The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1471-4175.htm

Aspects of
Aspects of project learning project learning
in construction: in construction
a socio-technical model
229
Ali Mohammed Alashwal
Quantity Surveying, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Hamzah Abdul-Rahman
International University of Malaya-Wales, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine the measurement constructs of learning within
construction projects’ milieu. The literature indicated some mechanisms of learning in projects under
four aspects, namely knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, team action to learn, and learning
support. The empirical study attempts to verify whether intra-project learning can be measured
through these aspects.
Design/methodology/approach – The study used a survey method to collect the data from
36 mega-sized building projects in Malaysia. In total, 203 questionnaires were collected from
professionals working in the sites of these projects. The data were analysed using principal component
analysis (PCA) to determine the constructs of intra-project learning. Partial least squares-path
modeling was used then to confirm the results of PCA and determine the contribution of each construct
to intra-project learning.
Findings – The results affirmed two constructs of intra-project learning, named, social and technical
and each consisted of four indicators of learning.
Originality/value – The paper emphasized the socio-technical perspective of learning and
contributed to developing a hierarchical measurement model of learning in construction project.
A project manager can propose new initiatives in response to the new perspective of learning for team
building and continuous development. Lastly, the paper provides a comprehensive presentation of
how to estimate the hierarchical measurement models of project learning as a latent variable.
Keywords Knowledge management, Organisational learning, Construction management
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Construction projects are increasingly an important form of organising because they
have been long seen as the vehicle to achieve complex activities and functions. They
are also regarded as locales of learning through creating, sharing and applying
knowledge. Construction industry is organised around projects not firms dealing with
it. However, most studies in the field have focused on the permanent organisation,
i.e. the firm as the arena for learning (Barlow and Jashapara, 1998; Huemer and
Östergren, 2000; Kululanga et al., 2001; Love et al., 2004; Vakola and Rezgui, 2000;
Wong et al., 2009). On the other hand, the implementation of the classic organisational
learning at the project level seems inappropriate (Chan et al., 2005). Construction Innovation
Vol. 14 No. 2, 2014
pp. 229-244
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), Ministry of 1471-4175
Higher Education, Malaysia (Project Number FP022-2011A). DOI 10.1108/CI-06-2013-0029
CI This paper argues that construction projects encompass different aspects of
14,2 learning from that apparent in the permanent organisation (i.e. the firm). Learning
activities in a firm are supported by organisational structure, memory and routine to
assimilate knowledge. A project does not have memory (i.e. experiential learning and
work routines), neither does it have rivalling cultures and social backgrounds (Ibert,
2004). In the best situations, the project is regarded as temporary multi-organisations
230 (Disterer, 2002; Koskela, 1992); an idea that is further discussed in the literature
(Packendroff, 1995; Turner and Müller, 2003). Furthermore, construction projects are
goal-driven, unique, fragmented, and location-based activities. These traits may
influence how people perceive and practice learning.
The aim of this paper is to determine the aspects of learning within construction projects
(intra-project learning). The identification of such aspects is important to attain more
in-depth understanding of this concept. This in turn helps project team and management to
understand how learning takes place and to attain learning benefits such as achieving
competitive advantages, project performance and continuous development. The objective
of this paper is to develop a measurement model that determines the factors of intra-project
learning and their indicating variables. The development of this model will fill a significant
gap related to the aspects of learning in the context of construction projects. In addition, the
model would facilitate testing the relationship between intra-project learning and other
factors. This will permit further development of project learning theory in construction.
The following section presents a conceptual framework of intra-project learning developed
based on the literature in project learning field. The framework consists of four aspects of
intra-project learning, namely, knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, team action to
learn, and learning support. The methodology section shows data collection, using a
survey-based questionnaire, to test the proposed framework. The outcome of this paper is a
hierarchical measurement model encompasses two main aspects of intra-project learning.

