In order to stay competitive and meet the changing needs of the market, construction firms must develop efficient means of gathering and using knowledge of end users’ requirements. This article uses two case studies to explore the knowledge creation of end users’ requirements in project-driven firms. The focus of the study is the interface between the firm and the project. The interface is analyzed from both an autopoietic and cognitive, organizational, and societal view. The findings implicate the importance of understanding (a) what kinds of knowledge dominated in the different organizations, (b) what could be expected in the exchange of data, and (c) what action needs to be taken in order to create value of it. The study suggests that considering the organization as an autopoietic system could be useful to understand the organization's responses to a dynamic environment.
AchterkampM. C., & VosJ. F. J. (2008). Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 749–757.
2.
AndersenE. S., & VaagaasarA. L. (2009). Project management improvement efforts—Creating project management value by uniqueness or mainstream thinking?Project Management Journal, 40(1), 19–27.
3.
ArgyrisC. (1999). On organizational learning.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
4.
BlessingD., GoerkM., & BachV. (2001). Management of customer and project knowledge: Solutions and experience at SAP. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(2), 75–90.
5.
BrandhoffB. (2009). Autopoietic systems, not corporate actors: A sketch of Niklas Luhmann's theory of organisations. European Business Organization Law Review, 10, 307–322.
6.
ConnellC., KleinJ. H., LoebbeckeC., & PowellP. (2001). Towards a knowledge management consultation system. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(1), 48–54.
7.
GannD. M., & SalterA. J. (2000). Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: The construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy, 29, 955–972.
8.
GrantR. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7, 375–387.
9.
HobdayM. (2000). The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems?Research Policy, 29, 871–893.
10.
HongJ., KiantoA., & KylaheikoK. (2008). Moving cultures and the creation of new knowledge and dynamic capabilities in emerging markets. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(3), 196–202.
11.
KarniR., & KanerM. (2008). Knowledge management of interconnected decisions with application to project management. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(4), 211–223.
12.
KayaS. (2004). Relating building attributes to end user's needs: “The owners-designers-end users” equation. Facilities, 22(9-10), 247–252.
13.
KoskinenK. U. (2009). Project-based company's vital condition: Structural coupling. An autopoietic view. Knowledge and Process Management, 16(1), 13–22.
14.
LaiJ. H. K., & YikF. W. H. (2007). Perceived importance of the quality of the indoor environment in commercial buildings. Indoor and Built Environment, 16, 311–321.
15.
LamA. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 21, 487–513.
16.
LenguaL., RoosaM. W., Schupak-NeubergE., MichaelsM., BergC., & WeschlerL. (1992). Using focus groups to guide the development of a parenting program for difficult-to-reach, high-risk families. Family Relations, 41(2), 163–168.
17.
LindkvistL. (2004). Governing project-based firms: Promoting marketlike processes within hierarchies. Journal of Management & Governance, 8(1), 3–25.
18.
LuhmannN. (2006). System as difference. Organization, 13(1), 37–57.
19.
LundvallB.-Å. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation—Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning.London: Pinter Publishers.
20.
LundvallB.-Å., & NielsenP. (2007). Knowledge management and innovation performance. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 207–223.
21.
MariottiF. (2007). Learning to share knowledge in the Italian motorsport industry. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(2), 81–94.
22.
NonakaI. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
23.
OrtonJ. D., & WeickK. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15, 203–224.
24.
PemselS., WidénK., & HanssonB. (2010). Managing the needs of end users in the design and delivery of construction projects. Facilities, 28(1/2), 17–30.
25.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide)—Fourth edition.Newtown Square, PA: Author.
26.
StarbuckW. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 713–741.
27.
SveibyK.-E. (1996). Transfer of knowledge and the information processing professions. European Management Journal, 14, 379–389.
28.
ThomasJ., & MullalyM. (2007). Understanding the value of project management: First steps on an international investigation in search of value. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 74–89.
29.
TsoukasH. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11–25.
30.
VelasquezN. F., DurcikovaA., & SabherwalR. (2009). Studying knowledge management system success in system administration. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–7).
31.
von KroghG., & RoosJ. (1996). Five claims on knowing. European Management Journal, 14, 423–427.
