper and
(2009)
(2007a)
(2004)
(2003)
(2003)
Kleinschmidt
(1987)

Business success
Meet the firm's service quality in delivering the project. (P1)
Meet the firm's targeted profit in delivering the project. (P2)
Meeting developer's demand
Achieve the predetermined project progress. (P3)
Achieve the predetermined project cost. (P4)
Achieve the predetermined end product quality.(P5)

*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*

2.4. The conceptual model

Based on the hypotheses and the attributes identified in Tables 1
to 3, a conceptual model is developed and shown in Fig. 1. The
arrows represent the direction of the hypothesized influence.
The conceptual model is underpinned by the work of Argyris
and Schn (1978). The practice of OL is identified by the practice
of the two OL types: Single-loop learning and Double-loop
learning (i.e. L1 to L4 as summarized in Table 1). Contracting
organization's practice of unlearning is identified by the
organizational change in beliefs and routines (i.e. U1 to U7 as
summarized in Table 2). Organizational success is evaluated in
terms of business success and the extent to which they meet the
developer's demands (i.e. P1 to P5 as summarized in Table 3).
3. Research methodology
3.1. Data collection

*
*
*

*
*

*
*

*
*
*

*
*
*

used for testing H2 (i.e. the interactions between the practice of

OL and unlearning have moderating effect on organizational
success). MMR is a frequently used technique in management,
social and behavioral science research to test for the existence of
the moderating effect of an independent variable (Aguinis, 1995;
Choe, 2004; Snell and Dean, 1994). The technique has also been
applied in construction research. Yiu and Cheung (2007) applied
MMR to investigate the moderating effect of construction
dispute sources on the mediator tactics and the respective
mediation outcomes. Wong and Cheung (2008) employed
MMR analysis to investigate whether the effect of practicing
intra-organizational learning on performance improvement is
contingent on the contracting organization's engagement in
inter-organizational learning.
This study employed MMR analysis to examine the effect of
the practice of unlearning (U1 to U7) on the relationship
between practicing OL (L1 to L4) and organizational success (P1
to P5). The solving equations for the MMR analysis were
developed as follows:

A questionnaire was designed to collect data to test the conceptual model. A sample of the questionnaire is given in Fig. 2.

Pi = a + b1 Lj + b2 Uk +

3.2. Data analysis methods

Pi = a + b1 Lj + b2 Uk + b3 Lj Uk +

Practice of OL in terms of
practicing SLL (L1 to L2)
&
DLL (L3 to L4)

+ve

Where
Pi
Lj

is the ith attribute for assessing organizational success

and i = 1,2,3,4,5
is the jth attribute for identifying the practice of OL
and j = 1,2,3,4

Organizational Success in terms of

business success (P1 to P2)
&
meeting developer s demand (P3 to P5)

Two types of data analysis methods were employed in this

study: Pearson correlation analysis and Multiple Moderated
Regression (MMR) analysis. To examine the relationship between the organization's practice of learning and unlearning (i.e.
Hypothesis H1 in this study), Pearson correlation analysis is
applied. Multiple Moderated Regression (MMR) Analysis is

Practice of Unlearning in terms of change

in belief (U1 to U3)
&
change in routines (U4 to U7)

Fig. 1. Conceptual model about the relationships between practice of organizational learning, practice of unlearning and organizational success.

