Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs Abbott, C, Jones, VL, Sexton, MG and Lu, SL Title Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs Authors Abbott, C, Jones, VL, Sexton, MG and Lu, SL Type Article URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/18366/ Published Date 2007 USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for non-commercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected].
Transcript
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with
construction SMEsAbbott, C, Jones, VL, Sexton, MG and Lu, SL
Title Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
Authors Abbott, C, Jones, VL, Sexton, MG and Lu, SL
Type Article
URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/18366/
Published Date 2007
USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for noncommercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions.
For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, pleasecontact the Repository Team at: [email protected].
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
RICS Research paper seriesVolume 7 Number 16 October 2007
Research www.rics.org
Corporate Professional Local
Carl AbbottMartin Sexton
Veronica Jones Shu-Ling Lu
The University of SalfordUnited Kingdom
Carl Abbott is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Salford andManager of the EPSRC funded Salford Centre for Research & Innovationin the Built Environment (SCRI). Carl initially qualified as an electronicsdesign engineer with British Aerospace and was a lecturer in electronicsspecialising in Computer Aided Engineering. He changed career when hejoined the University of Salford in 1999 to research IT in construction.Since that time he has worked closely with industry in the region, helpingto establish the Centre for Construction Innovation where he was GeneralManager. Carl’s current research interests include innovation, offsitemanufacture, benchmarking, and ICT.
Professor Martin Sexton is an Associate Head in the School of the BuiltEnvironment at the University of Salford. His research interests focus oninnovation management in project-based organisations, changemanagement and knowledge management. Martin was a building surveyorin practice. He is the Joint Co-ordinator of the CIB Working Commissionin the Organisation and Management of Construction, with membershipfrom over 45 countries. Professor Sexton is currently engaged ininternational and nation funded projects to the value of over £2m, and haspublished over 150 journal and conference papers.
Veronica Jones is a Research Fellow in the School of Built Environmentat the University of Salford. She recently worked in the Revans Institute for Action Learning and Research at the University of Salford until March2005, managing various projects within business, NHS and localcommunity sectors. She is currently manager of the ConstructionKnowledge Exchange North West and the ERDF ConstructionPartnership. Veronica’s research interests and experiences are inorganisational and management development, using action learning,particularly within the SME sector. She is an experienced Action Learningfacilitator and evaluative researcher.
Doctor Shu-Ling Lu a senior researcher within the Research Institute ofthe Built and Human Environment at the University of Salford in the UK.She is the Joint Co-ordinator of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) Task Group 65 in theManagement of Small Construction Firms. Dr Lu’s main research areaincludes innovation management within small construction firms(particularly within knowledge-intensive professional service firms), genderissues in construction and academia-industry engagement. Dr Lu haspublished over 40 journal and conference papers.
Action learning as
an enabler for
successful
technology transfer
with construction
SMEs
Volume 7, Number 16
October 2007
Panel of referees
Kwame Addae-DapaahNational University of SingaporeSingapore
RICS12 Great George StreetLondon SW1P 3ADUnited Kingdom
The views expressed by the author(s) arenot necessarily those of RICS nor anybody connected with it. Neither theauthor(s), nor RICS accept any liabilityarising from the use of this publication.
This paper can be copied free of chargefor teaching and research purposes,provided that:
• the permission of RICS is sought inadvance
• the copies are not subsequently resold• RICS is acknowledged
Action learning as an enabler for
successful technology transfer with
construction SMEs
Carl Abbott , Martin Sexton , Veronica Jones and Shu-Ling Lu (University of Salford, United Kingdom)
Abstract
There is an increasing demand for construction companies to adopt and use new technologies. At the same timeuniversities are increasingly being called upon to assist with ‘technology transfer’ through positive engagement withindustry. However, there is little literature investigating technology transfer from the perspective of small constructioncompanies which make up the overwhelming majority of firms in the sector. This paper contributes to this developingarea by providing a literature review of technology transfer and proposing a holistic system required for success.Building upon this review it assesses the potential use of action learning as a means of providing this holistic solutionand, in so doing, promoting technology transfer and improving the links between higher education institutions (HEIs)and the construction industry. The assessment is made through a literature review of action learning in constructionand an analysis of results from the national Construction Knowledge Exchange (CKE) initiative which uses an actionlearning methodology to assist HEIs in supporting local construction small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Theinitial results show that this innovative approach, has been successful in creating synergies between academic andbusiness worlds, helping HEIs to communicate more effectively with businesses and vice versa. However, the resultsindicate that innovations which small construction companies tend to more successfully adopt are those which cancontribute to the business in a quick, tangible fashion, and which can be dovetailed into existing organisationalcapabilities. This is found to be in marked contrast to the relevant literature which depict large companies operatingin more complex networks, drawing upon them for new tacit and explicit technologies which support more long term,formal technology strategies, and which often complement some form of specialised internal research anddevelopment capability. The implication for policy is that any technology transfer initiatives need to appreciate andactively manage the different motivations and capabilities of small and large construction companies to absorb anduse new technology.
Contact:
Carl Abbott Professor Martin SextonSalford Centre for Research and Research Institute for the Built and Human EnvironmentInnovation in the Built Environment The University of SalfordThe University of Salford Maxwell Building Maxwell Building Salford M5 4WTSalford M5 4WT United KingdomUnited Kingdom
2.1 Inter-organisational networks 112.2 Organisational direction and capability 122.3 Knowledge characteristics of technology 132.4 Summary and implications 14
3 Action learning as a technology transfer 16
mechanism between HEIs and industry
3.1 Background to HEI-industry engagement 163.2 Action learning 173.3 What is action learning? 18
4 A comparison between action learning and 22
technology transfer
5 Lessons from the Construction 24
Knowledge Exchange Project
5.1 Action learning and Innovation Circles in the 24Construction Knowledge Exchange (CKE) project
5.2 Summary of results 27
6 Conclusions 30
References 34
RICS research paper series 40
mproving theperformance of the UKconstruction industrycontinues to be on theUK policy agenda. Aspart of this agendacompanies are
encouraged to make more and better use ofnew technologies. Technology transfer is akey element of any policy to encourageadoption of new technologies. Whilst it isrecognised that HEIs have a central role toplay in promoting technology transfer(Lambert, 2003), and some mechanisms existfor this, it is widely accepted in theconstruction sector that more could be done inthis regard (Fairclough, 2002).
There is a growing appreciation, that thenew technologies being advocated must meetthe needs of all sections of the industry,particularly the 95% or more of the companiesthat employ less than 25 staff (DTI, 2006).Furthermore policies to encourage theadoption of new technology must be coupledwith appropriate mechanisms to developawareness of the new technologies available,and to encourage and facilitate theirappropriate exploitation. As the next sectionshows, such a system should take a broadview of technology transfer encompassing adynamic, knowledge-based view of technologytransfer, taking into account individual andorganisational contexts such that thetechnology transfer process is conceptualisedas an integrated flow of knowledge. Amechanism that seeks to promote technologytransfer therefore needs to operate aknowledge-based approach centred at thecompany level which enables continuous,effective knowledge conversion and creation.