Framework of intra-project learning

Literature lacks a precise definition of intra-project learning. However, Kotnour
(2000, p. 396) proposed a general definition of project learning as “the set of actions the
project teams use to create and share knowledge within and across projects”. The
definition is important because it implies three features of project learning: action of
the team to learn, outcome of this action (i.e. knowledge being created and shared), and
the level of learning (intra- and/or inter-project). This paper focuses on intra-project as a
basis for inter-project learning, whereas the later focuses mainly on knowledge transfer
mechanisms. The definition of project learning suggests three aspects to measure
intra-project learning, namely, knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and team action
to learn. Learning support is another important aspect to consider in this framework.
Learning support is an integral part of learning practices in projects (Kotnour, 2000,
p. 396) and have a role in stimulating team actions for effective learning. The following
paragraphs elaborate on these four aspects and their indicators.
Efforts to create knowledge in projects is one of the prominent mechanism of
learning (Fong, 2003; Kotnour, 1999). Egbu (2006) reviewed different streams of
knowledge creation or “production” and affirmed that construction involves several
approaches to create knowledge, including reflective practice, transformation and
combination of existing knowledge. Fong (2005) found that knowledge creation is
interwoven (non-linear) process and collaborative project team is an important factor
in this process. Teerajetgul and Charoenngam (2006) investigated the factors that Aspects of
influence knowledge creation process in construction, which include support of project learning
information technology (IT), incentives, individual competency, and collaborative
vision of leadership. In addition, factors that facilitate knowledge creation during the in construction
execution phase are physical closeness (informal dialogues between colleagues), clear
goals and purposes (contracts with external consultants), and mentor relationships
(discussion takes place when time and context allows) (Roth et al., 2000). 231
Knowledge sharing in organisations encompasses two perspectives, namely, social
exchange perspective and practice theory perspective (Fong and Chu, 2006). The first,
which is common in construction, focuses on the influence of interpersonal relationships
on knowledge sharing activities, while the second is related to environment and
communication tools that affect knowledge sharing and transfer (Fong and Chu, 2006).
Practices to share personal knowledge in construction include, for instance, informal
chatting and storytelling, meetings, phone calls, project briefing, and review sessions
(Fong and Chu, 2006). Facilitating factors of knowledge sharing include IT
infrastructure (i.e. computer-supported collaborative work), organisational structure,
organisational culture, communication and networks, and mutual trust (Issa and
Haddad, 2008; Knauseder et al., 2003; Landaeta, 2008; Malone, 2002; Williams, 2008).
The measurement of the team action to learn involves absorbing new technologies and
techniques, self-directed learning, problem solving, and learning from failure (Fong, 2003).
Some practices of project team learning highlighted in the literature include face-to-face
interaction, periodic meetings, problem-solving techniques, learning diaries, narratives,
interviews, specific departments, and external facilitators (Abdul-Rahman et al., 2012;
Williams, 2008).
In construction projects, as complex settings, team action is not enough to create and
share knowledge but it must be accompanied with various forms of support. Right
culture and right leader’s support for openness and influence are associated with the
team action to learn (Knauseder et al., 2007; Kotnour and Hjelm, 2002). Openness and
influence, which need a safe and supportive environment, refer to the level of
transparency, mistake admission, and alternative ways of working (Knauseder et al.,
2007). The practice of intra-project learning can be determined through the four aspects
and their indicators discussed previously. For instance, the indicators of knowledge
creation (including informal dialogue, personal interaction, regular meetings, and
others) can also be used to measure intra-project learning concept. Table I summarises
these indicators and other indicators of the four aspects of intra-project learning.
The four aspects and their indicators form the starting of the empirical study and
data analysis. Herein the study aims to develop a new model of project learning in
construction to cover two issues. First, the study will test whether intra-project learning
is indeed determined through these four proposed aspects. Second, the study will test the
contribution of the new aspects and their indicators in measuring intra-project learning.

Research methods
This paper attempts to identify learning aspects in construction projects. A quantitative
approach using a questionnaire survey was undertaken to determine the constructs of
intra-project learning and their indicators as practiced in construction projects. Using
this approach permits the generalisation of the model to construction projects. The
process of developing and validating a hierarchical measurement model of intra-project
CI
Aspects of project learning Indicators
14,2
(1) Knowledge creation Reflective practice, transformation, combination of existing
knowledge, IT support, incentives, individual competency,
collaborative team, collaborative vision of leadership, informal
dialogues between colleagues, contacts with external consultants,
232 and mentor relationships
(2) Knowledge sharing Informal chatting and storytelling, meetings, phone calls, project
briefing, review sessions, IT infrastructure (i.e. computer-supported
collaborative work), organizational structure, organizational culture,
communication levels, formal and informal networks, and mutual trust
(3) Team action to learn Absorbing new technology and techniques, self-directed learning
(i.e. creating opportunities for individual inquiry and learning),
problem solving, and learning from failure, formal face-to-face
interaction, periodic meetings, problem-solving techniques, learning
diaries, narratives, interviews, specific departments, and external
Table I. facilitators
Conceptual model of the (4) Learning support Competence development and rewards, openness and influence (level of
aspects and indicators of transparency, mistake admission, and alternative way of working in
intra-project learning the construction project)

learning is illustrated in Figure 1. Prior to data collection, a measurement instrument of

was developed based on the literature review. The analysis of data attempted to examine
whether intra-project learning consists of four aspects of learning (as proposed in the
previous section). Two main approaches were used to test and validate the model. The
first is the principal component analysis (PCA) to determine the basic components of
intra-project learning. The second is partial least squares-path modeling (PLS-PM) to
analyse the hierarchical model (i.e. the relationship between intra-project learning,
constructs of learning and indicators of learning). This approach will be used also to
confirm the results of PCA and draw a solid conclusion of the contribution of the aspects
to intra-project learning.