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

99

Part 1-Personal Information:

Q1.1

Type of your company:

a:
Developer
b:
Contractor
c:
Consultant
d:
Others: ___________
Q1.2
Working experience in
a:
<5 years
b:
5-10 year
the construction field:
c:
11-15 years
d:
16-20 years
e:
>20 years
With reference to one construction project that you have been (either fully or partly: involved for at least 1 year
and provide the following particulars:
Q1.3

Project
nature

1)

Residential

2)

Office

3)

Hotel

4)

6)

Complex:
comprising 1)
and 4)

7)

Complex:
comprising 2)
and 4)

8)

Complex:
comprising
3) and 4

9)

Shopping
5) Infrastructure
centre
and/or
carpark
Others:_________

Q1.4
Project Name:
_________________________________________________
Part 2- Measure of organizational unlearning
During the project as stated above, a change is observed regarding the followings:
(1 = Disagree strongly, 7= Agree strongly)
Q2.1
Your firms belief about the developers concerns in terms of
1 2 3 4 5 6
project time/cost control/ quality control.
Q2.2
Your firms belief about the project features demanded by the end 1 2 3 4 5 6
users
Q2.3
Your firms belief about the technology/strategies available for
1 2 3 4 5 6
use in practice.
Q2.4
Pace of project development.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q2.5
Development budget and cost plans.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Q2.6
The information sharing mechanisms (memos, e-mails,
1 2 3 4 5 6
teleconferencing) among collaborating firms in the project.
Q2.7
The use of performance feedback derived from the project
1 2 3 4 5 6
monitoring system
Part 3- Measure of organizational learning
Do you agree that your firm practiced the followings during the project
Q3.1
Working (and considering corrective actions if required) under a
1 2 3 4 5 6
set of clearly identified project goals.
Q3.2
Referring the firms past experience to interpret the performance
1 2 3 4 5 6
feedback.
Q3.3
Identifying the root of the problem before taking improvement
1 2 3 4 5 6
action.
Q3.4
Seeking and adopting new management and working approach
1 2 3 4 5 6
through evaluation of current practice.
Part 4- Measure of organizational success
Q4.1
Your firms service quality in delivering the project met or
1 2 3 4 5 6
exceeded the senior managements expectation.
Q4.2
Your firms targeted profit in delivering this project is met or
1 2 3 4 5 6
exceeded the senior managements expectation.
Q4.3
Met the developers pre-determined project progress
1 2 3 4 5 6

Q4.4

Met the developers pre-determined project cost

Q4.5

Met the developers pre-determined end-product quality

7
7
7
7
7
7
7

7
7
7
7

7
7

Fig. 2. The sample questionnaire.

Uk

is the kth attribute for identifying the practice of

unlearning and k = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

Where Pi is the dependent variable, Lj and Uk are the

independent variables, a, b1, b2 are the unknown constant and
is the random error for any given set of values for Lj and Uk.
The coefficient of determination, R2, records the proportion of
variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent

variables. The possible value of the measure falls between 0 and 1.

When R2 = 1, the independent variables completely account for
variation in the dependent variable. When R2 = 0, the independent
variables do not account for variation of the dependent variable
(Lewis-Beck, 1993).
Multiple Regression equation (Eq. (1)) assumes that Lj and Uk
have independent effects on predicting the dependent variable Pi,
whereas the equation of the MMR (Eq. (2) refers) takes the

100

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

moderated effect of the independent variables (i.e. LjUk) into

account (Cohen et al., 2003; Jaccard et al., 1990; Yiu and Cheung,
2007). Two criteria can be used to determine whether the moderating effect is significant or not:
(1) The inclusion of the moderator variable (LjUk) in Eq. (2)
produces a significant increase in the squared multiple
correlation (R2) when compared with the simple regression model (Eq. (1)); and
(2) The standardized coefficient of the moderator variable
(i.e. b3) in Eq. (2) is significant in explaining the dependent variable (Cohen et al., 2003; Jaccard et al., 1990).
Fisher Z test (F-test hereafter) is used to determine the
significance of the R2 (Choe, 2004; Cohen et al., 2003;
Jaccard et al., 1990). R2 is considered as significant if the
calculated F-value for R2 is significant at b 0.10 (Cohen
et al., 2003; Jaccard et al., 1990; Yiu and Cheung, 2007). The
F-value can be calculated by the following equation:
h