Having acknowledged the consensus thatcurrent mechanisms used by HEIs to assist inthis process leave room for improvement,innovative approaches to industry engagementshould be explored. Given the requiredemphasis on knowledge conversion andcreation for successful technology transfer,
action learning (Revans, 1982) is proposed asone mechanism through which HEIs couldassist construction SMEs with technologytransfer. Action learning is a well-used andwell-documented approach to management
1 Introduction
8 � RICS Research
I
The core idea behind
action learning is to
create small,
mutually supportive
groups or circles of
people who band
together to solve real
problems or
difficulties which are
not solved in current
best practice
education and development (Botham and Vick,1998; Mumford, 1985; Pedlar, 1996; Revans,1983). The core idea behind action learning isto create small, mutually supportive groups orcircles (known as SETs) of people who bandtogether to solve real problems or difficultieswhich are not solved in current best practice.
The aim of this paper is, therefore, toidentify those characteristics required for asuccessful technology transfer system and tocompare an action learning approach againstthese characteristics in order to make anassessment as to whether the practice ofaction learning matches the theoreticalrequirements for successful technologytransfer. This comparison is thencomplemented with lessons drawn fromprevious examples of the use of actionlearning in construction and the initial resultsfrom the Construction Knowledge Exchange(CKE, www.cke.org.uk). The CKE, is a projectbased at the University of Salford which hasused an action learning approach to bridge thegap between industry and academia and soassist construction SMEs to grow theircapacity for innovation. Following this, lessonslearnt from the project are presented. Finally,conclusions and recommendations for thefuture use of action learning to promotetechnology transfer are made.
RICS Research � 9www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
his section of the paperreviews existing literatureon technology transferand proposes a holistictechnology transfermechanism that requiresa wide range of factors
beyond technology to be taken into account toenable successful transfer to take place.These factors must all be taken account of ifbroker organisations such as HEIs are to meetthe needs of construction SMEs needs fortechnology transfer. The following section willtherefore examine the characteristics of actionlearning to determine whether it takes intoaccount these factors and, therefore, whetherit is a suitable method of supportingtechnology transfer.
There is no doubt that performanceimprovement can result from innovationabsorbed into companies through technologytransfer (DTI, 2002; Mitropoulos and Tatum,1999; DETR, 1998). For the constructionindustry the assumption is that ‘new’technology means new to the company ratherthan new per se (Sexton and Barrett, 2003, p.626; Thompson, 1965). However, the creationof effective mechanisms to aid technologytransfer requires a proper understanding oftechnology transfer processes. Theseprocesses are complex, varying with companycapabilities and processes, and the knowledgecharacteristics of the particular technologies. Awide view of technology transfer is thus taken,and is understood to be the “movement ofknow-how, technical knowledge, or technologyfrom one organizational setting to another”(Roessner in Bozeman, 2000, p. 629).Further, it takes a similarly broad view oftechnology, defining it as the know-how about
the transformation (Wilson, 1986) ofoperational technologies and processes;material technologies; and knowledgetechnologies (Hickson et al., 1969). To beeffective the transfer itself must be bothappropriate to user needs (Klien and Crandell,1991) and associated tacit knowledge (Teece,1977; Howells, 1996). Further, the emphasison the embodied knowledge associated with atechnology is changing the perspective fromthat of technology transfer to a wider view ofknowledge transfer (Cowen et al., 2001;Amesse, 2001; Gilbert and Cordeyhayes,1996). This is a perspective that is very muchin line with current thinking that economicgrowth and productivity is driven by knowledge(for example, see EC, 2004; DTI, 2003), andthat exploitation of knowledge will increasinglybe the key source of competitiveness andclient satisfaction in the future (for example,see Raich, 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal,1998).
The design and operation of a technologytransfer system should be dependent upon itsintended audience – what is suitable fortechnology transfer with large constructioncompanies may be unsuitable for smallconstruction companies. Large and smallconstruction companies vary considerably andso does the work they do (Lu and Sexton,2006; Sexton and Barrett, 2003). The 95%of construction organisations employing lessthan 25 people will certainly have a muchreduced managerial capability in comparisonto the few large and sophisticatedorganisations. Solutions for one side of thisdivide are unlikely to work successfully for theother side. In addition current approaches totechnology transfer suffer from the followingfailings (Sexton et al., 2006):
2 Technology transfer
10 � RICS Research
T
� Technology transfer mechanisms oftenhave a linear push approach – identifyingnew technologies, and pushing them intheir existing form into constructioncompanies regardless of need (Barrettand Sexton, 1999).
� Current technology transfer mechanismsdo not fully take account of companyorganisational capabilities and processesnecessary to enable them to successfullyabsorb and apply technologies.Experience from the manufacturingsector has shown that this is an importantrequirement (Adler and Shenhar, 1993).
� There is too much of a focus ontechnology in current technology transfermechanisms. Such an approach does notfully take account of the associatedknowledge characteristics of thetechnology in question (Grant andGregory, 1997). ‘Hard’ technologieswhich are characterised by explicitknowledge require very different diffusionmechanisms, organisational capabilitiesand processes than those required for‘soft’ technologies which are tacit innature.
Successful technology transfer is thereforelikely to be dependent on all of the above andso an effective ‘technology transfer system’will be dynamic, working with inter-organisational networks, taking into accountorganisational direction and capability, and theknowledge characteristics of the particulartechnology. This view of technology transferis consistent with the move away fromsequential models of innovation andtechnology transfer (Van de Ven et al., 1999).Such an approach views technology transfer
not as a simple sequence of phases, rather asa multiple progression of divergent, paralleland convergent paths, some of which arerelated and cumulative, and others not.Viewed in this light technology transfer willonly be effective if all three elements areappropriately focussed and integrated toachieve a specific aim.
The three elements of the ‘technologytransfer system’ are now discussed in moredetail, with a particular focus on addressingthe unique characteristics of smallconstruction companies and their markets.
2.1 Inter-organisational networks
There are many examples that show thatinter-organisational networks assist thedevelopment and exchange of knowledge andresources needed to encourage learning andinnovation in participating companies (Barlowand Jashapara, 1998; Ebers, 1997; Grandoriand Soda, 1995). Indeed, it has been arguedthat the greater the number of networks that acompany is involved in, the greater thelikelihood of generating successful innovation(for example, see Ahuja, 2000; Porter, 1990;Pittaway et al 2004). The need for smallconstruction companies to be appropriatelyinvolved in such inter-organisational networksis thus especially important, as they often donot have the knowledge and resourcesneeded to develop innovations on their own.