Measurement instrument and data collection

The indicators of the four aspects of intra-project learning, which identified from the
literature in the previous section, were used to develop the measurement instrument.
These indicators were compiled in the questionnaire as shown in Table II. A five-point

Data Analysis &

Data Collection
Results
Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Literature Analysing data using Reliability,

Developing the Analysing
review PLS-PM to confirm the validity, & quality
measurement data using
(theoretical results of PCA and assessment of the
instrument PCA
framework) draw conclusion model

Determining new
Distributing Developing the
Figure 1. and collecting
components of
hierarchical
intra-project
Research methodology questionnaires
learning
model
Likert scale was used to measure the indicators and ranged from “1 – totally disagree”, Aspects of
“2 – disagree”, “3 – neutral”, “4 – agree”, and “5 – totally agree”, with each statement. project learning
The questionnaire survey was distributed to different mega-sized building projects
in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor states, Malaysia. These projects were undertaken by in construction
Grade 7 contractor companies, which can procure for projects with no limited value.
The information of the mega projects was drawn from the Construction Industry
Development Board, Malaysia (CIDB, 2011). Total number of approached projects was 233

Construct Variable Statement (items)

Knowledge Informal dialogue I often have informal dialogue with other team members
creation (e.g. a discussion over coffee break)
Contact external I often contact external consultants if there is a new idea
consultant or problem to discuss
Personal interaction I communicate with experts in person to get some
experience or information
Periodic meetings I attend frequent meetings with experts to discuss issues
related to this project
Group discussion I attend group discussion about certain issues or
problems related to this project
Knowledge Trust I trust other team members so I can share my experience
sharing with them freely
Communication I have been able to directly contact all people in this
project
ICT Information communication tools (ICT) facilitate my
communication with team members
Collective Opportunities for I am always encouraged to highlight questions about
learning inquiry issues related to the project
Mistake admission In this project, I can identify mistakes freely
Problem solving Solving problems in this project is efficient (e.g. resolving
design clashes or omissions)
When problems happen, we will report to upper
management
Understanding We have to identify the causes of problems that happen
in the site
Absorb new technology In this project, I have implemented new technology/
techniques
Learning Delegation The project leader often delegates some of his work to
support me so I get more experience
Supporting In this project, I am encouraged to collaborate with new
collaboration colleagues
It is always appreciated when we collaborate with
people from other companies
Learn from mistakes We need to learn from mistakes and not be punished for
trying new things
Second chance We deserve to have second chances if we make mistakes
Openness I can have an open (frank) discussion about issues or
problems related to this project
Alternative working We always try to find alternative ways of doing the Table II.
method work Variables/measurement
Identifying others’ I can advise people who are making mistakes or using items of intra-project
mistakes insufficient methods learning
CI 36 mega-sized projects. These projects were under construction stage during the course
14,2 of this research. Construction stage is expected to show some complexity and permit
testing the phenomenon of the study. At this stage, most professionals with diverse
experience, exposures and professions meet to achieve the project. Professionals
working at construction sites, including project managers, engineers and others, were
the target to respond to the questionnaire.
234
Data analyses and results
Response rate and demographic information
The approached projects involved approximately 658 professionals. Total collected
valid questionnaires from the projects were 203 representing approximately 31 percent
response rate. This rate is considered slightly higher than normal rate of 20-30 percent
in the construction industry (Akintoye, 2000). The respondents are a homogenous
sample of project managers, consultants, project engineers, and resident engineers.
Experience of respondents is distributed as follows: 18.6 percent of the respondents
have five years of experience or less, 21.6 percent (between six and ten years),
24.7 percent (between 11 and 15 years), 22.2 percent (between 16 and 20 years), and
12.9 percent (more than 21 years). Ages of respondents represent a normal distributed
sample ranged from 30 or younger up to 59 years. The education level of respondents
distributed as diploma (6.8 percent), Bachelor’s degree (58.9 percent), Master’s degree
(28.5 percent), PhD (1.1 percent), and others (4.7 percent). Table III shows the
distribution of the studied projects includes number of projects based on type, sector,

Description Details (frequency) Total

Sector Private (26) Government (6) Mixed (4) 36

Procurement Conventional (21) Design and Turnkey BOT (0) Others (1) 36
method build (12) (2)
Type Residential (13) Non-residential Social Mix Others (2) 36
(8) amenities development
(6) (7)
Value Between Between Between Between 301 Between 34 (two
(RM million)a 10 and 50 (1) 51 and 100 (9) 101 and and 500 (8) 500 and missing)
300 (13) 1,000 (4)
Completion Less than 20 (9) Between 21 and Between Between 61 More than 36
percentage 40 (9) 41 and and 80 (4) 81 (4)
60 (10)
Number of 50 50
< 658 (one
100 11 20 30
5 8 26 10 16 20 15 13 15 20 20 10 8 15 10 30 15 10 25 10 25 40 30 15 8 13 15 20 10 20
professionals 0
missing)
in each 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

projectb

Number 20 5 6 3 3 5
13
3 5
12 12 12 12 12
3
13
2
10
2 2 3 3 3 1 3 4 1 5
11
2 2 1 1
8 10 6 4
203
Table III. of valid 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
(response
Distribution of projects, questionnaires rate < 31%)
number of professionals collectedb
involved, and number of
respondents in each Notes: aUSD < 3 RM (2013 currency rate); bthe x-axis indicates number of projects (from one to 36) and
project the y-axis indicates the number of team members of each project and the respondents for the questionnaire
procurement method of construction, value of project, and completion percentage. Aspects of
The last two rows in the table show the number of professional team members and the project learning
number of collected questionnaires from each project. This indicates the response rate
for each project as well as the total response rate of the study. There are some missing in construction
data in this demographic information including project value (two missing data) and
number of team members (one missing data). For such missing data, no permutation is
possible and these can be ignored (Hair et al., 2006) because they are minimal and have 235
no influence on the results of the study.