i.h

i
.
.
1R22 Sn2 1 3
F  value = R22 R21 n2 n1
Where
n1
is the number of predictors in Eq. (1);
n2
is the number of predictors in Eq. (2);
S
is the total sample size;
(S n2 1) is the degree of freedom;
is the R2 value for Eq. (1); and
R2 1
2
is R2 value for Eq. (2).
R 2
A T-test for Regression Coefficient is used to examine the
significance of the moderator variable (LjUk) in explaining the
dependent variable (Pi) (Cohen et al., 2003; Jaccard et al., 1990;
Wong et al., 2008; Yiu and Cheung, 2007). The moderating
effect of LjUk on Pi is considered as significant when the
probability of error (-value) is lower than 0.05 (Cohen et al.,
2003; Jaccard et al., 1990; Wong et al., 2008; Yiu and Cheung,
2007).
In this study, a total of 140 MMR analyses, which are
devised from the different combinations of the Pi, Lj and Uk
were conducted. The significance of the moderating effects was
examined by both F-test and t-test. Both the Pearson correlation
analysis and the MMR analysis of this study were done by using
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)Version 17.0.
4. The response rate
The questionnaires were distributed to the target respondents
who are practicing professionals in consultant offices and contractor firms in Hong Kong. To enhance the validity of the survey
results, a list of potential respondents was assembled from
official webpages of professional institutes such as the Hong
Kong Institute of Architects (HKIA), Hong Kong Institution of
Engineers (HKIE) and the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors
(HKIS) as well as the latest edition of the Hong Kong Builder's
Directory (Far East Trade, 2003). The targeted respondents were

randomly selected from the list. A total of 200 questionnaires

were sent out and 95 usable responses were received and used in
the analysis. This represents a 47.5% valid response rate (Table 4
refers). Easterby-Smith et al. (1991) observed that the response
rate to questionnaire survey studies conducted in the construction
industry typically ranged from 25% to 30%. The response rate of
the research study about the effect of OL on contractors' performance conducted by Jashapara (2003) was 14.1%. Furthermore, recent research studies about OL in construction conducted
by Wong et al. (2009) have been based on 84 usable responses
(equivalent to a 42% response rate). In this regards, both the
sample size and the valid response rate of this study are considered reasonable. As shown in Fig. 3, 75% of respondents have
over 5 years working experience. Thus, the reliability of the
results to accurately reflect the opinion of the industry is strongly
indicated.

5. Findings and discussions

5.1. Correlations between practice of learning and unlearning
The results of the Pearson correlation analysis indicate significant relationships between the practice of unlearning and DLL
(Table 5 refers). In particular, among the attributes identifying the
practice of OL, Seeking and adopting new management and
working approach through evaluation of current practice (L4) is
found to have a relatively stronger relationship with the
organization's changes in beliefs (U1 to U3) and routines (U4 to
U7). This echoes the findings reported by Akgn et al. (2006)
who, supported by a questionnaire survey, pinpointed the idea
that changing beliefs and routines are preconditions for
organizations to improve by developing new strategies. Doubleloop learning (DLL) refers to a change of performance improvement actions taken after reviewing the need to change the
underlying assumptions that have caused errors or deficiencies
(Argyris and Schn, 1978). In this regard, discarding obsolete
beliefs and routinesi.e. unlearning becomes constructive to the
DLL process (Akgn et al., 2007a,b; Ozorhon et al., 2005).
While researchers have criticized contracting organizations in
construction for being averse to practicing DLL (e.g. Holt et al.,
2000; Jashapara, 2003; Kululanga et al., 1999), the reasons
behind such behavior has yet been explored. In this regard, the
results of this study reveal that there is a significant relationship
between unlearning and the practice of DLL. Love et al. (2004)
criticized the transient nature of construction projects may
discourage the practice of DLL that is instrumental in deriving solution by comprehensively reviewing the problems.
The findings of this study extend our knowledge about OL in
Table 4
Questionnaire sent and received.