There are two main types of inter-organisational network. First, companies arenaturally part of ‘business networks’ throughtheir normal dealings with their clients andsupply chains. These networks can encourageinnovation when the companies involved areable to share needed expertise and resources(Bresnen and Marshall, 2000a,b,c; Hauschlidt,
RICS Research � 11www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
1992). Indeed, successful demand ledinnovation is often created in this way. The innovation process is therefore in part a knowledge and technology mobilisationprocess, based on intensive social andeconomic interaction processes (Hakansson,1987). In the case of small constructioncompanies, research has emphasised that thestructural characteristics of the UKconstruction industry can restrict large-scaleinnovation and technology transfer, and thatthe capacity of small construction companiesto innovate is limited where they are unable toform long-term relationships with othercompanies (Miozzo and Dewick, 2004; Miozzoand Ivory, 1998). Secondly, companiesengage with, to various degrees, ‘institutionalnetworks’, such as educational institutions,government bodies, research institutions andprofessional associations. Such networks arepotentially useful in providing companies withthe knowledge and expertise needed forinnovation (for example, see Abbott et al.,2004; Hauschlidt, 1992). Professionalassociations, for example, disseminate aparticular body of knowledge to industry viatheir members, and thus act as vehicles forthe diffusion and translation of knowledgeneeded for innovation (Constrinnonet, 2004;Allen, 1977). A notable example of co-operative inter-organisational networks in theconstruction industry is provided by the growthof Constructing Excellence Clubs in the UK(Abbott and Jones, 2005). These clubsincorporate the full range of organisations in theconstruction supply chain in a mutually supportiveand learning environment. This would seem toindicate a desire for learning from peers in amanner not catered for by professionalorganisations and educational institutions.
Clearly then inter-organisational networksare an important factor for innovation andlearning and so any mechanism seeking topromote technology transfer should takeaccount of this and seek to work with andstrengthen existing networks to promotetechnology transfer.
2.2 Organisational direction and
capability
The motivation and ability of small companiesto absorb and exploit new technologies aredependent on their business strategies andorganisational capabilities. These strategiesand capabilities vary from firm to firm so,corresponding, the motivation and ability toabsorb and exploit new technologies vary.Whilst a low number of small constructioncompanies will consciously be at the leadingedge of technology most small companies willfollow technology (using it, rather thandeveloping it), with a mixed range of internalskills; while other small companies, particularlyin labour-intensive industrial sectors, arerelatively indifferent to technology. Overall,however, and even among sometechnologically advanced small companies,there are often considerable barriers whichslow the absorption and use of newtechnologies, especially when compared withlarger construction companies. There aremany reasons for these problems. Managersof smaller companies list problems of time,cost and technical expertise, process control,management methods, or training as barriersto adoption of technology. Even whenexternal information sources may be present,companies do not always know where to go,who can help, and whom to trust (Hassink,1996).
12 � RICS Research
In addition to these factors, smallcompanies need the organisational capabilityto absorb and use new technology. Thiscapability is influenced by the level of prior-related knowledge and expertise that exist inthe organisation (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990).Therefore, adequate complementarycapabilities (for example, see Bröchner et al.,2004; Adler and Shenhar, 1993) arenecessary for companies to accomplish manyof their key strategic and operational goals fortechnology transfer.
This desire and ability of firms to absorband use new technology are very muchshaped by their general business and projectenvironments. Research in innovation in smallconstruction companies, for example,concludes that there are two principal modesof innovation: Mode 1 and Mode 2. (Sextonand Barrett, 2003). Mode 1 innovationfocuses on progressing single project, cost-orientated relationships between the client andthe firm – this mode of innovation is moredriven by rapid change and uncertainty in thebusiness environment. Mode 2 innovationconcentrates on progressing multiple project,value-orientated relationships between theclient and the firm – this mode of innovation ismore aligned to improving the effectiveness ofa firm’s relationship with its clients.
The mode of innovation is substantiallydetermined by the nature of the organisation’sbusiness environment. An enabling interactionenvironment encourages Mode 2 innovationand a constraining environment is conduciveto Mode 1 innovation. An enablingenvironment is one which the firm caninfluence to a significant extent, so enablingthe firm to innovate within a longer term andmore secure context. A constraining
environment is one which a small constructionfirm can only influence to a limited extent,constraining the firm to innovation activityundertaken within a shorter and more insecurecontext.
The strategic horizons and organisationalcapabilities of small companies, particularlythose working within constrained businessenvironments, are very distinct from large,sophisticated companies with, for example,sufficient “organisational slack” or excessresources (Cyert and March, 1963) to be ableto support risk-taking and experimentationintrinsic to innovation activity alongside theirmain business activities, and which are morelikely to be exposed to a variety of externalstimuli. The absence of slack in smallconstruction companies, therefore, has foundto be detrimental to innovation (Sexton andBarrett, 2003)
This sub-section has shown thatconstruction SMEs have differentcharacteristics and needs from largeconstruction organisations. Furthermore theirown ability to absorb innovation will vary widelyaccording to their business situation and theirown organisational capabilities. Accordingly asuccessful technology transfer mechanism willneed to be flexible and able to respond tocompany need rather than simply provide atechnology push.
2.3 Knowledge characteristics of
technology
For successful adoption, the technologytogether with the knowledge of its use andapplication must be transferred and developed(for example, see Sahal, 1981). The extent towhich new technology can be effectivelyabsorbed is therefore substantially influenced
RICS Research � 13www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
by the knowledge required to use and adoptthe technology being transferred. Twocharacteristics are especially important. Thefirst is the extent to which the knowledgeembodied in the technology is explicit or tacit.Explicit knowledge is systematic and easilycommunicated in the form of hard data orwritten procedures. Tacit knowledge is hard toformalise. It is difficult to communicate orshare with others as it involves intangiblefactors embedded in personal experience,judgements and values. Often there will be astrong tacit dimension with how to use orimplement explicit knowledge (for example,see Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Thesecond characteristic is complexity. Whetherbased on explicit or tacit knowledge, sometechnologies are just more complex thanothers. The more complex a technology, themore difficult it is to unravel and apply (Gibsonand Smilor, 1991).
The key challenge of technology transfer,from a knowledge-based perspective, is howto convert tacit knowledge to/from explicitknowledge, so that it is usefully absorbed byconstruction companies. This interactionbetween tacit and explicit knowledge can befruitfully considered as a process ofknowledge conversion and creation. Thereare four key modes of knowledge conversion(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995):
� Socialisation – the sharing of experiencessuch that tacit knowledge embodiedwithin a technology is passed betweenindividuals, from individuals to thecompany through the development ofculture and shared mental models, andfrom the company to individuals.
� Externalisation – the conversion of tacit
into explicit knowledge about atechnology through its articulation andsystemisation within the company.
� Combination – the conversion of explicitknowledge held by individuals into explicitknowledge at the company level, thensubsequent conversion of organisationalknowledge back to the individual indifferent forms.
� Internalisation – the conversion of explicitknowledge, whether at the individual levelor company level into tacit knowledge inthe form of individual know-how andorganisational routines.
In summary, successful technology transferneeds to take account of the nature of theassociated knowledge and in particular itscomplexity and the balance between explicitand tacit knowledge. The knowledgeconversion concept argues that technologytransfer is a social process of interactivelearning within and between inter-organisational networks, from which a sharedlanguage of tacit and explicit knowledge canbe developed.
