Measuring knowledge sharing processes through social network analysis within construction organisations

The construction industry is a knowledge intensive and information dependent industry. Organisations risk losing valuable knowledge, when the employees leave them. Therefore, construction organisations need to nurture opportunities to disseminate knowledge through strengthening knowledge-sharing networks. This study aimed at evaluating the formal and informal knowledge sharing methods in social networks within Australian construction organisations and identifying how knowledge sharing could be improved. Data were collected from two estimating teams in two case studies. The collected data through semi-structured interviews were analysed using UCINET, a Social Network Analysis (SNA) tool, and SNA measures. The findings revealed that one case study consisted of influencers, while the other demonstrated an optimal knowledge sharing structure in both formal and informal knowledge sharing methods. Social networks could vary based on the organisation as well as the individuals’ behaviour. Identifying networks with specific issues and taking steps to strengthen networks will enable to achieve optimum knowledge sharing processes. This research offers knowledge sharing good practices for construction organisations to optimise their knowledge sharing processes

USCID water management conference

Presented at Upgrading technology and infrastructure in a finance-challenged economy: a USCID water management conference held on March 23-26, 2010 in Sacramento, California.Due to multiple impacts being placed on the James Irrigation District (District) water supply, a study was performed to understand if the District could sustain its current operations. It was determined that the practices could continue but it would require capitally intensive improvements to the Districts infrastructure. Planned improvements include the construction of recharge basins for sustainability, installation of up to 16 groundwater wells and pumps, basin construction, pipeline installation, and construction of flow control and pumping structures. The improvements were estimated to cost approximately $9,000,000; a cost too high for the District to fund on their own. Because of the urgency of the project, The District explored multiple opportunities to fund the project. This included applying for loans, applying for grants, raising water rates, and raising land assessments; all at the same time. To obtain loan money the District applied for funds through Proposition 82, distributed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). At this same time, the district pursued loans through local banks, which provided a challenge considering the unstable banking industry. Many components of the project are proposed to be built using grant funding. First was a Challenge Grant as provided by United States Bureau of Reclamation's (USBR) Water 2025 program; providing$300,000. Next was the USBR Field Services program; providing $25,000. Approximately$50,000 was utilized from the DWR Local Groundwater Assistance Program. In addition to these funds, Recovery Act funding became available for drought relief, where the District could obtain roughly $1,500,000. To generate further income the District approved a water rate increase. It was at this time when it became apparent that the Districts revenue source had become out of balance. The Land assessments were not enough to cover the operational overhead of the District. To rectify this issue, land assessments would need to be raised. This would require a proposition 218 election, which has been pursued. The intention of this paper is to discuss the multiple funding sources available to the District, how they were utilized, and problems that have been encountered

USCID water management conference

Presented at Upgrading technology and infrastructure in a finance-challenged economy: a USCID water management conference held on March 23-26, 2010 in Sacramento, California.Includes bibliographical references.Water banks entail the recharge of periodically available excess surface water for storage underground and recovery when needed. Properly formulated, these projects are one of the most cost-effective water supply tools available. These projects are frequently located in rural areas due to availability of land and water. However, projects with capital programs of more than $10 million typically need to be funded with financing. Traditional financing mechanisms such as raising customer fees, bonding and state/federal grants are increasingly difficult to obtain. Therefore, many rural agencies pursue partnerships with urban water utilities that typically have more available capital. This approach, pioneered by Semitropic Water Storage District and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District in the 1990s, entails upfront payments (and annual operating fees) by the utilities in exchange for long-term leases of project capacity. The decision to use this funding approach must be made early in the project formulation because it requires that the project be sized and configured to meet both local and utility partner needs. Water utilities are only willing to enter into these partnerships if the project can increase their water supply reliability at a lower cost than other alternatives and only if three critical criteria have been met: 1) Lack of controversy as evidenced by tangible benefits to, oversight from and support by local stakeholders; 2) proven technical, regulatory and economic viability; and 3) operational flexibility and modularity, enabling construction in phases. A project should not be marketed before each element is in place. These requirements typically take several years and several million dollars to achieve