Sent (No.)
Received (No.)
% Received

Consultants

Contractors and others

Total

100
51
51%

100
44
44%

200
95
47.5%

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

16-20
years
4%
11-15
years
11%

>20
years
9%

510years
51%

<5years
25%
Fig. 3. Working experience of the respondents.

construction by indicating that the practice of unlearning can

affect the contracting organizations practice of DLL.
5.1.1. Moderating effect of the capability and practice of
unlearning
Moderated regression analyses (MMR) were performed to
validate hypotheses H2. Whether the interactions between the
practice of OL and unlearning have significant contributions to
the organizational success were examined. If such an interaction
effect is statistically significant, this would mean that the
relationship between practicing learning and organizational
success might be energized by the contracting organization's
practice of unlearning.
The F-test and t-test results suggest that 15 out of these 140 sets
of MMR results showed significant moderating effects. To save
space and preserve clarity, only the results that showed the significant moderating effects are presented in Table 6. As an
illustration, the effect of Identifying the root of the problem
before taking improvement action (L3) on organizational success

101

in terms of meeting the service quality expectation (P1) is perceived to be contingent on the The use of performance feedback
derived from the project monitoring system (U7). The R2
values obtained from the MMR analyses, as well as the results
obtained from the respective F-tests and T-tests are reported in
Columns A to C of Table 6.
From Table 6, it is worth noting that not all interactions
between the learning and unlearning attributes are perceived to
have significant moderating effect on organizational success.
As such, the hypothesis H2 is only partially supported.
Interestingly, L1: Considering a corrective action under clear
goals and L2: Referring past experience to interpret feedback
which characterize the practice of SLL are found to have no
significant moderating effect on the organizational success when
interacted with the practice of unlearning (U1 to U7). SLL has
been conceptualized as an alteration of actions without scrutinizing the underlying assumptions leading to the difference
between the expected and the actual outcomes (Kurtyka, 2003).
The findings derived from the MMR analyses are in agreement
with Akgn et al. (2007a,b) who reported that reinforced by the
previous success derived from adopting old routines, organizations typically preserve predetermined routines and mindsets
throughout a project, inhibiting improvement actions conflict
with conventional wisdom. In this regard, a process of discarding
the existing beliefs and routines (i.e. unlearning) seems to be less
desirable for formulating quick-fix improvement actions derived
from the practice of SLL (Wong et al., 2008). Analogously, our
knowledge about what hampers unlearning, as well as the ways of
facilitating unlearning practice is limited and further investigation
in this connection is suggested for further research. The results of
this study suggest that the practice of unlearning and the practice
of SLL represent two contrary approaches to foster organizational
success. DLL refers to the alterations of performance improvement actions taken after reviewing the need to change the

Table 5
Correlation between the practice of learning and practice of unlearning.
Practice of organizational learning in terms of:

Practice of unlearning

U1: The developer's concerns about project

time/cost control/quality control.
U2: The project features that the end
users demanded.
U3: The technology/strategies available for
use in practice.
U4: Pace of project development.
U5: Development budget and cost plans.
U6: The information sharing mechanisms
(memos, e-mails, teleconferencing)
among collaborating firms in the project.
U7: The use of performance feedback derived
from the project monitoring system

Single Loop Learning (SLL)

Double Loop Learning (DLL)

L1: Working (and

considering corrective
actions if required)
under a set of clearly
identified project goals.

L2: Referring
the firm's past
experience to
interpret the
performance
feedback.

L3: Identifying the

root of the problem
before taking
improvement action.

L4: Seeking and

adopting new
management and
working approach
through evaluation
of current practice.

.155

.292

.319

.515

.123

.182

.362

.574

.232

.175

.324

.398

.219
.159
.310

.302
.222
.103

.557
.337
.273

.558
.436
.273

.223

.197

.243

.327

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed), 0.01 level (2-tailed).