2.4 Summary and implications
For a technology transfer mechanism to beappropriate for small construction companies itmust provide a stimulating context such thatthe companies themselves are motivated tomove towards the adoption and use ofappropriate new technologies. This, in turn, islikely to be dependent on a combination oftheir own capabilities and their businessenvironment. For small companies to movevery far they must work with their networkpartners. Technology transfer brokers have arole through networks to feed a company
14 � RICS Research
technology pull up to a point, but smallconstruction companies must then have thenecessary strategic direction andorganisational capabilities to absorbappropriate technologies and turn them intoinnovations by driving them out into theirnetworks.
www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
RICS Research � 15
For small companies to move
very far they must work with
their network partners “ “
3.1 Background to HEI-industry
engagement
As has been identified above there aremultiple factors required for the developmentof an appropriate technology transfermechanism. The question can be asked, whatis the appropriate role of HEIs within such amechanism? Given the importance ofknowledge and networks in such amechanism it is appropriate to think of HEIs interms not only of technology development butas co-developers of knowledge and anintegral part of companies wider inter-organisational networks. However for HEIsand small construction companies to worksuccessfully in this way they must change therelationship which normally exists betweenindustry and universities. Although there is along history of many forms of collaboration itis still far from the norm to strategically anddeliberately seek relations that will permit thetransfer of technology, co-development ofknowledge and diffusion of innovations.
3.1.1 Multiple Forms of EngagementIn seeking to develop an appropriateengagement mechanism between HEIs andindustry it is useful to firstly review existingmodels. Engagement between industry andhigher education institutes (HEIs) currentlytakes a number of different forms. Each onemay be driven by different purposes,objectives and ultimately, outcomes. There isan increasing amount, and many differenttypes of engagement that occur whichfacilitates knowledge transfer between thehigher education sector and industry. From aUK perspective, types of engagementidentified (Lambert, 2003) include:
� personal contacts and staff exchangessuch as visiting professors/guestlecturers or industry secondments;
� business support and consultancy;� collaborative and contract research; and,� establishment of joint ventures, licensing
agreements and spinout companies
Most academics are engaged in teachingand/or research, but does this meet the needsof technology transfer? An interesting industrybased model for knowledge transfer isprovided by an executive director of Hewlett-Packard (Johnson, 2003) who proposes thatin an economy where the last remainingsource of competitive advantage is thedevelopment and implementation of newknowledge, companies should develop a‘knowledge supply chain’ just as they are usedto developing conventional supply chains. Thisconclusion, which resonates with thepreviously described importance of inter-organisational networks, is illustrated in Figure1 below.
3 Action learning as a technology
transfer mechanism between
HEIs and industry
16 � RICS Research
The aims of the Lambert Report and theHP Model are laudable but before HEIs canstart to engage meaningfully and take theirplaces in these knowledge supply chains theymust first begin to understand the needs,motivations and abilities of the companies thatthey want to engage with. The companiesmust also be clear as to what they can expectfrom universities. In other words, a commonunderstanding must be developed. The HPModel is notable as it shows that in order todo this, there must be a continuous flow ofinformation and knowledge up and down thesupply chain. Looked at from this perspectivethe model is far from linear, and as knowledgeflows up and down the knowledge supplychain, no one party should be considered asTHE expert, rather all are all experts in theirown fields. For this flow of information andideas to take place, it has been proposed that
interaction needs to be facilitated throughbrokerage (Abbott and Allen, 2005). Actionlearning as described in the next section isoffered as a fruitful brokerage mechanism.
3.2 Action learning
A holistic view of technology transfer has beenproposed, and that HEIs need to examinedifferent engagement mechanisms to take thisinto account in order to assist with technologytransfer. This section outlines the principles ofaction learning as one mechanism that canassist in this process. Results from theConstruction Knowledge Exchange (CKE)initiative which has successfully used anaction learning methodology to brokerengagement between HEIs and constructionSMEs to assist them to develop their capacityfor innovation are used to compare practicalresults with the literature and hence draw
RICS Research � 17www.rics.org/research
Creating or
discovering new
knowledge
Making
knowledge
transferable
Tacit to explicit
Transferring
knowledge
Documentationand people
Applying
knowledge
Continuous flow of information and knowledge
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
Knowledge Supply chain Useable Knowledge
Figure 1. University Relations: the HP Model
conclusions and make recommendations forthe use of action learning to promotesuccessful technology transfer.
3.3 What is action learning?
Action learning is a method of problem solvingand learning in order to bring about changefor individuals and their organisations. It wasdeveloped by Reg Revans (Revans, 1982),who described it as:
“a means of development, intellectual,emotional or physical, that requires itssubject, through responsible involvement insome real, complex and stressful problem,to achieve intended change sufficient toimprove his observable behaviourhenceforth in the problem field. ‘Learning-by-Doing’ may be, perhaps, a simplerdescription of this process.”
It was Revans’ belief that managers learnbest from each other, working on real issues.Members work together in small groups (sets)of between six and eight people, discussingimportant organisational problems or issues.Importantly, they take action and learn fromthe effects of these actions in both asupportive and challenging way. Research andactivity conducted at the University of Salfordhas shown that action learning has greatrelevance to very broad fields of practice andprofessions. It embraces the notion thatprofessional people learn best when they arecompelled to face and solve real problems anddevelop ideas in the company of like-mindedpeople who are also trying to resolve their ownsimilar issues. Pedler (1996) says that:
“Working in small groups, people tackleimportant organisational issues or problemsand learn from their attempts to changethis…where each person presents their‘status report’ or current understanding oftheir problem, whilst other members listen,express support, make suggestions, butabove all pose questions. This may lead toquestions which the person may not haveconsidered for themselves. The aim is tofind those questions which lead to theperson questioning themselves. When thishappens it is a process which can lead toquestioning insight.”
Action learning can be viewed as apowerful triangulation of three distinguishablelearning experiences, which lend themselvesto critical monitoring and evaluation. Thesethree angles of learning in action learningwere described by Botham and Morris asWork, Set and Information. At the centre of allthis was the constant need for monitoring andevaluation. See Figure 2.
18 � RICS Research
RICS Research � 19www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
Figure 2. Botham & Morris Learning Triangle
The first angle is a focus on the learningexperience from work. It is recognised andsustained as how the individual observes andrecords his or her own actions and
experiences gained from the actions of othersengaged in a work setting. The second anglefocuses on the learning experienced fromparticipating in an action learning set. Again,the experience is carefully monitored byobservation and recording. As the set
challenges and questions the learningexperience gained from work and the set, thefocus is increased. The third angle is a focuson learning gained from information such as
books, papers, courses, seminars, workshops,or whatever the individual believes is informinghis or her mind.
The precise activity involved in actionlearning can vary with the context. However,the key features that comprise the activity
20 � RICS Research
involved in action learning are shown in arecent study conducted within the highereducation sector as being (Pedler et al.,2005):
1. Sets of about 6 people2. Action on real tasks or problems at work3. Learning is from reflection on actions
taken4. Tasks/problems are individual rather than
collective5. Tasks/problems are chosen independently
by individuals6. Questioning as the main way to help
participants proceed with their tasks/ problems
7. Part of an existing programme8. Facilitators are used
The following section compares thesecharacteristics with the theoreticalcharacteristics identified as being necessaryfor successful technology transfer.
RICS Research � 21www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
n order to predict ifaction learning can be auseful approach fortechnology transfer it isuseful to compare thetheoretical requirementsthat have been
identified in Section 2 as necessary forsuccessful technology transfer with thecharacteristics of action learning. Therequirements for technology transfer havebeen characterised as taking account of:
� Organisational direction and capability� Inter-organisational networks� Knowledge characteristics of the
technology
Whereas action learning is characterised inthe Botham-Morris learning triangle as acombination of:� Work� Set� Information
There is clearly a strong resemblancebetween these characteristics. The table belowtakes this comparison further.