Principal component analysis

PCA was used to identify the underlying structure (i.e. components) of intra-project
learning and summarise variables. This analysis was used to determine whether
intra-project learning comprises the four aspects of learning as suggested in the
framework in the literature review section. PCA groups variables, based on their
intercorrelation, under a certain number of components (Hair et al., 2006) to measure
the main concept.
To determine the number of components in PCA model, this study used O’Connor’s
(2000) syntax developed based on parallel analysis (Horn, 1965). Parallel analysis was
conducted using SPSS (ver. 19.0). The results of parallel analysis indicated only two
components of intra-project learning. PCA was conducted then using SPSS by
specifying the following criteria: rotation method, oblique (Promax-k ¼ 4); missing
data, excluding cases pairwise; number of components ¼ 2 (based on the results of
parallel analysis); and factor loading $ 0.40. The analysis extracted 16 variables of
intra-project learning under two components as shown in Table IV. Variables with low
factor loading (i.e. less than 0.4) have been eliminated from further analysis in a process
called scale purification (Hair et al., 2006). The first component of intra-project learning
consists of variables that represent “social” mechanisms of learning. The second
component encompasses variables of “technical” mechanisms of learning. The
relationship between the variables, the two new components, and intra-project learning
can be coined in a hierarchical measurement model. This model will be analysed and
validated using PLS-PM, which is aligned with PCA (Chin, 1995; Sosik et al., 2009), as
shown the next section.

Specifying and analysing the hierarchical model

This study conducted PLS-PM to confirm the results of PCA and to draw a
comprehensive conclusion of the measurement model (Costello and Osborne, 2005;
Hair et al., 2006). The study identifies the relationship between the main construct
(intra-project learning) and the new explored components in a hierarchical measurement
model. The hierarchical model is defined as an overall abstraction of interrelated
attributes or dimensions to give a theoretical meaning (Diamantopoulos et al., 2008,
p. 1205). This type of models (which include two levels or sometimes three or four levels)
has the advantage of overcoming the abstract definition of one level measurement
(Wetzels et al., 2009).
The process of analysing and validating the hierarchical model is a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) through structural equation modeling (SEM) (Barroso et al., 2010;
Tenenhaus and Hanafi, 2010). In this approach, the first-order constructs (i.e. the two
new components) and second-order constructs (i.e. intra-project learning) and their
CI
Communalities Components
14,2 Label Variable Initial Extraction 1 2

IntraPL19 Collaboration support 1.000 0.622 0.602

IntraPL1 Trust to share knowledge 1.000 0.468 0.536
IntraPL3 Face-to-face communication 1.000 0.433 0.525
236 IntraPL8 Group discussions 1.000 0.579 0.517
IntraPL5 Contact team members directly 1.000 0.536 0.512
IntraPL9 Asking others 1.000 0.648 0.509
IntraPL2 Informal dialogue 1.000 0.447 0.453
IntraPL15 Identifying problem reasons 1.000 0.526 0.421
IntraPL11 Openness 1.000 0.566 0.400
b
IntraPL20 Collaboration with people from other companies 1.000 0.407
IntraPL16 Report problems to upper management 1.000 0.377
IntraPL13 Alternative ways of doing things 1.000 0.660
IntraPL17 Implementing new technology or methods 1.000 0.674 0.772
IntraPL10 Mistakes admission 1.000 0.603 0.764
IntraPL4 Contact external consultant 1.000 0.511 0.660
IntraPL12 Telling others doing wrong 1.000 0.661 0.533
IntraPL6 Role of ICT 1.000 0.584 0.523
IntraPL18 Delegate works 1.000 0.703 0.434
IntraPL14 Efficient problem solving 1.000 0.534 0.424
IntraPL22 No punishment for trying new things 1.000 0.683
IntraPL7 Frequent meetings 1.000 0.635
Table IV. IntraPL21 Second chance 1.000 0.656
Communalities and
pattern matrix of the Notes: aRotation converged in three iterations; bthe variables in italic font will be eliminated from
components of further analysis as they score less than 0.40; extraction method: PCA; rotation method: Promax with
intra-project learning Kaiser normalization

manifest variables can be analysed simultaneously. PLS-PM is more practical to use