102

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

Table 6
Results of the MMR analyses.
Variables of the MMR analysis

(A)

(B)

Dependent(Pi)

Predictor (Lk)

Moderator (Uj)

Predictormoderator product (Lk Uj)

R2

F-value for R2

Sig.

(C)
Std. coefficient of variable LkUj

Sig.

P1
P1
P1
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P3
P4
P5
P5
P5

L3
L4
L4
L3
L3
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
L4
L3
L4

U7
U3
U4
U2
U3
U1
U3
U4
U7
U7
U4
U4
U7
U7

L3X U7
L4X U3
L4X U4
L3X U2
L3X U3
L4X U1
L4X U3
L4X U4
L4X U7
L4X U7
L4X U4
L4X U4
L3X U7
L4X U7

0.05
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.04
0.04

5.71
3.41
4.41
6.23
6.41
7.06
10.43
8.95
2.81
4.54
8.35
3.07
4.79
4.71

*
+
*
*
*
**
**
**
+
*
**
+
*
*

1.39
1.29
1.88
2.26
1.93
1.80
2.37
2.85
1.00
1.28
1.83
1.04
1.18
1.31

*
+
*
*
*
**
**
**
+
*
**
+
*
*

Remarks: + b .1, b .05 (one-tailed), b .01(two-tailed).

P1: Your firm's service quality in delivering the project met or exceeded the senior management's expectation.
P2: Your firm's targeted profit in delivering this project is met or exceeded the senior management's expectation.
P3: Met the developer's pre-determined project progress.
P4: Met the developer's pre-determined project cost.
P5: Met the developer's pre-determined end-product quality.
L3: Identifying the root of the problem before taking improvement action.
L4: Seeking and adopting new management and working approach through evaluation of current practice.
U1: The developer's concerns about project time/cost control/quality control.
U2: The project features that the end users demanded.
U3: The technology/strategies available for use in practice.
U4: Pace of project development.
U7: The use of performance feedback derived from the project monitoring system.

underlying assumptions that had caused the errors or deficiencies

(Wong et al., 2008). In this aspect, unlearning seems to be facilitating the practice of DLL as this involves a process of discarding obsolete beliefs and routines (Akgn et al., 2007b).
Indeed, scholars have long observed that if obsolete beliefs and
routines were not effectively discarded, organizations may have
insufficient room to acquire new and useful knowledge (Akgn
et al., 2003, 2007b; Meyers and Wilemon, 1986). The results of
this study echoed these findings and indicated that the effect of
practicing DLL (i.e. L3 and L4) on meeting the targeted profit (P2)
can be energized by a wide range of unlearning attributes (U1 to
U4, and U7). As such, the attributes of unlearning (U1 to U4 and
U7) are confirmed to be significant moderators of the DLLorganizational success relationship when organizational success
is evaluated in terms of meeting the targeted profit of the contracting organizations. Nevertheless, no significant result is found
from the MMR analyses when the unlearning practice is evaluated
by the organizations' change of routines in terms of U5 : the
development budget and cost plans and U6: The information
sharing mechanisms (memos, e-mails, teleconferencing) among
collaborating firms in the project. The results indicate that to
energize the effect of practicing DLL on organizational success in
the construction projects, appropriate unlearning practice should
be employed.
Scholars in previous studies have typically suggested that
practicing DLL, instead of SLL, is more conducive to continual
performance enhancement (Jashapara, 2003; Kululanga et al.,
1999; Wong et al., 2009). While they noted that the performance