The table below would seem to indicate astriking relationship between the requirementsof a successful technology transfer strategyand the support offered by action learning.Just as the balance between organisationaldirection, inter-organisational networks andknowledge characteristics would vary
4 A comparison between action
learning and technology
transfer
22 � RICS Research
I
Technology transfer Action learning
Organisational direction and capability. Themotivation and ability of small companies toabsorb and innovate from new technologies aredependent on business strategies andorganisational capabilities.
Work. Actions taken from the set are always placed in anorganisational context through their application in a worksetting. The organisational context is recognised and sustainedas the individual observes and records his or her own actionsand experiences gained from the actions in the work setting.
Inter-organisational networks assist thedevelopment and exchange of knowledge andresources needed to encourage learning andinnovation in participating companies.
The Set. The Action Learning set provides its own network, sothat the learning experience is enhanced through participationin the set. The composition of the set is therefore veryimportant. The set could be drawn from an organisation’sbusiness network, its institutional network or consist oforganisations that are initially from outside of either.
Knowledge characteristics of technology. Theextent to which new technology can be effectivelyabsorbed is therefore substantially influenced bythe knowledge required to use and adopt thetechnology being transferred.
Information. The third angle of action learning is a focus onlearning gained from information such as books, papers,courses, seminars, workshops, etc. This angle has a clearrelationship with the knowledge characteristics of a particulartechnology.
dependent on the nature of the technology sotoo could the balance between work, set andinformation in an action learning setting. Inorder to further test this proposition the nextsection examines the workings andcharacteristics of a group of action learningsets created and facilitated by the Universityof Salford in the Northwest of England.
www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
RICS Research � 23
any researchprogrammes have beenconducted involvingaction learning setswithin businesses,particularly within SMEgroups. However, their
use in construction has been limited. Previousexamples of action learning in constructioninclude:
� Innovation and Culture Change within aMedium-Sized Construction Company:Success through the Process of ActionLearning– This was a programme whichwas funded by the ESPRC InnovativeManufacturing Initiative, the ADAPTprogramme of the ESF and GeorgeHarding Limited, Bournemouth. Here,action learning was used to help promoteinnovation and culture change within amedium sized construction company(Davey et al, 2004).
� CIOB Funded Action Learning Sets in theConstruction Sector – As part of the UKconstruction industry’s drive to improvelearning and performance. This projectinvolved four action learning sets from theSME sector of the construction industry.One set member commented that actionlearning had taught him (Davey et al.,2004):
“a very different way of thinking aboutrelating to people. It’s very difficult to explainto outsiders, but action learning sets arevery strange. There are no formal rules.There is no hierarchy. No agenda. You don’thave a chairman. And, to begin with, this is
difficult to cope with, especially giving peoplespace to talk. Action learning helps you doyour job better because it helps you relate topeople in a much less formal way.”
� Action Learning for Construction in PortoAlegre, Brazil – Formoso, Lantelme andHirota’s research into action learningamongst construction workers in Brazilhelped develop managers’ competencewith respect to innovation for wealthcreation in construction. Asking the rightkind of “penetrating questions” wasrecognised by set members here as beingthe key to unlocking better workingpractices for innovative and constructivechange (Formoso, et al, 2004)
Building upon these successful experiencesof action learning within business settings, itwas decided that this would be the mosteffective way to progress small learning groupswithin the Construction Knowledge Exchangeproject.
5.1 Action learning and Innovation
Circles in the Construction
Knowledge Exchange (CKE)
project
The University of Salford was successful in itsbid for a Construction Knowledge Exchange inAugust 2004. This is one of 22 nationalknowledge exchanges that have been createdby the UK Higher Education Funding Councilacross a range of disciplines. The project hasthe aim of promoting knowledge exchangebetween industry and universities in the UKconstruction industry and aims to promote andenhance engagement in activities that establishindustry needs, capture and share knowledge
5 Lessons from the Construction
Knowledge Exchange Project
24 � RICS Research
M
and build capacity and resource throughenabled networks and links that reach out toall levels of business and higher education. Inorder to achieve this aim working with existingnetworks and linking them to the activities ofregional universities is a priority.
A primary mechanism for the CKE is the
Action Learning through an approach entitledInnovation Circles – the term coined todescribe action learning sets or groupsdedicated to improving innovationperformance. From the outset the CKEapproach was to use Innovation Circles toassist local SMEs by offering additionalsupport to existing institutional networks
rather than to try to create new networks. Forexample, there had been a long standingcollaboration between the University of Salfordand local Constructing Excellence Clubs(Abbott and Jones, 2005). The clubs providedan opportunity to test the Innovation Circleapproach. The University of Salford, as part ofthe CKE Project, set up Innovation Circles as
a natural progression to help businesses andacademics work together in a moremeaningful way and to focus individualmembers in small groups using an actionlearning methodology. The Innovation Circlestherefore provided an opportunity for clubmembers to develop a step further and worktogether in a focussed way, forming deeper
RICS Research � 25www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
The Innovation
Circles therefore
provided an
opportunity for club
members to develop
a step further and
work together in a
focussed way
““
relationships and to learn more aboutindividual working practices. The groups arefacilitated by experienced action learningfacilitators and have emerged as energeticforces focussing on real life problems andissues within the construction industry. Theresults suggest that action learning worksparticularly well in SME groups as participantsfeel that they are learning with and from theirpeers. The key is that set members worktogether on their issues or problems, takeaction on them and reflect on the learningfrom taking these actions. The facilitator playsa key role in monitoring the agreed actions.Members have a sense of accountability to theset to take action and report back to the set atthe next meeting. This is consistent with theprinciples of Action learning which is based onthe premise that (Pedler, 1996):
“There can be no learning without actionand no (sober and deliberate) action withoutlearning.”
The Innovation Circles created through theCKE promote the development of inter-organisational networks. Initially, the InnovationCircles were established with companies thatwere already members of an ‘institutionalnetwork’ in the form of ConstructingExcellence clubs. Nevertheless, once theInnovation Circles were set up, membersneeded to get to know each other and discussissues which were important to them and theirbusinesses. This process also takes time toevolve, as members need to gain confidencebefore disclosing to others, details about theirbusinesses. The facilitator plays an importantrole in the formation and smooth running ofthe sets, particularly in the running of these
business groups, if the facilitator is also anexperienced business practitioner. This helps“broker” communications between businessesand academia and goes a long way toestablishing the vital links necessary whentrying to promote dialogue and researchbetween industry and universities.