and provides more accurate results compared with covariance-based SEM (Chin and
Dibbern, 2010; Hulland et al., 2010; Vilares et al., 2010). Specifically, PLS-PM is more
appropriate when the purpose is developing a measurement model with low theoretical
information ( Jöreskog and Wold, 1982; Tenenhaus et al., 2005).
SmartPLS package (Ringle et al., 2005) was used to develop and analyse the
hierarchical model. To identify the model, the study used the repeated indicator
approach as recommended by Wilson and Henseler (2007). In this approach, the
manifest variables of the first-order constructs were repeated in the second-order
construct. The centroid weighting scheme was used to estimate algorithms and
calculate items loadings (Henseler, 2010). This scheme is suitable when the purpose is
to conduct CFA and when there is a strong correlation between the manifest variables
(Tenenhaus and Hanafi, 2010; Vinzi et al., 2010).
The results of the hierarchical model analysis confirmed eight variables measuring
the two constructs of INTRAPL as shown in Figure 2. The first construct “SOCIAL”
consisted of four variables and the second construct “TECHNICAL” also consisted of
four variables indicating the social and technical aspects of learning, respectively.
All indices of path coefficients, items loading and coefficient of determination (R 2)
were significantly high (Chin, 1998; Vinzi et al., 2010). The assessment of model’s
quality through these indices will be described next.
 IntraPL11 Aspects of
(Openness)
0.737 IntraPL11
project learning
IntraPL19
(Collaboration
(Openness) in construction
0.775
support) SOCIAL IntraPL14
IntraPL3 R2 = 0.768 (Efficient problem
0.725
(Face-to-face solving)
0.692
communication) 0.627 IntraPL17 237
0.877 0.659 (New technology/
IntraPL9
(Asking others) method)
0.674
IntraPL18
0.599 (Work delegation)
INTRAPL
R2 = 0.000 IntraPL19
0.700
(Collaboration
0.654 support)
IntraPL14
(Efficient problem IntraPL3
0.867 0.504 (Face-to-face
solving)
0.686 communication)
IntraPL17 0.520
(New technology/ IntraPL6
0.816
method) TECHNICAL (Role of ICT)
R2 = 0.751
IntraPL18 0.702 Figure 2.
(Work delegation) IntraPL9
0.603 (Asking others)
Hierarchical
measurement model of
IntraPL6
(Role of ICT)
intra-project learning

Assessment of the model’s quality

The assessment of the quality of intra-project learning model involves items loading,
reliability, validity of constructs, and goodness-of-fit (GoF). As shown in Figure 2,
items loading of both SOCIAL and TECHNICAL are above 0.50 (Falk and Miller, 1992).
Table V shows the composite reliability above the threshold 0.7 and Cronbach’s a
above the threshold 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Malhotra,
2003). The average variance extracted (AVE) indicates discriminant validity was
borderline or slightly above the threshold 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). However,
the second-order construct showed low AVE values compared with the first-order
constructs. Some weak variables in the second-order construct cause the low AVE
value. These variables cannot be eliminated from INTRAPL as they have high loading
at the first-order constructs. This could be one of the limitations of the repeated
indicator approach used to identify the model. Cross-validated communality (CV-com)
and cross-validated redundancy (CV-red) were calculated using blindfolding available

Composite reliability Cronbach’s a AVE CV-com CV-red R 2 Communality

INTRAPL a 0.832 0.768 0.384 0.204 0.204 0.384

INTRAPL-1 0.809 0.685 0.516 0.208 0.397 0.768 0.516
INTRAPL-2 0.797 0.659 0.498 0.179 0.379 0.751 0.498
Average 0.759 0.466 Table V.
p Reliability, validity and
GoF 0.759*0.466 ¼ 0.595
GoF of intra-project
Note: aSecond-order construct learning model
CI in SmartPLS. The former indicates the quality of the measurement model as it predicts
14,2 the manifest variables directly from their own latent variable by cross validation
(Guenzi et al., 2009). The positive mean index of all the blocks indicates a good quality
measurement model (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). On the other hand, CV-red measures the
quality of the structural model to indicate whether the model has predictive relevance if
the means of the indexes are positive (i.e. . 0) for all endogenous blocks (Chin, 1998;
238 Tenenhaus et al., 2005). GoF determines the global quality of the model (Guenzi et al.,
2009) which is calculated using the square root of the geometric mean of the average
communality multiplied by the average R 2 (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). Wetzels et al.
(2009) proposed three values of GoF, including (0.1), (0.25) and (0.36), representing
small, medium and large GoFs, respectively. As shown in Table V, GoF of intra-project
model is 0.595, which is above the threshold of a good quality model.
Correlations between the two constructs are high as shown in Table VI. The table
also shows the cross-loading of all items of the two constructs. All items are not
sharing loading between the two constructs, which indicate good convergent validity
(Turel et al., 2007). This can be established also by looking at the ranges of the highest
and lowest items loading of a construct; the lower the range (or difference) among
items, the better convergent validity is (Chin and Dibbern, 2010).