of contracting organizations was rarely enhanced through

practicing DLL (Holt et al., 2000; Jashapara, 2003; Kululanga
et al., 1999), possible reasons for contracting organizations not
being able to improve through practice DLL have yet been
explored. This study adds new insights to the organizational
learning behavior of the contracting organizations in construction. It reveals that the effect of practicing DLL on organizational
success is contingent on the contracting organization's practice
of unlearning. In particular, the effect is found to be more
significant when organizational success is evaluated in terms of
meeting the firm's targeted profit and the developer's expectations on project cost.
5.1.2. Limitations and recommendations
This study has a number of limitations. The first limitation is
associated with the sampling issue. The questionnaire survey as
reported in this study was conducted in Hong Kong. This study's
conclusions may be limited to a representation of the situation in
Hong Kong.
Secondly, although the 95 valid responses used in this study
are considered reasonable, a larger number is preferred. Using
greater sample size for analyses and collecting data from other
countries can therefore be considered for further studies. These
may, or may not, identify that cultural differences have a significant impact on the research findings.
Thirdly, throughout the study, a seven point Likert scale was
employed in the questionnaire surveys to collect the perceptive
views of the respondents. Bias may possibly exist in some of the

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

responses. Notwithstanding, responses of these questionnaire

surveys were collected from those key persons (including the
project managers, engineers, surveyors, clerks of works and
project coordinators) in contractor and consultant firms. Many
of them have over 5 years of industry experience. Therefore, the
respondents are assumed to have sufficient knowledge of their
company's practices. The reliability of the responses is thus
strongly indicated.
While organizational learning and organizational success are
widely published research topics in the construction management sector (Chan et al., 2005; Kululanga et al., 1999; Murray
and Chapman, 2003; Wong et al., 2009), the concept of
unlearning is not quite widespread. It is prudent to be mindful
that the reported findings in this study cannot be viewed as
exhaustive but a kick-start of investigation about unlearning in
construction. Notwithstanding, the reported study provides an
extended perspective on the effect of OL on organizational
success in construction. Further study can be extended through
exploring possible ways to enhance the unlearning capability of
the contracting organizations.
6. Concluding remarks
The present study seeks to examine the role of unlearning for
fostering effective OL under construction project environment.
The results of the Pearson correlation analysis provide an
empirical support to hypothesis H1 (i.e. the practice of OL is
contingent on the contracting organizations' practice of
unlearning). Nevertheless, hypothesis H2 is partially supported
as suggested by the results of the MMR analysis. The results
suggest that organizational success may not be significantly
energized by the interactions between the practices of SLL and
unlearning. Instead, contracting organizations' practice of DLL
is better to be supported by the practice of unlearning to attain
organizational success. It is noted that DLL refers to a change of
performance improvement actions taken after reviewing the
need to change the underlying assumptions that have caused
errors or deficiencies (Argyris and Schn, 1978; Wong et al.,
2008). In this aspect, unlearning can be viewed as a prerequisite of a successful practice of DLL as this involves a
process of discarding the obsolete beliefs and routines (Akgn
et al., 2007b).
While researchers have reported that contracting organizations in construction are often incapable of practicing DLL (e.g.
Holt et al., 2000; Jashapara, 2003; Kululanga et al., 1999), the
role of unlearning within the DLL process has mostly been
overlooked. The results of this study provide empirical support
for the proposition that the effect of practicing DLL on
organizational success can be significantly moderated by the
practice of unlearning. As such, this is a timely reminder about
the importance of unlearning on the learning process as well as
on the success of the contracting organizations in construction.
Seeking possible ways to enhance the unlearning capability of
the contracting organizations is thus recommended as a future
research topic.
The objective of this study is not to argue that organizational
learning should be supported by the practice of unlearning in all

103

cases. Despite demonstrating that unlearning and OL are closely

related processes and conceptually they may be contributive to
each other, it is also agreed that OL may occur without unlearning,
in particular, when the existing beliefs and routines are still fit for
sustaining performance in the current market condition (Akgn
et al., 2007b). Nevertheless, in face of the global financial turmoil,
turbulence in the construction market is expected to be intensified
in the foreseeable future. It is suggested that contracting organizations should promptly discard obsolete beliefs and routines
i.e. unlearn in response to the change of the market environment.
References
Aguinis, H., 1995. Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression
in management research. Journal of Management 21 (6), 11411158.
Akgn, A.E., Lynn, G.S., Byrne, J.C., 2003. Organizational learning: a sociocognitive framework. Human Relations 56 (7), 839868.
Akgn, A.E., Lynn, G.S., Byrne, J.C., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of
unlearning in new product development teams. The Journal of Product
Innovation Management 23 (1), 7388.
Akgn, A.E., Byrne, J.C., Lynn, G.S., Keskin, H., 2007a. Organizational
unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines in organizations. Journal of
Organizational Change Management 20 (6), 794812.
Akgn, A.E., Byrne, J.C., Lynn, G.S., Keskin, H., 2007b. New product
development in turbulent environments: impact of improvisation and
unlearning on new product performance. Journal Engineering and Technology
Management 24 (3), 203230.
Al-JiBouri, S.H., 2003. Monitoring systems and their effectiveness for project
cost control in construction. International Journal of Project Management 21
(3), 145154.
Argyris, C., Schn, D., 1978. Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, M.A.
Becker, K., 2010. Facilitating unlearning during implementation of new
technology. Journal of Organizational Change 23 (3), 251268.
Chan, P., Cooper, R., Tzortzopoulos, P., 2005. Organizational learning:
conceptual challenges from a project perspective. Construction Management
& Economics 23 (7), 747756.
Choe, J.M., 2004. The relationships among management accounting information, organizational learning and production performance. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems 13, 6185.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., Aiken, L.S., 2003. Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. L. Erlbaum
Associate, Mahwah, NJ.
Cooper, R.G., Kleinschmidt, E.J., 1987. Success factors in product innovation.
Industrial Marketing Management 16 (3), 215223.
Cyert, R.M., March, J.G., 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
De Holan, P.M., Phillips, N., 2004. Remembrance of things past? The dynamics
of organizational forgetting. Management Science 50 (11), 16031613.
DeVilbiss, C., Leonard, P., 2000. Partnering is the foundation of a learning
organization. Journal of Management in Engineering 16 (4), 4757.
Duncan, R., Weiss, A., 1979. Organizational learning: implication for organization
design. Research in Organizational Behaviour 1, 75123.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Lowe, A., 1991. Management Research: An
Introduction. Sage Publications, London.
Far East Trade, 2003. Hong Kong Builder Directory, Far East Trade Press (No.
35), Hong Kong.
Fiol, C.M., Lyles, M.A., 1985. Organisational learning. Academy of Management Review 10 (4), 803813.
Hedberg, B., 1981. How organization learn and unlearn. In: Nystrom, P., Starbuck,
W. (Eds.), Handbook of Organisational Design. Oxford Press, pp. 327.
Holt, G.D., Proverbs, D., Love, P.E.D., 2000. Survey findings on UK
construction procurement: is it achieving lowest cost, or value? Asia Pacific
Building and Construction Management Journal 5 (2), 1320.
Inglis, S., 1994. Making the Most of Action Learning. Gower, Aldershot.

104

P.S.P. Wong et al. / International Journal of Project Management 30 (2012) 94104

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., Choi, K.W., 1990. Interaction Effects in Multiple
Regression. Sage.
Jashapara, A., 2003. Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the
learning organization. The Learning Organization 10 (1), 3150.
Klein, J., 1989. Parenthetic learning in organizations: toward the unlearning of
the unlearning model. Journal of Management Studies 26 (3), 291308.
Kululanga, G.K., McCaffer, R., Price, A.D.F., Edum-Fotwe, F., 1999. Learning
mechanisms employed by construction contractors. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 125 (4), 215233.
Kurtyka, J., 2003. Implementing business intelligence systems: an organizational learning approach. DM Review Magazine, November, 2003.
Available at: http://www.dmereview.com/editorial/dmreview/print_action.
cfm?articleId=7610.
Law, K.M.Y., Chuah, K.B., 2004. Project-based action learning as learning
approach in learning organization: the theory and framework. Team
Performance Management 10 (7/8), 178186.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1995. Wellspring of Knowledge. Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA.
Lewis-Beck, M.S., 1993. Applied Regression: An Introduction. Quantitative
Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage, London, p. 22.
Love, P.E.D., Josephson, P.-E., 2004. Role of error-recovery process in projects.
Journal of Management in Engineering 20 (2), 7079.
Love, P.E.D., Li, H., Irani, Z., Faniran, O., 2000. Total quality management and
the learning organization: a dialogue for change in construction.
Construction Management and Economics 18 (3), 321331.
Love, P.E.D., Huang, J.C., Edwards, D.J., Irani, Z., 2004. Nurturing a learning
organization in construction: a focus on strategic shift, organizational
transformation, customer orientation and quality centred learning. Construction Innovation 4 (2), 113126.
McGill, M., Slocum Jr., J.W., 1993. Unlearning the organization. Organizational Dynamics Autumn 6779.
Meyers, P.W., Wilemon, D., 1986. Learning in new technology development
teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 6 (2), 7988.
Mezias, J.M., Grinyer, P., Guth, W.D., 2001. Changing collective cognition: a
process model for strategic change. Long Range Planning. 34 (1), 7195.
Murray, P., Chapman, R., 2003. From continuous improvement to organizational learning: developmental theory. The learning organization 10 (5),
272282.
Navarro, J.G.C., Moya, B.R., 2005. Business performance management and
unlearning process. Knowledge and Process Management 12 (3), 161170.

Nystrom, P.C., Starbuck, W.H., 1984. To avoid organizational crisesunlearn.

MIT Slogan Management Review 45 (2), 4551.
Ozorhon, B., Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M.T., 2005. Organizational memory
formation and its use in construction. Building Research and Information 33
(1), 6779.
Pawlowsky, P., 2001. Management science and organizational learning. In:
Dierkes, M., Berthoin-Antal, A., Child, J., Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Handbook of
Organisational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T., 1997. The Learning Company: Strategies
for Sustainable Development. McGraw-Hill, London.
Ruuska, I., Vartiainen, M., 2005. Characteristics of knowledge sharing
communities in project organizations. International Journal of Project
Management 23 (5), 374379.
Schilling, J., Kluge, A., 2009. Barriers to organizational learning: an integration
of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews 11
(3), 337360.
Senge, P.M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organisation. Doubleday, London.
Snell, S.A., Dean, J.W., 1994. Strategic compensation for integrated
manufacturing: the moderating effects of jobs and organizational inertia.
Academy of Management Journal 37 (5), 11091140.
Tsang, E.W.K., 2008. Transferring knowledge to acquisition joint ventures: an
organizational unlearning perspective. Management Learning 39 (1), 520.
Tsang, E.W.K., Zahra, S.A., 2008. Organizational unlearning. Human Relations
61 (10), 14351462.
Wong, P.S.P., Cheung, S.O., 2008. An analysis of the relationship between learning
behaviour and performance improvement of the contracting organizations. The
International Journal of Project Management 26 (2), 112123.
Wong, P.S.P., Cheung, S.O., Leung, M.K.Y., 2008. The moderating effect of
organizational learning type on performance improvement. Journal of
Management in Engineering, ASCE 24 (3), 162172.
Wong, P.S.P., Cheung, S.O., Fan, J.K.L., 2009. Examining the relationship
between organizational learning styles and project performance: a Structural
Equation Modeling approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE 135 (6), 497507.
Xiao, H., Proverbs, D., 2003. Factors influencing contractor performance: an
international investigation. Engineering, Construction, Architectural Management 10 (5), 322332.
Yiu, K.T.W., Cheung, S.O., 2007. A study of construction mediator tactics-Part II:
The contingent use of tactics. Building and Environment 42 (2), 762769.