The Innovation Circles have been very wellreceived. Overall 23 Innovation Circles havebeen created in the region with theinvolvement of 169 construction SMEs. Theaction based focus of the Innovation Circleoffers a new dimension from the normalevents and assistance offered by partnerorganisations. Examples of the benefits thatmembers feel they are receiving from theirinvolvement include:
“It has taken me away from the day-to dayjob and made me think more about how dothings better – It has really been worthwhiletaking 2/3 hours out for each of thesemeetings and I am determined to continuewith this time out to get things done.”Managing Director, Small ContractingCompany
“It worked for me at a practical level andcame at just the right time with my job roleof training planning, helping me to moveforward with the company training plan.”Senior Manager, Small ContractingCompany
“Small is better – you feel more at ease toask questions relevant to us as aconstruction business.” Company Secretary,Small Contracting Company
26 � RICS Research
Innovation Circles with universities networkpartners have gone from strength to strengthwith all areas of the North West of Englandbeing included in Innovation Circle activities.After initial groups were created withConstructing Excellence clubs further groupswere jointly created with the ConstructionIndustry Training Board (CITB, nowConstructionSkills). These groups have incommon the fact that members are broughttogether by the CITB with an agreed goal inmind – either the completion of a training planor the gaining of Investors in People status.Members work together to deal with theimplementation issues and the circles haveproved to be extremely useful in this regard.
Three of the Innovation Circles created are‘Women in Construction’ Groups which havealso progressed well. These Circles deal withgeneral business issues of concern to theindividual group members. Examples of issuesraised and solved within these Cicles includethe construction industry taxation scheme forsub-contractors, dealing with absenteeism andrecruitment. These groups have a commonfactor of bringing together women from middleand senior roles within construction SMEs. Tothis extent they share a common bond and acommon goal of business improvement. Thatbeing said the nature and scope of thisimprovement is not limited.
Three of the Circles have dealt with issuesrelating to technology and its implementation.These were an Intelligent Buildings group; anadvanced CAD group and a Modern Methodsof Construction (MMC) in Housing group. Thefirst two groups held very effective initialmeetings which led to further action betweenindividuals that had been brought together bythe group. However, no further meetings of
the group were held. The MMC group is anextension of a major private house buildersR&D group and as such has continued tomeet monthly for 18 months. This group isinvolved with the build of a series of innovativehomes using the latest constructiontechnologies with an emphasis onsustainability. It has kept its focus as a resultof the project and at different stages of theproject the composition of the group hasvaried. Additional work for the University(production of factsheets for each of the 40plus innovations in the homes and VRmodelling of the houses) has accrued and sothe group has been successful at bridging thegap between the university and industry.
Examples of discussions within theInnovation Circles include generics issuessuch as recruitment, marketing, employmentcontract law and appraisals systems, alongwith the more construction specific topicssuch as partnering, off site manufacturing andlean construction.
5.2 Summary of results
Flexibility has been an essential element inhelping businesses come together inInnovation Circles. This has meant that theuniversity has accommodated networkpartners’ needs by offering additional supportto existing members. For individual groupmembers “time is money” so it has beenimportant to accommodate both location andsuitable meeting times to ensure maximumattendance at meetings. Project evaluationreports reveal that thus far, the concept andprinciples of Innovation Circles has been wellreceived throughout the North West and hasprovided a means for all partners involved inthe construction sector to work together in
RICS Research � 27www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
small groups in a more focused way. Actionlearning has provided an excellent means bywhich these groups are run and ensures thataction is taken on issues and problems raisedby set members and continuous learningbecomes a natural part of professionaldevelopment and business improvement. Byworking in this way the university sector hasbeen able to begin to work in response to apull from industry rather than the traditionalpush mode and this would seem to enable theflow of ideas up and down the knowledgesupply chain.
28 � RICS Research
www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
...continuous
learning
becomes a
natural part of
professional
development
and business
improvement
RICS Research � 29
““
n drawing lessons forhow the method couldbe used to encouragetechnology transfer itis useful to reflect onthe types of groupsthat evaluations have
shown have proved particularly successful. Thefirst category of groups are those that havecome together with each individual havingalready decided to take a common action.These groups therefore are concerned witheffective implementation of a chosen solutionrather than determining the appropriatesolution. Group members share theirexperiences on what has and has not beensuccessful which proves to be invaluable.
Furthermore the group provides a mutuallysupportive environment, a concept referred toas ‘partners in adversity’ (Revans, 1983) andfurther detailed in a construction environmentby Davey et al (2004), which provides theencouragement and support to see a taskthrough to the end. In technology terms therewould seem to be many opportunities wherethis approach could prove useful primarilywhere there is a low complexity of requiredknowledge but a large degree of benefit thatcould come from socialisation andinternalisation of tacit knowledge. Or, inBotham and Moriss’s terms an emphasis onthe work and set sides of the learning trianglerather than the information side. Suggestedexamples of this include ‘effective electroniccommunication’, ‘making the most of awebsite’, ‘improving onsite efficiency’.
The second type of successful group isthat where the individual members share acommon bond or interest whilst notnecessarily solving a common problem. If that
common interest is of a technical or functionalnature (e.g. responsibility for IT within anorganisation) then the group is likely to beable to work in areas that require a highercomplexity of knowledge drawing uponexternalisation and combination and makingmore use of the information side of thelearning triangle. Here issues relating to theintroduction of new technologies into anorganisation could usefully be tackled.Suggested topics that individuals within agroup could tackle include adoption ofwireless communication, IP telephony, onsitecommunications.
The third group where there has beensuccess is that which is dealing with projectspecific issues. The MMC group for examplecame together in this way. This group differsfrom the previous two in that it is led by onepartner who has involved different members ofits supply chain at different phases of theproject. Here there is a strong incentive forparticipation by supply chain members toensure future work and by employees of thelead company as the project is around a keyfuture development for the organisation of thecompany. This has proven to be a highlyeffective group at generating a large numberof innovations. When complex knowledge andinformation has been required external‘experts’ have been brought into the group todetermine action and retained within the groupduring implementation. This has proved a goodmeans at developing an external knowledgesupply chain for a company that has had littleinternal experience of the technologies inquestion. Here it is important to repeat thatthis is a company led initiative within which theuniversity has become involved as one of theexternal experts. Such a group is unlikely to be
6 Conclusions
30 � RICS Research
I
formed as a result of a university push ratherthe university side has had to be able torespond to company need. Further it is worthnoting that this has only been possiblebecause of the HEIF funding through theCKE and would have been very hard toachieve through conventional teaching orresearch funding.
The success of the Innovation Circleapproach is, of course, predicated on itsappropriate design and operation. Drawingupon results reported elsewhere (Lu, et al.,2007), potential problem areas andcorresponding strategies to overcome them,can be structured into context, content andprocess considerations.
� Context: There is a need for ‘up front’relationship building activities withmanagers/owners of SMEs to developtheir initial awareness of the benefits ofacademic-industry engagement through,in this case, Innovation Circles. Thismarketing phase is essential to forge anattractive, strong foundation from whichto build meaningful engagement.
� Content: There is a need for the academicteam to listen carefully to industry to formsets composed of participants whichshare similar business problems. This willfoster collective motivation and capabilityto share information, lessons and solutionto effect change in participants’ firms.Further external information fed into thesets should explicitly address the problemarea in a tangible and accessible fashion.