Discussion of findings
The analyses of the data confirmed two aspects of intra-project learning in the
construction site. These aspects embrace social and technical mechanisms of learning.
The social aspect comprises the following mechanisms: openness, collaboration with
new colleagues, asking other professionals, and face-to-face interaction. These items
facilitate learning through interpersonal relationships among team members. For
example, identifying problems and their solutions can be better achieved when people
interact in a transparent manner to tell the truth (Ayas and Zeniuk, 2001). In addition,
collaborative work enables experience exchange and expands people’s knowledge base
(Knauseder et al., 2007). Furthermore, face-to-face interaction, which is an important
process of knowledge creation model, permits instant sharing of tacit knowledge and
reflection.

INTRAPLa INTRAPL-1 INTRAPL-2

a
INTRAPL 1.000
INTRAPL-1 0.877 1.000
INTRAPL-2 0.867 0.519 1.000
IntraPL14 0.652 0.455 0.686
IntraPL17 0.674 0.368 0.816
IntraPL18 0.599 0.348 0.702
IntraPL6 0.504 0.281 0.603
IntraPL11 0.628 0.737 0.350
IntraPL19 0.700 0.775 0.439
IntraPL3 0.654 0.725 0.410
Table VI. IntraPL9 0.520 0.627 0.274
Correlations and
cross-loadings Note: aSecond-order construct
The second aspect, the technical, comprises the following items: efficient problem Aspects of
solving, implementing a new technology or method, job delegation, and utilising project learning
information communication technology (ICT) tools. Apparently, the team members
need to perform certain tasks to achieve the main objectives of the project and at the in construction
same time enable team learning. For example, detecting and correcting errors is
considered one of the key processes of project learning and performance (Bourgeon,
2007). The process of detecting and correcting errors includes identifying problems, 239
planning for action, experimenting, and reviewing solutions (Kotnour, 1999). On the
other hand, creating opportunities to absorb new technology or method offer good
chances for the team to learn. Meanwhile, job delegation, which is one aspect of project
team empowerment (Newcombe, 1996), refers to the authorisation of project leader or
manager of team members to perform certain tasks. Delegation of work enables
individuals to expose to new experiences and task such as decision making and
coordination, which helps them to build up knowledge networks and attain new
knowledge (Teerajetgul and Charoenngam, 2006). Lastly, ICT circulates explicit
knowledge widely and enables better communication and interaction across the
fragmented construction process.
The social model of learning (Emerson, 1976) is related to interpersonal relationship
influence on knowledge sharing and exchange. Numerous studies on learning in
construction have emphasised on the role of the social model over the technical model
(Bresnen et al., 2003, 2005; Fong, 2005; Scarbrough et al., 2004). The technical model
concerns about cognitive and behavioural paradigms of learning. According to Sense
(2007), the social and practical aspects embody the situated dimension of learning
(Lave and Wenger, 1991), which concerns with participation within a community.
Practice can influence the way the people learn and vice versa; a trade that have been
highlighted by Wenger (1998). For the current study, the social and technical aspects
have shown equivalent contribution to the intra-project learning model. Hence, the
socio-technical perspective of learning plays a significant role in the learning model in
construction, especially in projects that are complex and sizeable.
This paper seeks to contribute to the model of project learning by testing the aspects
of learning in construction projects supported by the empirical findings. Realisation
and implementation of the new aspects of learning, social and technical, would aid and
promote a systematic way of learning. Management can continuously anticipate and
support project learning. When realising these aspects, the project manager or sponsor
can improve learning activities to gain better outcome. This, in turn, would lead to the
successful management of construction projects.

Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to identify the aspects of intra-project learning in building
projects. The analysis of the data using PLS-PM approach confirmed two aspects,
social and technical, represent learning mechanisms in the construction site. Both
aspects have an equivalent contribution to intra-project learning model. The finding of
this paper, unlike some other studies (Bresnen et al., 2003), emphasise the significance
of the socio-technical perspective of learning in a construction project environment.
The social-based learning provides the mean for creating and sharing tacit knowledge,
which is an important component in construction projects. This aspect is necessary for
project team’s understanding and application of knowledge. The technical-based
CI learning, on the other hand, is necessary for knowledge codifying and circulating
14,2 within the project. The role of the technical aspect is particularly important to complete
the cycle of knowledge transfer through ICT and other information-based tools. These
findings have several implications in practice. A project manager or sponsor could
introduce new managerial initiatives, based on the new perspective of learning, to
facilitate team members’ creating, sharing and codifying knowledge in the project
240 environment. In addition, the project manager can gain the full benefits of learning by
adopting the appropriate mechanisms of learning regardless of the complexity and
dynamic nature of construction projects.
The utilisation of PLS-PM approach as described in this paper offered some
advantages including: suitable to cope with conceptual models with low theoretical
support, easy to specify and analyse hierarchical measurement models, and enables
testing the model’s reliability, validity and quality. Other researchers can use the same
procedure to examine learning across projects that is determined mainly by means
of knowledge codification and transfer. The hierarchical measurement model of
intra-project learning might be useful to other researchers for measuring project
learning in other settings or industries. In addition, researchers can determine the
relationship between intra-project learning and other factors (e.g. innovation,
productivity, performance, etc.). This is important also to measure the factors that
enable or drawback learning in the project environment.

References
Abdul-Rahman, H., Wang, C. and Malay, S.B. (2012), “Structured project learning model toward
improved competitiveness in bidding for large construction firms”, Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 546-556.
Akintoye, A. (2000), “Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 77-89.
Ayas, K. and Zeniuk, N. (2001), “Project-based learning: building communities of reflective
practitioners”, Management Learning, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 61-76.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Barlow, J. and Jashapara, A. (1998), “Organisational learning and inter-firm ‘partnering’ in the
UK construction industry”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 86-98.
Barroso, C., Carrión, G.C. and Roldán, J.L. (2010), “Applying maximum likelihood and PLS on
different sample sizes: studies on SERVQUAL model and employee behavior model”,
in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least
Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 427-447.
Bourgeon, L. (2007), “Staffing approach and conditions for collective learning in project teams:
the case of new product development projects”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 25 No. 2007, pp. 413-422.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2003), “Social practices and the
management of knowledge in project environments”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 157-166.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2005), “Exploring social capital
in the construction firm”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 235-244.
Chan, P., Cooper, R. and Tzortzopoulos, P. (2005), “Organizational learning: conceptual Aspects of
challenges from a project perspective”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23
No. 2005, pp. 747-756. project learning
Chin, W.W. (1995), “Partial least squares is to LISREL as principal components analysis is to in construction
common factor analysis”, Technology Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 315-319.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling”,
in Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum 241
Associates, London, pp. 295-336.
Chin, W.W. and Dibbern, J. (2010), “An introduction to a permutation based procedure for
multi-group PLS analysis: results of tests of differences on simulated data and a cross
cultural analysis of the sourcing of information system services between Germany and the
USA”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial
Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 171-193.
CIDB (2011), Buletin Statistik Pembinaan Suku Tahunan – 2011 (Construction Quarterly
Statistical Bulletin), Vol. Suku 3, CIDB, Kuala Lumpur.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis”, Practical Assessment Research
and Evaluation, Vol. 10 No. 7.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P. and Roth, K.P. (2008), “Advancing formative measurement
models”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 2008, pp. 1203-1218.
Disterer, G. (2002), “Management of project knowledge and experiences”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 512-520.
Egbu, C. (2006), “Knowledge production and capabilities – their importance and challenges for
construction organisations in China”, Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 304-321.
Emerson, R.M. (1976), “Social exchange theory”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2, pp. 335-362.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of Akron Press,
Akron, OH.
Fong, P.S.W. (2003), “Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams: an empirical study
of the processes and their dynamic interrelationships”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 21 No. 2003, pp. 479-486.
Fong, P.S.W. (2005), “Co-creation of knowledge by multidisciplinary project teams”,
in Love, P.E.D., Fong, P.S.W. and Irani, Z. (Eds), Management of Knowledge in Project
Environments, Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 41-56.
Fong, P.S.W. and Chu, L. (2006), “Exploratory study of knowledge sharing in contracting
companies: a sociotechnical perspective”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 132 No. 9, pp. 928-939.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurements error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Guenzi, P., Georges, L. and Pardo, C. (2009), “The impact of strategic account managers’
behaviors on relational outcomes: an empirical study”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 38 No. 2009, pp. 300-311.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Pearson Education, Harlow.
Henseler, J. (2010), “On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm”,
Computational Statistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-120.
CI Horn, J.L. (1965), “A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis”,
Psychometrika, Vol. 30, pp. 179-185.
14,2
Huemer, L. and Östergren, K. (2000), “Strategic change and organizational learning in two
‘Swedish’ construction firms”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 2000,
pp. 635-642.
Hulland, J., Ryan, M.J. and Rayner, R.K. (2010), “Modeling customer satisfaction: a comparative
242 performance evaluation of covariance structure analysis versus partial least squares”,
in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least
Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 307-324.
Ibert, O. (2004), “Projects and firms as discordant complements: organisational learning in the
Munich software ecology”, Research Policy, Vol. 33 No. 2004, pp. 1529-1546.
Issa, R.R.A. and Haddad, J. (2008), “Perceptions of the impacts of organizational culture and
information technology on knowledge sharing in construction”, Construction Innovation,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 182-201.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Wold, H. (1982), “The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent
variables: historical and comparative aspects”, in Jöreskog, K.G. and Wold, H. (Eds),
Systems Under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction, Vol. I,
North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 263-270.
Knauseder, I., Josephson, P.-E. and Styhre, A. (2003), “Learning capability in construction
projects: from the learning organisation to the learning project”, paper presented at the
CIB, W99 (Construction Project Management System: The Challenge of Integration),
São Paulo, Brazil.
Knauseder, I., Josephson, P.-E. and Styhre, A. (2007), “Learning approaches for housing, service
and infrastructure project organizations”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 25, August, pp. 857-867.
Koskela, L. (1992), Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction, CIFE Technical
Report 72, Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE), Stanford University,
Stanford, CA.
Kotnour, T. (1999), “A learning framework for project management”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 32-38.