� Process: First, the action learningfacilitator should have appropriateknowledge and experience for a givenInnovation Circle. The facilitator plays animportant role in the formation andsmooth running of the Innovation Circlesand it helps, particularly in the running ofthese action learning sets, if the facilitatoris also an experienced businesspractitioner. This helps “broker”communications between businesses andacademia and goes a long way toestablishing the vital links necessarywhen trying to promote dialogue andresearch between industry anduniversities. The research findings alsorevealed that most of Innovation Circleshad four to five planned meetings, eachtook place every 3-4 weeks and lasting2-3 hours. The first “taster” meetingneeds to explain the purpose of the groupand introduce the members to each other.In the second meeting, the group needsto initially discuss the actions from thefirst group before moving on to a groupdiscussion about how the sets chosenproblem area affects their businesses.This process takes time to evolve, asmembers need to gain confidence beforedisclosing details about their businessesto others. The third meeting should focuson what the group members have interms of skills and what they need,identifying any skills gaps. Externaladviser on-site visit might be arranged ifneeded in the forth meeting. Forexample, a scheduled visit from a CITB-ConstructionSkills training adviser was tohelp the companies with the completionof their plan. The fifth meeting is a
RICS Research � 31www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
closing session. A number of theinnovation circles are still continuing aftera period of twelve months. Second, thefacilitator needs to explain thedeliverables which must be achieved tosatisfy the academic partners’requirements. There is a critical need,therefore, for benefits to follow to bothpractitioner and academic participantsalike.
In conclusion, the action learning approachhas proven to have the potential (if properlydesigned and implemented) to be an effectivemechanism for brokering engagementbetween university and industry. It has beensuccessful in particular aspects that arerequired for successful technology transfer. Itsupports the need for inter-organisationalnetworks and is also successful in respondingto the organisational direction and capability ofthe participating companies. The InnovationCircles themselves have to be flexible enoughto respond to these needs. For the future it islikely that different types of Circles would beappropriate to different types of technologytransfer. Of particular importance in this regardis the complexity of associated knowledgerequired for successful implementation.
32 � RICS Research
RICS Research � 33www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
Abbott, C. and Allen, S. (2005) FacilitatingInnovation: The role of the Centre forConstruction Innovation. International Journalof Strategic Property Management, 9, 2, 79-89.
Abbott, C. and Jones, V. (2005) The use ofaction learning as part of a national innovationstrategy. Proceedings of CIB W89International Conference on BuildingEducation & Research (Bear), Hong Kong, 10-13 April
Abbott, C., Ong, H.C. and Swan, W. (2004) Aregional model for innovation and culturalchange in the construction industry.Proceedings of Clients Driving InnovationInternational Conference Surfers Paradise,Australia, 25th – 27th October.
Adler, P.S. and Shenhar, A. (1993) Adaptingyour technological base: the organizationalchallenge. Sloan Management Review, 32, 25-37.
Ahuja, G. (2000) Collaborative networks,structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinalcase study. Administrative Science Quarterly,45, 425-455.
Allen, T.J. (1977) Managing the Flow ofTechnology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Amesse, R. (2001) Technology transferrevisited from the perspective of theknowledge-based economy. Research Policy,30, 1459-1478.
Barlow, J. and Jashapara, A. (1998)Organisational learning and inter-firmpartnering in the UK construction industry.Learning Organisation, 5, 86-98.
Barrett, P. and Sexton, M.G. (1999) Thetransformation of ‘out-of-industry’ knowledgeinto construction industry wisdom. LinkingConstruction Research and Innovation toResearch and Innovation in Other Sectors,Construction Research and InnovationStrategy Panel, London, 24th June.
Botham, D. and Vick, D. (1998) Revans Centrefor action learning and research. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 11, 2, 5-14.
Bozeman, B. (2000) Technology transfer andpublic policy: a review of research and theory.Research Policy, 29, 627-55.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000a)Partnering in construction: A critical review ofissues, problems and dilemmas. ConstructionManagement and Economics, 18, 229-237.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000b)Motivation, commitment and the use ofincentives in partnerships and alliances.Construction Management and Economics, 18,587-598.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000c) Buildingpartnerships: Case studies of client-contractorcollaboration in the UK construction industry.Construction Management and Economics, 18,819-832.
References
34 � RICS Research
Bröchner, J., Rosander, S. and Waara, F.(2004) Cross-border post-acquisitionknowledge transfer among constructionconsultants. Construction Management andEconomics, 22, 421-27.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990)Absorptive capacity: a new perspective onlearning and innovation. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
Constrinnonet project (Promoting Innovation inConstruction Industry SMEs) (2004)Constrinnonet project final report: Innovationissues, successful practice and improvement,European Commission, Brussels.
Cowen, R., David, P. and Foray, D. (2000) Theexplicit economies of business codificationand tacitness. Industrial and CorporateChange, 9, 211-253.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963) ABehavioural Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall,New Jersey.
Davey, C.L., Powell, J.A., Cooper, I., Powell, J.E.,(2004) Innovation, construction SMEs andaction learning, Engineering, Construction andArchitectural Management 11, 4 , 230–237
Department of the Environment, Transport andthe Regions (1998) Rethinking Construction,DETR, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (2002)Rethinking Construction Innovation andResearch, The Stationery Office, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (2006)Construction Statistics Annual: 2003 edition,The Stationery Office, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (2003)Competition in the Global Economy: TheInnovation Challenge, The Stationery Office,London.
Ebers, M., (Ed.) (1997) The Formation of Inter-organisational Networks, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford
European Commission (2004) Facing theChallenge: The Lisbon Strategy for Growthand Employment, EC, Brussels.
Formoso, C. Lantelme, E. and Hirota, E. (2004)Action Learning for Construction in PortoAlegre, Brazil (Unpublished report)
Gibson, D.V. and Smilor, R. (1991), Keyvariables in technology transfer: A field-studybased empirical analysis. Journal ofEngineering and Technology Management, 8,287-312.
Gilbert, M. and Cordeyhayes, M. (1996)Understanding the process of knowledgetransfer to achieve successful technologicalinnovation. Technovation, 16, 301–312.
RICS Research � 35www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
Grandori, A. and Soda, G. (1995) Inter-firmnetworks: antecedents, mechanism and forms.Organization Studies, 16, 183-214.
Grant, E.B. and Gregory, M.J. (1997), Tacitknowledge, the life cycle and internationalmanufacturing transfer. Technology Analysisand Strategic Management, 9, 149-161.
Johnson, W. C. (2003) University Relations:The HP Model, Industry and Higher Education,17, 6, 391-395
Klien, G.A. and Crandall, B. (1991) Findingand using technology-specific expertise.Journal of Technology Transfer, 16, 23.
Lambert, R. (2003) Lambert Review ofBusiness-University Collaboration: FinalReport, HMSO, Norwich.
Lu, S. and Sexton, M. (2006) Innovation insmall construction knowledge-intensiveprofessional service firms: A case study of anarchitectural practice. ConstructionManagement and Economics, 24: 12: 1269 –1282.
Lu, S., Abbott, C., Jones, V. and Sexton, M.(2007), The role of innovation circles instimulating innovation in small constructionfirms, Proceedings of the 4th InternationalResearch Symposium (SCRI), Salford, UK,26th – 27th March.
Miozzo, M. and Dewick, P. (2004) Innovationand networks: Benefits from inter-firmcooperation in a fragmented industry.International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 27, 1, 68-92.
Miozzo, M. and Ivory, C. (1998) Innovation inConstruction: A Case Study of Small andMedium-sized Construction Firms in the NorthWest of England, Manchester School ofManagement, UMIST, Manchester.
36 � RICS Research
Mitropoulos, P. and Tatum, C.B. (2002)Technology adoption decisions in constructionorganizations. Journal of ConstructionEngineering and Management, 125, 5, 330-338.
Mumford, A. (1985) A review of actionlearning, Management Bibliographies andReviews, 11, 2, 3-19.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Socialcapital, intellectual capital, and theorganizational advantage. Academy ofManagement Review, 23, 242-267.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) TheKnowledge Creating Company: How JapaneseCompanies Create the Dynamics of Innovation,Oxford University Press, New York.
Pedlar, M. (1996) Action Learning forManagers. Lemos and Crane: London.
Pedlar, M. Burgoyne, J. and Brook, C. (2005)What has action learning learned to become?Action Learning: Research and Practice, 2, 1.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer,D., and Neely, A. (2004) Networking andinnovation: a systematic review of theevidence, International Journal of ManagementReviews Volume 5/6 (3&4), 137–168
Porter, M. (1990) The Competitive Advantageof Nations, Free Press, New York.
Raich, M. (2002) HRM in the knowledge-based economy: is there an afterlife? Journalof European Industrial Training, 26, 269-273.
Revans, R.W. (1982) The Origins and Growthof Action Learning, Chartwell-Bratt, Bromley
Revans, R.W. (1983) ABC of Action Learning.Chartwell-Bratt, Bromley.
Sahal, D. (1981), Alternative conceptions oftechnology. Research Policy, 10, 2-24.
Sexton , M.G. and Barrett, P.S. (2003)Appropriate innovation in small constructionfirms. Construction Management andEconomics, 21, 6, 623-633.
Sexton, M., Barrett, P. and Aouad, G., (2006),Motivating small construction companies toadopt new technology. Building Research andInformation. 34, 1, 11-22.
Teece, D. (1977) Technology transfer bymultinational firms: The resource cost oftransferring technological know-how. TheEconomic Journal, 87, 242-261.
Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R, andVenkataraman, S. (1999) The InnovationJourney Oxford University Press, New York.
RICS Research � 37www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
Wilson, I. (1986) The strategic management oftechnology: corporate fad or strategicnecessity? Long Range Planning, 19, 2.
38 � RICS Research
RICS Research � 39www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
Submission of papers
The RICS encourages academics and otherresearchers to submit work that is relevant tothe discipline of surveying in all its fields.Authors may submit either by post or by email.In the first instance, submissions should bemade to the RICS. Postal submissions shouldbe made in triplicate to:
Stephen BrownHead of Research Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors12 Great George StreetLondon SW1P 3ADUNITED KINGDOM
Email submissions of Word or PDF filesshould be sent to [email protected]
Telephone number for enquiries:+44 (0)20 7334 3725
The refereeing process is double blind and allsubmitted papers will be referred to at leasttwo reviewers.
The manuscript
There is no fixed limit on the length of papersand each paper is published as:
� A PDF on the RICS website, with nocharge made for download.
� A stand-alone published document
Papers are placed on the RICS websiteimmediately that they are completed andprinted copies available shortly thereafter.
While there is no word limit, it is anticipatedthat papers would be no less than 5,000words and generally no more than 30,000words.
The manuscript must be in English, typed indouble spacing on one side of A4 paper only,with a 4 cm margin on the left-hand side. Thepages should be numbered consecutively.There should be no loose addenda or notes orother explanatory material.
Title page
The first page of the manuscript must containthe full title: the name(s), affiliation(s),address(es) of the author(s); a title of notmore than 75 characters and spaces; and fivekey words for the purpose of indexing. If thereis more than one author, the correspondingauthor should be indicated.
The abstract
The second page should contain the title andan abstract. It should not contain the name(s)of the author(s). The abstract should notexceed 200 words and must be a clearsummary of the contents of the manuscript,indicating the contribution that the papermakes to knowledge and providing a clearstatement of the key findings and outcomes ofthe paper.
Illustrations
Any illustrations must accompany themanuscript but should not be included in thetext. Diagrams, charts, photographs and maps,should be referred to as 'Figure 1', 'Figure 2'and so on. They should be numbered in theorder in which they are referred to in the text.
Illustrations can be colour or monochrome.When providing electronic version ofillustrations, please ensure that these are of asufficient resolution for reproduction. Aresolution of 300 dots per inch is theminimum acceptable standard for images.They will normally be reduced in size on
RICS Research paper series
40 � RICS Research
reproduction and authors should bear this inmind, particularly when selecting font sizes.Appropriate electronic submission ispermissible.
Proofs
Proofs, in the form of a PDF file, will be sentto the corresponding author for correction andapproval. The website is used to provideongoing comment and feedback on papersthat are posted on the website, and commentsthat are provided will be passed through to thecorresponding author. Authors are providedwith five free copies of their paper. Furthercopies can bought at a price of £2.00 each.
Publicity
The aim of the RICS is to ensure that papersare promoted and publicised to appropriateacademic, professional, policy and mediaaudiences. In pursuit of this, the RICS mayseek to develop and issue supporting materialfor papers published, such as press releasesand summary documents. The RICS will liaisewith the corresponding author on the draftingof this material and on the appropriate degreeof involvement of the author in this process.
References
The Harvard system should be used.References in the text should be quoted in thefollowing manner: Jones (1999) or (Edge andMoody, 2001) or, if there are more than twoauthors ... Thomas et al. (2002). If there is acitation of a page number or numbers, theformat should, as appropriate, be Smith (1999,20), Smith (1999, 20-5), (Smith, 1999,20) or(Smith, 1999, 20-5).
References should be collected at the end ofthe paper in alphabetical order by the firstauthor's surname. If references to the same
author have the same year, they should bedifferentiated by using 1998a, 1998b and soon. The style should follow the examplesbelow:
Chau, K.W., MacGregor, B.D. and Schwann, G.(2001) Price discovery in the Hong Kong realestate market, Journal of Property Research,18(3), 187-216.
Brown, G.R. and Matysiak, G.A. (2000) Realestate investment - a capital marketsapproach, Financial Times Prentice Hall,Harlow.
If no person is named as the author the bodyshould be used, for example:
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors(1994) Understanding the property cycle,London.
Copyright
Submission of an article to the RICS ResearchPaper Series is taken to imply that itrepresents original, unpublished work, notunder consideration for publication elsewhere.When submitting a manuscript, authors will beasked to transfer the copyright for their articleto the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,if and when the article is accepted forpublication. The Royal Institution of CharteredSurveyors will not refuse any reasonablerequest by the author for permission toreproduce any of his or her contributions tothe series in other forms.
Permission to publish illustrations must beobtained by the author before submission andany acknowledgements should be included inthe figure captions.
RICS Research � 41www.rics.org/research
Action learning as an enabler for successful technology transfer with construction SMEs
www.rics.org
Oct
ober
20
07/1
00
/RIC
S R
esea
rch/
40
379
/Ste
rling
RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) is the largest organisation for professionals in property, land, construction and related environmental issues worldwide. We promote best practice,regulation and consumer protection to business and the public. With 130 000 members, RICS is the leading source of property related knowledge, providing independent, impartial advice to governments and global organisations.