Kotnour, T. (2000), “Organizational learning practices in the project management environment”,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17 Nos 4/5, pp. 393-406.
Kotnour, T. and Hjelm, M. (2002), “Leadership mechanisms for enabling learning within project
teams”, paper presented at the Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge,
Learning and Capabilities (OKLC 3), Athens, Greece.
Kululanga, G., Edum-Fotwe, F. and McCaffer, R. (2001), “Measuring construction contractors’
organizational learning”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 21-29.
Landaeta, R.E. (2008), “Evaluating benefits and challenges of knowledge transfer across
projects”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 29-38.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Love, P.E.D., Huang, J.C., Edwards, D.J. and Irani, Z. (2004), “Nurturing a learning organization in
construction: a focus on strategic shift, organizational transformation, customer
orientation and quality centered learning”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 4 No. 2004,
pp. 113-126.
Malhotra, N.K. (2003), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 4th ed., Pearson
Prentice-Hall, Delhi.
Malone, D. (2002), “Knowledge management: a model for organizational learning”, International Aspects of
Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Pergamon, No. 3, pp. 111-123.
project learning
Newcombe, R. (1996), “Empowering the construction project team”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-80. in construction
O’Connor, B.P. (2000), “SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components
using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test”, Behavior Research Methods,
Instrumentation, and Computers, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 396-402. 243
Packendroff, J. (1995), “Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project
management research”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 319-333.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 M3, Hamburg, available at: www.
smartpls.de
Roth, J., Florén, H. and Ingelgård, A. (2000), “Knowledge creation in the context of continuous
improvements”, paper presented at the EIASM, Cambridge.
Scarbrough, H., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L.F., Laurent, S., Newell, S. and Swan, J. (2004),
“The processes of project-based learning: an exploratory study”, Management Learning,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 491-506.
Sense, A.J. (2007), “Structuring the project environment for learning”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 2007, pp. 405-412.
Sosik, J.J., Kahai, S.S. and Piovoso, M.J. (2009), “Silver bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for
using the partial least squares data analytic technique in group and organization
research”, Group & Organization Management Decision, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 5-36.
Teerajetgul, W. and Charoenngam, C. (2006), “Factors inducing knowledge creation: empirical
evidence from Thai construction projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 584-599.
Tenenhaus, M. and Hanafi, M. (2010), “A bridge between PLS path modeling and multi-block
data analysis”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of
Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 99-123.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.-M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”,
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 2005, pp. 159-205.
Turel, O., Serenko, A. and Bontis, N. (2007), “User acceptance of wireless short messaging
services: deconstructing perceived value”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 63-73.
Turner, J. and Müller, R. (2003), “On the nature of the project as a temporary organization”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Vakola, M. and Rezgui, Y. (2000), “Organizational learning and innovation in the construction
industry”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 174-183.
Vilares, M.J., Almeida, M.H. and Coelho, P.S. (2010), “Comparison of likelihood and PLS
estimators for structural equation modeling: a simulation with customer satisfaction data”,
in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least
Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 289-305.
Vinzi, V.E., Trinchera, L. and Amato, S. (2010), “PLS path modeling: from foundations to recent
developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement”, in Vinzi, V.E.,
Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts,
Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 47-82.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
CI Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Oppen, C.V. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construction models: guidelines and empirical illustration”,
14,2 MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 177-195.
Williams, T. (2008), “How do organizations learn lessons from projects – and do they?”,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 248-266.
Wilson, B. and Henseler, J. (2007), “Modeling reflective higher-order constructs using three
244 approaches with PLS path modeling: a Monte Carlo comparison”, paper presented at the
Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference Department of Marketing,
School of Business, University of Otago.
Wong, P.S.P., Cheung, S.O. and Fan, K.L. (2009), “Examining the relationship between
organizational learning styles and project performance”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 135 No. 6, pp. 497-507.

About the authors

Dr Ali Mohammed Alashwal is currently a Lecturer at the Department of Quantity Surveying,
Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya. In fall 2012, Alashwal earned his PhD from
the University of Malaya in construction management and economics. He holds an MSc in
construction management from UTM, and BSc in architecture from Ibb University. He is an
Architect by profession and work in many consulting projects in Yemen, specifically for the
Social Fund for Development. His area of interest includes knowledge management,
organizational learning, risk management and innovation and technology in construction.
Ali Mohammed Alashwal is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: alialashwal@um.
edu.my
Professor Hamzah Abdul-Rahman is currently the CEO of International University of
Malaya-Wales. Previously, he was the Deputy Vice Chancellor of University of Malaya. He holds
a PhD degree from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST,
UK), MSc from University of Florida, and BSc (Hons) from Central Missouri State University.
His research interests are in quality and project management in construction. Besides being a
Fellow Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Professor Dr Hamzah has authored many
publications in international journals and conferences. His research interests include project
management, mitigation of delay in construction projects, risk management, quality
management and renewable energy.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints