Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Flood Risk of Residential Buildings by Using the AHP-CRITIC Method: A Case Study of the Katsushika Ward, Tokyo
Previous Article in Journal
The Heat Exchange Coefficient of the Cooling Tube Under the Influence of the Tube Material and Cooling Water Parameters
Previous Article in Special Issue
Motivating Green Knowledge Behavior by Mindfulness Leadership in Engineering Design: The Role of Moral Identity
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Dynamic Effects of Management Support on Knowledge-Based Competitiveness in Construction Companies

School of Management Technology, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12000, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(12), 2015; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15122015
Submission received: 22 May 2025 / Revised: 6 June 2025 / Accepted: 10 June 2025 / Published: 11 June 2025

Abstract

The construction industry faces challenges like project complexity, labor intensity, and dynamic changes, which demand effective knowledge management practices to attain competitiveness. Successful knowledge management implementation relies on management support, specifically budget allocations, to achieve knowledge-based competitiveness. This study aims to examine the dynamic effects of management support on competitiveness enhancement over time and suggest short- and long-term strategies for knowledge management practices. The study develops a system dynamics model comprising five key factors: knowledge storage, knowledge acquisition, knowledge dissemination, knowledge responsiveness, and knowledge utilization to simulate the effects of management support on knowledge management implementation and knowledge-based competitiveness over time. The simulation results reveal the fluctuations of the competitiveness scores through knowledge management implementation, which is decided by management. It is suggested that the efforts should be focused on improving the activities under the knowledge utilization and dissemination factors to raise the scores in a short period. To achieve sustainable knowledge-based competitiveness development, management must commit to enhancing human- and technology-related activities under the knowledge storage, acquisition, and responsiveness factors and provide adequate financial support to invest in knowledge management-related systems. Such activities as skill training, data warehouse systems, and stakeholder interconnection are crucial to maintaining knowledge management performance. This study provides valuable insights into the strategic planning of knowledge management practices through budget allocation from management to achieve long-term competitiveness.

1. Introduction

The construction industry plays a crucial role in the economy worldwide. WorldBank [1] stated that the industry had an added value of USD 27.81 trillion, representing 26.5% of the world’s GDP, with a growth rate of 1.9% annually [2]. The total number of workers in the European Union increased by 19% from 2017 to 2022. The growth offers extensive employment opportunities and economic stability. Nevertheless, specific industry characteristics, including the uniqueness of projects, labor intensity, high budget, and location dependence, result in several risks that may affect cost, productivity, and project performance. With the increasing demand for urban development under smart standards and rapid advancements in science and technology, new approaches are being introduced to address these challenges. For instance, Peráček and Kaššaj [3] highlighted that legal easement plays a critical role in facilitating the development of infrastructure, digital connectivity, and environmental protection, which are core components of smart cities. Building information modeling (BIM) is a modern tool that significantly enhances the execution of projects governed by such legal easements [4].
Many construction companies are increasingly required to adapt to various complex requirements to navigate these challenges effectively. Knowledge management (KM) is a tool to mitigate the challenges and attain competitive advantages for companies. Marinho and Couto [5] mentioned that KM positively affects company performance and competitiveness. Sharing information and exchanging work experience may improve performance, where lessons learned from completed projects and work meetings help improve project outcomes, minimize risks, enhance safety, and effectively manage project schedules. Kokkaew et al. [6] agreed that KM positively impacts performance. They mentioned that facilitating knowledge sharing among team members and increasing knowledge applications help companies achieve time, cost, and quality performance. Dang et al. [7] stated that KM capabilities positively influence market development through long-term relationships with existing and new clients. KM cultivates a learning culture that enhances the performance of design firms [8]. It mitigates losses of valuable information and improves team relationships through knowledge sharing.
Despite KM’s insights on construction competitiveness, there remains a significant gap in how the attention of top management toward KM implementation enhances competitiveness in the long term. The strategic allocation of executive attention can significantly impact firm performance across different operational domains. Krishnakumar, Kishore, and Suresh [9] studied the effects of executive attention on business performance through e-transaction and e-customer relationship management. They concluded that senior executives should focus on these processes to enhance the firm’s performance. Eklund, Raj, and Eggers [10] stated that managerial attention significantly impacts the organization’s adaptability in a dynamic environment. Zhou, Wang, and Wang [11] utilized the text mining approach to analyze risk disclosures and found that decentralized risk attention of management improves the company’s profitability and solvency in the consumer goods sector. In contrast, concentrated attention proves more effective in the financial and healthcare sectors.
As the construction industry is dynamic and involves many changes, management decisions on KM implementation highly affect competitiveness. It is crucial to understand how changes in management attention impact long-term knowledge-based competitiveness (KBC) so that effective plans can be initiated. Various studies have examined the dynamic effects of management attention on project performance. For example, Molwus, Erdogan, and Ogunlana [12] used structural equation modeling to examine dynamic interactions between critical success factors for stakeholder management and project success in the construction industry. They concluded that strong stakeholder engagement improves project success. Ekanayake et al. [13] used the fuzzy synthetic evaluation to assess supply chain vulnerability levels in Hong Kong’s construction industry. They pinpointed the need for top management to pay attention to these issues. Chinda [14] developed a system dynamics (SD) model to examine changes in management attention on ergonomics culture through effective policy, people, resources, and process improvement.
The SD modeling approach is suitable for understanding changes in dynamic environments. Many researchers used it in the area of construction management. For example, Ansari et al. [15] used SD modeling to predict the dynamic changes in claims and their impacts on construction performance regarding scheduling, sustainability, and quality. Guan, Liu, and Shen [16] developed an evaluation index system through an SD model to assess construction performance regarding investment, design, construction, operation, and environment. Ajayi and Chinda [17] attempted to improve the project schedule in the pre-construction and construction phases, utilizing an SD model. They concluded that minimizing design errors during pre-construction significantly reduces project delays.
To explore management’s dynamic attention on KM implementation and KBC enhancement (i.e., the gap of previous studies), this study aims to develop an SD model to better understand the interrelationships among management support, specifically in budget allocation, KM implementation, and KBC enhancement. The research questions are set as follows.
  • Does management support influence KM implementation and KBC enhancement, specifically through budget allocation?
  • How can KBC be enhanced through KM implementation in the short and long term?
Based on the above research questions, two hypotheses were developed:
Hypothesis 1.
Management support, through strategic budget allocation for KM implementation, affects KBC scores in the construction industry.
Hypothesis 2
Short- and long-term strategies for KBC enhancement could be set through KM implementation focusing on human- and technology-related activities.
The study is expected to employ the SD modeling technique to plan for KBC enhancement in a dynamic environment. It explores interrelationships among key KM factors, management support, and KBC while outlining short- and long-term competitiveness improvement strategies. Short-term strategies emphasize leveraging the human-driven elements of KM, such as focusing on knowledge dissemination and utilization. In contrast, long-term strategies advocate investments in knowledge storage, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge responsiveness to adapt to dynamic market conditions. This study underscores the critical role of management support in sustaining competitiveness, providing actionable recommendations for KM planning in a dynamic environment.

2. Literature Review

KM is used to promote competitiveness and achieve sustainable growth for companies under intense market competition [18,19,20]. Investment in knowledge yields great benefits as it drives innovation, reduces cost, improves quality, and avoids delays [20,21]. Chen and Fong [22] stated that KM raises business performance, specifically financial management, customer relations, and internal processes. Integrating KM in work processes can lead to sustainable competitive enhancement. Kokkaew et al. [6] added that KM mediates between human resource management and organizational performance. The positive relationships exist between human resource management and KM, and KM and organizational performance. Enhancing human resource management improves KM practices, which, in turn, raises the organization’s performance. Tabejamaat et al. [23] mentioned that KM infrastructures significantly improve employee satisfaction, leading to high individual productivity and organizational performance. Its capabilities foster innovation, resulting in performance improvement [24]. Organizations enhance decision-making and optimize their operations [25]. Effective KM assists in improving project performance and emphasizing the importance of a collaborative environment [26].
Various KM-related studies have been conducted in the construction industry. Specifically, the use of KM to enhance construction competitiveness, also known as KBC, has received much attention in recent years. It refers to how construction companies apply KM to reuse and share project-specific knowledge to reduce costs and improve competitiveness [27]. It emphasizes using intellectual capital, strategies, and practices to compete with competitors [28]. Wang et al. [29] utilized KM, specifically inter-organizational collaborations, to transform intellectual liabilities into assets, thus enhancing relational capital, driving innovation, and enhancing KBC. Khoa and Chinda [30] utilized key KM factors to boost competitiveness in Vietnamese construction companies. It was found that key KM factors, namely knowledge acquisition (KA), dissemination (KD), responsiveness (KR), storage (KS), and utilization (KU), assist in enhancing KBC directly and indirectly. Direct relationships between KM factors and KBC are found through the KU and KR factors. On the other hand, the KS, KA, and KD factors indirectly link KBC through the KU and KR factors.
KBC enhancement relies on KM improvement, specifically in human- and technology-related areas [31,32]. Wang and Meng [33] stated that training employees with KM-related tools enhances their skills and reduces the chances of reoccurrences. Debs and Hubbard [34] commented that US construction companies must improve the collection, storage, and sharing processes of lessons learned to transform information into knowledge effectively. Eken et al. [35] added that a web-based lesson-learned system like Learning in Construction Tool (LinCTool) could enhance organizational learning in construction companies by collecting, storing, and disseminating lessons learned across multiple projects. It is a web application compatible with most web browsers and mobile devices. All calculations are performed on the server side and used as a database to store information. Altaie and Dishar [36] mentioned that integrating AI technologies in KM implementation leads to fast and effective decision-making. Yan et al. [37] added that data mining in energy, safety management, building occupancy, and material performance is an important tool for knowledge discovery in the construction industry. Mandičák, Mésároš, and Tkác [38] mentioned that building information modeling and knowledge technology can improve efficiency in construction projects by providing insights for planning, designing, and managing buildings and infrastructure.
A summary of KM-related studies is in Table 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Flow

The research flow of this study is in Figure 1. It is designed to address the study’s objectives. It starts with a literature review analyzing KBC and management’s role in construction, then identifies gaps in the problem statement. The research aim and objectives are stated. The conceptual framework is then developed to link KM factors, management support, and KBC. Data collection provides the foundation for constructing a causal loop diagram, illustrating dynamic interrelationships. This informs system dynamics model development and simulations, which predict the impact of management support on KBC. Scenario analysis evaluates short- and long-term strategies, while the discussion and conclusion synthesize findings and offer recommendations. This approach highlights the strategic integration of KM and management support to enhance construction sector competitiveness.

3.2. Conceptual Framework of KBC Enhancement

Based on the literature review, KM varies from person to person and company to company. Identifying key KM factors and their interrelationships is crucial so managers can plan for KBC improvement effectively. Khoa and Chinda [30] proposed five key KM factors (i.e., KU, KD, KR, KS, and KA) to enhance KBC in terms of time, profit, innovation, productivity, client satisfaction, and quality perspectives. They utilized the structural equation modeling approach to examine relationships between KM and KBC factors and found that the KS factor influences the KA and KD factors directly and the KU and KR factors indirectly. In contrast, the KU and KR factors directly impact construction’s competitiveness (CP), leading to KBC improvement. The performance of CP is fed back to the KS factor to store, analyze, and summarize lessons learned for future projects [30].
The KM implementation is mostly controlled and decided by management. It is restricted by management decisions regarding budget allocation in human- and technology-related improvement. Le and Le [39] mentioned that transformational leadership drives innovation by empowering employees to participate actively in KM practices. Zhang et al. [40] added that innovative processes of KM implementation, such as training programs, forums for knowledge exchanges, and recognition systems, contribute to KBC enhancement. Mohamad and Mat Zin [41] pinpointed that management must strategically invest in technological solutions to support KM implementation. Tools, such as KM-related databases, collaborative platforms, and information systems, enhance KM practices by promoting information sharing and integrating valuable insights into daily operations. Technological investments are crucial for maintaining a competitive advantage by ensuring timely and practical knowledge integration [5].
Depending on KBC’s performance, management support for KM implementation may fluctuate, i.e., increase and decrease. Tasks that require high attention are usually allocated a high budget. Once those tasks reach the set targets, management attention is withdrawn, and the budget is reduced or shifted to other areas of improvement (see Figure 2). Therefore, this study develops a conceptual model of KBC enhancement through management support on KM implementation, focusing on KM factors from Khoa and Chinda [30] (see Figure 3 and Table 2). The key KM and CP factors are associated with several attributes that can help achieve KBC enhancement in the long term. For example, the KS factor is associated with six attributes (KS1-KS6), focusing mainly on technology-related activities, such as developing data warehousing systems and automating storage workflow. On the other hand, the KD factor focuses mainly on human-related activities (KD1-KD4) to support the dissemination of knowledge and feedback among team members to enhance the KBC. The CP factor comprises seven associated items to explain the construction competitiveness: time (CP1), cost (CP2), quality (CP3), productivity (CP4), employees’ satisfaction (CP5), clients’ satisfaction (CP6), and innovation (CP7).
The maximum scores of KM attributes in Table 2 are calculated using the important weights in Figure 3 and the maximum scores of KM factors. To explain, the KS factor has a maximum score of 241 points (derived from Khoa and Chinda [28]) that are distributed to six associated items (KS1–KS6). With the important weight of KS1 of 0.17 (see Figure 3), this attribute has a maximum score of 0.17 × 241 = 41 points (see Table 2). The initial scores of the attributes in Table 2 derive from Khoa and Chinda [28] and reflect the initial KBC score of 186.2 points. It is noted that the total scores of technology- and human-related perceptions in Table 2 are adapted from Khoa and Chinda [28] by considering the focused activities of the five KM factors.
The five KM factors influence each other directly and indirectly. For example, the KS factor directly influences KA and KD factors with weights of 0.45 and 0.47, respectively (see Figure 3). This factor also indirectly influences the KR, KU, and CP factors through the KD and KA factors. For instance, the KS factor indirectly influences the KU factor through the KD factor with a weight of 0.35 (i.e., 0.47 × 0.74). The five KM factors directly (through the KR and KU factors) and indirectly influence the CP factor. These raise the KBC, and the improvement is fed back to management to decide on further KM improvement. The budget allocated to KM factors and their attributes depends on their performance, important weights, and KBC achievement (see Figure 3).

3.3. Scoring System of the Conceptual Framework

Based on Table 2, the KBC improvement depends on implementing KM factors and their associated variables controlled by management decisions on budget allocations. The maximum KBC score of 1000 points is separated into 780 points for the five KM factors and 220 points for the CP factor [42]. The 780 points are further distributed to five KM factors (see Table 2). For example, 241 points are allocated for the KS factor, which is distributed to six associated variables based on their importance weights (see Figure 3). Among the 780 points of KM factors, 539 points are achieved through the budget allocated for human-related improvement (i.e., for the KA, KD, KR, and KU factors), and 241 points are from the technology-related improvement (i.e., the KS factor), see Table 2.
The KM and CP factors interrelate with KBC, creating feedback loops for continuous improvement. This improvement is achieved by management support through budget allocation to human- and technology-related activities. To explain, the gaps in maximum scores between the two perspectives (i.e., human and technology) are compared in each simulation to adjust the portions of the budget allocation. In addition, management may withdraw its attention from KBC enhancement once the KBC score reaches a high standard level, representing over 95% of performance (i.e., 950 of 1000 points) [14]. The attention withdrawal is reflected by less budget allocated for KM implementation. This, in turn, may reduce the KM, CP, and ultimately KBC scores. In case the KBC score drops below the acceptable level, which is less than 400 points in this study, the management team may take prompt actions to enhance the KBC level and pay more attention to KM improvement [14]. This continues to raise the KBC score until it reaches the target level. Then, management may withdraw the KM’s attention, and the KBC score may start to drop again, creating cycle oscillations (see Figure 2). Nevertheless, with continuous improvement, the KBC is expected to reach its maximum score (i.e., 1000 points) in a very long period.

3.4. SD Modeling Approach

SD modeling is an approach to comprehending the dynamic behaviors of complex systems through simulation [43]. It provides a deep understanding of dynamic interactions in the systems, resulting in better decision-making. Liu et al. [44] stated that SD modeling benefits the construction industry through improved sustainability, project planning, performance, site and resource management, and KBC. It represents social and technical activities that interrelate and generate causal relationships through stocks, flows, converters, and connectors (see Figure 4) [45]. This approach has been utilized in various construction-related studies. For instance, Mak, Wang, and Tsang [45] employed an SD modeling to analyze construction and demolition waste management. They concluded that the SD modeling method effectively explores what-if scenarios for the environmental complexities. Sea-Lim et al. [46] utilized an SD model to examine the feasibility of steel waste recycling in the Thai construction industry. The results revealed that the reverse logistics program requires high upfront costs, resulting in eight years to achieve the minimum acceptable return on investment. Khan, Flanagan, and Lu [47] examined the complexity of information in construction projects, particularly for small- and medium-sized enterprises. Chen and Fong [22] used an SD simulation to predict KM performance drivers and outcomes over time. They concluded that companies should adopt an evolutionary perspective when implementing KM in response to the needs of the evolving market. Duryan and Smyth [48] explored the interactions between the service design and KM in infrastructure projects. The results help streamline processes, improve collaboration, and ensure efficient delivery of complex projects.
SD modeling is suitable for this study as it deals with dynamic changes in management attention and budget allocation on KM implementation and KBC enhancement. Secondary and primary data are collected to develop equations for the SD model. The model is developed and simulated to examine the dynamic results over time. The developed model is validated using sensitivity, policy, or scenario analyses to ensure its use in actual practices.

3.5. The SD Model of KBC Enhancement

In this study, the SD model is developed to examine the effects of management decisions on KBC enhancement using the Ithink software version 9.1.3 (see Figure 5). Similar software includes Vensim, Powersim, and Dynamo [49]. However, the Ithink software has great interface capabilities and displays the model in graphical depictions, making it a good tool for model development [49].
The KBC score is the sum of five KM and CP scores (see Equation (1)). Each KM factor is improved through its associated variables (which depend on budget allocations) and the influences achieved from the other KM factors. For example, the “KS_score” is maximum at 241 points, see Equation (2). The “KS_stock” is increased or decreased depending on the “KS_inflow” and “KS_outflow”, see Equations (3)–(5). The inflow is based on the improvement of KS variables (KS_IS), the influence the CP factor has on the KS factor (KS_IF) (see Figure 3), and management perception of the KBC performance (i.e., MAC).
K B C = K S _ s c o r e + K A _ s c o r e + K D _ s c o r e + K R _ s c o r e + K U _ s c o r e + C C _ s c o r e
K S _ s c o r e = M i n ( 241 , K S _ s t o c k )
K S _ s t o c k ( t ) = K S _ s t o c k ( t d t ) + ( K S _ i n f l o w K S _ o u t f l o w ) × d t
K S _ i n f l o w = I f ( K S _ s t o c k < 241 ) T h e n [ ( K S _ I S + K S _ I F ) × M A C ] E l s e 0
K S _ o u t f l o w = I f ( M A C = 1 ) T h e n 0 E l s e [ M a x ( 0.31 × K S _ s c o r e , 0.31 × I n i t i a l _ K S ) ]
The “KS_IS” score depends on the gap between its current and maximum scores. This gap is reduced by implementing its six associated variables, which are dictated by their importance weights (see Figure 3 and Table 2) and budget allocation, see Equations (6)–(9). The “gapIT” in Equation (6) represents the gap of technology-related score that could be improved through the budget allocated to enhance the KS factor (see Table 2). In contrast, the “gapPP” in Equation (8) refers to the gap of human-related score that could be improved through the budget allocated for the KA, KD, KR, and KU factors.
K S _ I S = [ ( g a p I T / g a p K B C ) × g a p K S I T ] × i n i t i a l _ K S
g a p I T = g a p K S 1 + g a p K S 2 + g a p K S 3 + g a p K S 4 + g a p K S 5 + g a p K S 6
g a p K B C = g a p P P + g a p I T + g a p C P
g a p K S I T = g a p K S 1 × 0.17 + g a p K S 2 × 0.18 + g a p K S 3 × 0.16 + ( g a p K S 4 × 0.13 ) + ( g a p K S 5 × 0.18 ) + ( g a p K S 6 × 0.18 )
The KS factor is influenced by the “CP” factor by 48% (see Figure 3). To explain, when the CP score increases by 1 point, the KS_IF score increases by 0.48 points, see Equation (10).
K S _ I F = 0.48 × C P _ s c o r e
The “MAC” gives values of 0 or 1, where 1 proves management’s attention to enhance KBC to reach the high standard level, and 0 reflects management’s attention withdrawal (see Equation (11)). The outflow of “KS stock” (i.e., KS_outflow) occurs when management withdraws its KBC attention, i.e., when the “MAC” is zero (see Equation (5)).
M A C = I f K B C _ i n d e x < U p p e r _ b o u n d A n d s l o p e 0 O r [ ( s l o p e < 0 ) A n d ( K B C _ i n d e x < L o w e r _ b o u n d ) ]   T h e n   1   E l s e   0

4. Results

The SD model of KBC enhancement is developed to analyze complex, time-based relationships between management support, KM factors, and KBC in the dynamic context. The model is simulated to examine the effects of management support through budget allocation on KBC scores in the long term.

4.1. Simulation Results

The SD model of KBC enhancement is simulated, and the results are in Figure 6. Initially, the KBC score was 186.2 points (see Table 2), and management put effort into enhancing the KBC score by allocating a budget to improve KM implementation. Once the KBC score reaches its desired level (i.e., 950 points), management attention is withdrawn and shifts to other projects. This gradually reduces the KBC score until it is lower than the average industry level (i.e., 400 points) [14]. This urges management to focus on KM improvement to raise the KBC score and reach its satisfaction level. Once the satisfaction level is reached, the attention is re-withdrawn, and the cycle repeats. Nevertheless, with more experience in KM implementation, KBC’s performance is expected to improve, raising the lower and upper bounds and reaching the maximum score of 1000 points in a very long time.
A closer examination of the KBC score reveals that the KU and KD factors highly contribute to the KBC score (see Figure 7). In contrast, the KS, KR, and KA factors take a long time to achieve high performance. This may be because many activities subject to these factors are time-consuming and require a high investment. For example, to store and apply lessons learned from previous projects (i.e., related to the KS5, KR6, and KA4 variables), the company needs to collect data from past projects, which are primarily in hard copies, and input them into the database prior to performing further analyses (i.e., KS2 and KS6 variables). The data warehousing program requires high investment and specific training for practical use (i.e., KS3 variable).
When management withdraws its attention from KBC enhancement, less of a budget is allocated, resulting in decreased KBC scores. This, in turn, lowers customers’ and employees’ satisfaction. The cut-off budget in human- and technology-related activities, such as no training provided, no incentives, and no technology upgrading, reduces the KM performance, specifically in the KD, KU, and KS factors. The KS factor, particularly, is highly affected by the cut-off budget, as technology changes rapidly and the budget for software upgrading is required to maintain efficiency. The decline of the KBC score continues until it is lower than the acceptable level. Then, this urges management to take prompt actions to improve KBC, and the cycle repeats.

4.2. Scenario Analysis

4.2.1. Budget Allocation Scenario

As the KBC score relies on the budget allocated for KM implementation, further analysis is performed by increasing and decreasing the budget to reflect management support for KBC enhancement. The results in Figure 8 show consistent behaviors of the developed SD model, proving its validity to be used in actual practices [50]. It is clear that when a bigger budget is invested in KM implementation, the KBC score matures earlier, i.e., in year 18, which is six years earlier than that with a smaller budget. Nevertheless, when the budget is removed to other projects (i.e., attention withdrawal occurs), the KBC score decreases expeditiously and is lower than the industry’s level within six years (see Figure 8). This proves the importance of management support in achieving sustainable KBC development. Figure 8 shows that, despite the attention withdrawal, the KBC improves through time and experience. The reduction of KBC scores is slower in later cycles (i.e., six years in the first cycle, five years in the second cycle, and four years in the third cycle). The score is reversed to increase at higher scores (i.e., 390 points in the first cycle, 465 points in the second cycle, and 544 points in the third cycle).

4.2.2. Short- and Long-Term Plan Scenario

The simulation results in Figure 7 highlight the implications of KM factors to enhance KBC. The KU and KD factors highly contribute to the KBC score in the early stages. The short-term plan is then performed by expediting the implementation of these two factors compared with the other three factors (i.e., the KS, KA, and KR factors). The plan addresses immediate project challenges, specifically human-related activities, to improve operational efficiency and responsiveness. Extra efforts may be added to the KU and KD activities, such as leveraging team expertise through daily stand-up meetings to brainstorm and solve problems, organizing workshops and training sessions, and collaborating feedback mechanisms to support the rapid dissemination of knowledge, foster teamwork, reduce error, and boost employees’ and clients’ satisfaction. These low-cost activities with the basic tools and human-centered initiatives are highly effective at enhancing the KBC score in the early stages.
The results in Figure 9 reveal that by focusing on the KU and KD factors, the KBC score reaches its desired level earlier than the baseline results. However, only focusing on these two factors may not assist in achieving high performance in the long term (i.e., it takes longer to achieve the desired KBC score in the later cycles).
The results in Figure 7 also show that KS, KA, and KR factors take a long time to achieve their maximum scores, as many activities require experience and investment. The long-term plan is then performed by putting more effort into enhancing these three factors. The plan focuses on establishing sustainable knowledge systems that drive resilience and innovation. The budget is invested in human- and technology-related activities for sustainable improvement. Investment in digital storage systems, such as lessons-learned databases and automated workflows, is required to preserve accessible knowledge, reduce repetitive errors, and enhance productivity and quality [26]. Market research and competitive analysis should be initiated to foster innovation, adapt to changes in client requirements, and adjust to the dynamic market [51]. Figure 9 shows that the long-term plan is not highly effective in the early stages (i.e., early cycles) as it takes time to achieve the desired KBC score. Nevertheless, with more experience in KM implementation, this plan will bring better results in later cycles.
Successful KM implementation and sustainable KBC enhancement depend on the continuous support of management. As the construction market is highly dynamic, implementing KM to achieve KBC should be included in the company’s short- and long-term policies with strong support from management.

5. Discussion

This study demonstrates the critical role of management attention, budget allocation, and KM practices in shaping KBC in the construction industry. Five KM factors are considered in the SD model development to plan for KBC enhancement in the long term. The developed SD model reveals the inherent oscillations in KBC performance. With management support for KM implementation, the improvement in KBC scores exists. On the contrary, a decline in KBC scores occurs when the budget is redirected to other projects. Such oscillation patterns reaffirm findings in the literature, emphasizing the fluctuating nature of organizational competitiveness in the resource-sensitive environment [20,30]. To achieve sustainable KBC enhancement, continuous support from management is crucial.
The study results reveal that improving KBC scores in the early stages depends mainly on the KU and KD factors. A short-term improvement plan could be established focusing on these two factors. Management may support human-related activities using existing resources, such as regular online meetings with clients to achieve prompt responses and a relationship program initiative to share lessons learned among stakeholders. These activities require moral support and attention from management and less budget. By focusing on this short-term plan, the companies could accelerate the KBC scores in a short period. Nevertheless, the activities under the KS, KA, and KR factors must be gradually implemented to achieve sustainable development. They require immense moral and financial support from management. Storing and analyzing data from past projects requires employees’ time, which may interrupt their routine work. Efficient tools, such as Google BigQuery, IBM Db2 warehouses, and software systems, require a vast investment and training for full utilization. This is consistent with Yan et al. [37], who stated that creating and managing digital archives and automating workflows require substantial early-stage investments in infrastructure and training. Management should commit to these improvements to achieve sustainable KBC development.

6. Conclusions

This study develops the SD model of KBC enhancement to examine the dynamic effects of management support on KM implementation and KBC in the long term. The results answer the two research questions and confirm the hypotheses.
  • Management support, through budget allocation, has an important role in KBC enhancement (Hypothesis 1).
  • Short- and long-term strategies to enhance KBC can be set through KM implementation, focusing on human-centered activities (i.e., activities in the KU, KD, KA, and KR factors) and technology-driven activities (i.e., activities in the KS factor) (Hypothesis 2).
This study contributes to the body of knowledge. It highlights the inherent oscillations in KBC performance from dynamic changes in management support. KBC’s performance may decline when management attention shifts away from KM initiatives. While investments in KM-related activities can improve the KBC scores, sustaining the implementation requires continuous financial support, iterative learning, and alignment of KM efforts with organizational goals. The findings also underscore the pivotal role of technology-driven solutions, such as automated storage systems and digital repositories, in enhancing KS activities while emphasizing the importance of fostering a collaborative knowledge-sharing culture through KD and KU initiatives. For companies with a smaller budget, KBC scores may be improved using existing tools and simple online applications to raise performance, specifically in the KD and KU factors. Nevertheless, investment in high-technology tools and systems is necessary for long-term success.
This study has some limitations and suggestions for future studies. The study focuses on KBC enhancement through management support for KM implementation in the construction industry. Future studies may apply the developed SD model in similar industries for comparison and validation. The important weights of factors and their attributes may be adjusted to suit different working environments and utilized in the model development and gap (or score) reduction. Additionally, while SD modeling effectively illustrates the impacts of management attention on KBC, its simulation results may not fully capture real-world complexities. Empirical research using case studies may provide deeper insights. Furthermore, this study neglects cultural and behavioral factors in KM adoption. Exploring how organizational culture and employee behaviors affect KM effectiveness could add value to the construction industry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.D.K. and T.C.; methodology, V.D.K. and T.C.; validation, V.D.K. and T.C.; formal analysis, V.D.K. and T.C.; investigation, V.D.K. and T.C.; data curation, V.D.K. and T.C.; writing—original draft preparation, V.D.K.; writing—review and editing, T.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Thammasat Postdoctoral Fellowship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. WorldBank. Industry (Including Construction), Value Added (% of GDP). Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.TOTL.ZS?end=2021&start=2021&view=bar&year=2021 (accessed on 5 June 2024).
  2. Statista. Number of Employees in the Construction Industry in the European Union (EU-27) from 2011–2022, by Segment. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/763219/total-employed-persons-in-building-construction-industry-eu/ (accessed on 5 June 2025).
  3. Peráček, T.; Kaššaj, M. Legal Easements as Enablers of Sustainable Land Use and Infrastructure Development in Smart Cities. Land 2025, 14, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bodea, C.-N.; Purnuş, A. Legal implications of adopting building information modeling (BIM). Jurid. Trib. -Rev. Comp. Int. Law 2018, 8, 63–72. [Google Scholar]
  5. Marinho, A.J.C.; Couto, J. Contribution to improvement of knowledge management in the construction industry—Stakeholders’ perspective on implementation in the largest construction companies. Cogent Eng. 2022, 9, 2132652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kokkaew, N.; Jokkaw, N.; Peansupap, V.; Wipulanusat, W. Impacts of human resource management and knowledge management on non-financial organizational performance: Evidence of Thai infrastructure construction firms. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2022, 13, 101750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dang, C.N.; Chih, Y.Y.; Le-Hoai, L.; Nguyen, L.D. Project-based A/E/C firms’ knowledge management capability and market development performance: Does firm size matter. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Othman, A.A.E.; ElKady, M.M. A knowledge management based framework for enhancing the learning culture in architectural design firms in developing countries. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2023, 21, 23–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Krishnakumar, S.K.; Kishore, R.; Suresh, N. Expansive or focused attention? An exploration–exploitation perspective on e-Business systems and firm performance. Prod. Oper. Manage. 2022, 31, 2038–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eklund, J.; Raj, M.; Eggers, J. Attention Focus and New Opportunities: The Moderating Role of Managerial Attention to Alternative Issues. Organ. Sci. 2024, 36, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhou, L.; Wang, Z.; Wang, J. Measuring the differentiation and decentralization of managers’ risk attention and their impacts. Eur. J. Financ. 2023, 30, 1164–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Molwus, J.; Erdogan, B.; Ogunlana, S. Using structural equation modelling (SEM) to understand the relationships among critical success factors (CSFs) for stakeholder management in construction. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 426–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ekanayake, E.; Shen, G.; Kumaraswamy, M.; Owusu, E. A fuzzy synthetic evaluation of vulnerabilities affecting supply chain resilience of industrialized construction in Hong Kong. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 29, 2358–2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chinda, T. Effect of Management Attention on Ergonomics Culture Maturity: System Dynamics Modeling Approach. Sci. Technol. Asia 2021, 26, 99–113. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ansari, R.; Khalilzadeh, M.; Taherkhani, R.; Antuchevičienė, J.; Migilinskas, D.; Moradi, S. Performance Prediction of Construction Projects Based on the Causes of Claims: A System Dynamics Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Guan, J.; Liu, B.; Shen, W. Development of an Evaluation System for Intelligent Construction Using System Dynamics Modeling. Buildings 2024, 14, 1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ajayi, B.O.; Chinda, T. Dynamics of Pertinent Project Delay Variables in the Thai Construction Sector: Mathematical Analysis. Eng. Manag. Prod. Serv. 2022, 14, 26–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fong, P.S.W.; Kwok, C.W.C. Organizational culture and knowledge management success at project and organizational levels in contracting firms. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 1348–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Navarro, J.G.C.; Dewhurst, F.W.; Eldridge, S. Linking chief knowledge officers with customer capital through knowledge management practices in the Spanish construction industry. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2010, 21, 389–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Albooyeh, S.; Yaghmaie, F. Evaluation of knowledge management model in construction companies using the fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 2019, 18, 64–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ahmad, H.S.; An, M. Knowledge management implementation in construction projects: A KM model for Knowledge Creation, Collection and Updating (KCCU). Int. J. Proj. Organ. Manag. 2008, 1, 133–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, L.; Fong, P.S.W. Evaluation of knowledge management performance: An organic approach. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 431–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tabejamaat, S.; Ahmadi, H.; Barmayehvar, B.; Banihashemi, S. Enhancing Job Satisfaction and Productivity through Knowledge Management Infrastructure: A Case of Construction Industry. Buildings 2024, 14, 790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Idrees, H.; Haider, S.A.; Xu, J.; Tehseen, S.; Jan, N. Impact of knowledge management capabilities on organisational performance in construction firms: The mediating role of innovation. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2023, 27, 322–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abuezhayeh, S. Integration between knowledge management and business process management and its impact on the decision making process in the construction sector: A case study of Jordan. Constr. Innov. 2021, 22, 987–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jia, J.; Jiang, S.; Xiao, L.; Lu, F. Transforming digital resources into project management performance: A knowledge-based view. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. ahead of print. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Leal, C.; Cunha, S.; Couto, I. Knowledge sharing at the construction sector—Facilitators and inhibitors. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 121, 998–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nobert Leo Raja, S.; Dhamodharn, K.; Janardhanan, K.A. Knowledge management in engineering through ICT. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2015, 10, 24057–24068. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang, Q.e.; Zhao, L.; Chang-Richards, A.; Zhang, Y.; Li, H. Understanding the Impact of Social Capital on the Innovation Performance of Construction Enterprises: Based on the Mediating Effect of Knowledge Transfer. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khoa, V.D.; Chinda, T. Assessment of Construction Competitiveness through Knowledge Management Process Implementation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Perotti, F.A.; Ferraris, A.; Candelo, E.; Busso, D. The dark side of knowledge sharing: Exploring “knowledge sabotage” and its antecedents. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 141, 422–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yap, J.B.H.; Lock, A. Analysing the benefits, techniques, tools and challenges of knowledge management practices in the Malaysian construction SMEs. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2017, 15, 803–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, H.; Meng, X. BIM-based knowledge management in construction projects. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Proj. Manag. 2018, 9, 20–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Debs, L.; Hubbard, B. Gathering and disseminating lessons learned in construction companies to support knowledge management. Constr. Econ. Build. 2023, 23, 56–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Eken, G.; Bilgin, G.; Dikmen, I.; Birgonul, M. A lessons-learned tool for organizational learning in construction. Autom. Constr. 2020, 110, 102977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Altaie, M.; Dishar, M. Integration of Artificial Intelligence Applications and Knowledge Management Processes for Construction Projects Management. Civ. Eng. J. 2024, 10, 738–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yan, H.; Yang, N.; Peng, Y.; Ren, Y. Data mining in the construction industry: Present status, opportunities, and future trends. Autom. Constr. 2020, 119, 103331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mandičák, T.; Mésároš, P.; Tkác, M. Construction project management through BIM and knowledge technology. Pollack Period. 2020, 15, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Le, P.B.; Le, H.M. Stimulating exploitative and exploratory innovation through transformational leadership and knowledge management capability: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2023, 44, 1037–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, X.; Chu, Z.; Ren, L.; Xing, J. Open innovation and sustainable competitive advantage: The role of organizational learning. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2023, 186, 122114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mohamad, M.R.; Mat Zin, N. Knowledge management and the competitiveness of small construction firms: Innovation as mediator. Compet. Rev. 2019, 29, 534–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khoa, V.D.; Chinda, T. The Use of Knowledge Management to Improve Construction Competitiveness: System Dynamics Modeling. Ph.D. Thesis, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand, 2023. (Unpublished). [Google Scholar]
  43. Doan, D.T.; Chinda, T. Modeling Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Program in Bangkok: Benefit and Cost Analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 05016015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, M.; Le, Y.; Hu, Y.; Xia, B.; Skitmore, M.; Gao, X. System dynamics modeling for construction management research: Critical review and future trends. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2019, 25, 730–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mak, T.M.W.; Wang, L.; Tsang, D.C.W. System dynamics on wood and yard waste management. In Waste Biorefinery: Integrating Biorefineries for Waste Valorisation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 559–578. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sea-Lim, K.; Plianpho, C.; Sukmake, P.; Pongcharoenkiat, W.; Chinda, T. Feasibility study of reverse logistic of steel waste in the construction industry. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2018, 40, 271–277. [Google Scholar]
  47. Khan, K.I.A.; Flanagan, R.; Lu, S. Managing information complexity using system dynamics on construction projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2016, 34, 192–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Duryan, M.; Smyth, H. Service design and knowledge management in the construction supply chain for an infrastructure programme. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2019, 9, 118–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bures, V. Comparative analysis of system dynamics software packages. Int. Rev. Model. Simu. 2015, 8, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Prasertrungruang, T.; Hadikusumo, B.H.W. System dynamics modelling of machine downtime for small to medium highway contractors. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2008, 15, 540–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, L.; Fong, P.S.W. Visualizing evolution of knowledge management capability in construction firms. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 839–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Research flow.
Figure 1. Research flow.
Buildings 15 02015 g001
Figure 2. Influence of management attention on performance over time (adapted from Chinda [14]).
Figure 2. Influence of management attention on performance over time (adapted from Chinda [14]).
Buildings 15 02015 g002
Figure 3. Conceptual framework of KBC enhancement (adapted from Khoa and Chinda [30]).
Figure 3. Conceptual framework of KBC enhancement (adapted from Khoa and Chinda [30]).
Buildings 15 02015 g003
Figure 4. Components of an SD model.
Figure 4. Components of an SD model.
Buildings 15 02015 g004
Figure 5. Partial SD model of KBC enhancement.
Figure 5. Partial SD model of KBC enhancement.
Buildings 15 02015 g005
Figure 6. Simulation results.
Figure 6. Simulation results.
Buildings 15 02015 g006
Figure 7. KM factors achievement.
Figure 7. KM factors achievement.
Buildings 15 02015 g007
Figure 8. Budget allocation scenario.
Figure 8. Budget allocation scenario.
Buildings 15 02015 g008
Figure 9. Short- and long-term plan scenario.
Figure 9. Short- and long-term plan scenario.
Buildings 15 02015 g009
Table 1. Summary of previous KM-related studies.
Table 1. Summary of previous KM-related studies.
AuthorMethodologyContribution
Ahmad and An [21]Qualitative studyDeveloped a practical KM model focusing on the effectiveness of tacit/explicit KM.
Abuezhayeh [25]Questionnaires, qualitative interviews, hypothesis testingProposed a conceptual framework, a tool to enable improved decision-making, for KM-BPM integration, emphasizing strategic and operational alignment.
Albooyeh and Yaghmaie [20]Fuzzy analytic hierarchy processIntroduced fuzzy decision models for comparative KM evaluations across organizations.
Altaie and Dishar [36]Surveys, statistical analysisEnhanced construction project success in Iraq by improving the KM process through AI applications.
Chen and Fong [22]SD modelingProvided a comprehensive and dynamic KM evaluation framework focusing on long-term strategic alignment.
Debs and Hubbard [34]Qualitative interviews, surveysIdentified gaps in knowledge capture, highlighted the need for systematic protocols and recommended improvements for reuse.
Eken et al. [35]Interview with construction experts.Introduced an effective digital tool for lessons learned management, enhancing organizational learning via technology.
Fong and Kwok [18]Empirical surveys, statistical analysisExplained how cultural type influences KM, with practical implications for fostering sharing in construction firms, increasing the chances of success.
Idrees et al. [24]Survey; structural equation modelingQuantified the impact of KM on performance and clarified the mediation role of innovation in construction organizations.
Jia et al. [26]Empirical survey, component-based structural equation modelingProvided understanding of how knowledge shared in virtual spaces could be leveraged for improving management performance in construction project teams
Khoa and Chinda [30]Survey; structural equation modeling Offered empirical evidence linking KM to competitiveness, recommended actions to enhance KM in construction, and developed a validated self-assessment tool for construction firms.
Kokkaew et al. [6]Survey, structural equation modeling Offered guidance for human resource managers in construction companies.
Leal, Cunha and Couto [27]Comprehensive literature reviewGuided organizations in fostering effective KS practices.
Mandičák, Mésároš and Tkác [38]Case studies, surveysSupported BIM’s strategic role in management and highlighted practical ways to enhance KM.
Nobert Leo Raja, Dhamodharn and Janardhanan [28]Literature review, group interviewProposed a model for ICT-enabled KM in project-based industries.
Perotti et al. [31]Literature synthesis, conceptual analysisIntroduced the concept of knowledge sabotage.
Tabejamaat et al. [23]Quantitative survey, structural equation modelingShowed the relationships between KM infrastructure, job satisfaction, and productivity in the construction industry.
Wang and Meng [33]Literature review, survey Provided a framework for integrating BIM into KM in construction.
Wang et al. [29]Quantitative survey, structural equation modelingLinked social structures with KM and innovation.
Yan et al. [37]Systematic literature review, content analysis, bibliometric mappingIdentified research gaps and suggested future directions to enhance KM.
Yap and Lock [32]Questionnaire survey, statistical analysisHighlighted the importance of soft factors in KM and provided policy recommendations for SMEs.
Table 2. KM and CP factors and their associated items (adapted from Khoa and Chinda [30]).
Table 2. KM and CP factors and their associated items (adapted from Khoa and Chinda [30]).
Budget
Perspective
FactorAssociated Item Total
Score
NameMaximum ScoreNameDefinitionInitial Score Maximum Score
Technology-relatedKS241KS1Accessing the control system5.941.0241
KS2Automating data validation6.243.4
KS3Applying a data warehouse platform5.638.6
KS4Digitally archiving system4.631.3
KS5Storing lessons learned in a database6.243.4
KS6Having an automated storage workflow6.243.4
Human-relatedKA101KA1Gathering client insights through direct feedback and interactions2.714.1539
KA2Collecting market intelligence from competitors via observation and analysis2.714.1
KA3Learning from employee performance reviews and KPI evaluations2.714.1
KA4Interpreting financial reports to inform managerial decision-making2.915.2
KA5Conducting market research using interviews, surveys, and fieldwork3.116.2
KA6Sharing printed knowledge materials with project teams and stakeholders2.412.1
KA7Applying industry benchmarking results through collaborative discussion and analysis2.915.2
KD180KD1Facilitating interactive dialogue and feedback sessions between teams8.943.2
KD2Conducting one-on-one mentorship and knowledge transfer programs9.445.0
KD3Sharing product and process insights through team workshops and training9.445.0
KD4Coordinating cross-departmental meetings for market trend updates9.846.8
KR126KR1Adapting services based on client feedback and requirements4.421.4
KR2Addressing client concerns during technological transitions4.722.7
KR3Developing strategic responses to competitive market actions4.220.2
KR4Implementing solutions based on employee feedback and suggestions3.918.9
KR5Adjusting business strategies to align with market development4.923.9
KR6Applying lessons learned from past project experiences3.918.9
KU132KU1Implementing process improvement based on organizational experience5.626.4
KU2Developing competitive strategies through market insights5.225.1
KU3Guiding strategic planning with collective organizational wisdom5.827.7
KU4Applying team expertise to resolve operational challenges5.225.1
KU5Enhancing business operations through best practices5.827.7
-CP220CP1Time5.730.8220
CP2Cost5.428.6
CP3Quality5.730.8
CP4Productivity5.730.8
CP5Employee’s satisfaction5.730.8
CP6Client’s satisfaction6.233.0
CP7Innovation 6.635.2
Total KBC score186.210001000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khoa, V.D.; Chinda, T. Dynamic Effects of Management Support on Knowledge-Based Competitiveness in Construction Companies. Buildings 2025, 15, 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15122015

AMA Style

Khoa VD, Chinda T. Dynamic Effects of Management Support on Knowledge-Based Competitiveness in Construction Companies. Buildings. 2025; 15(12):2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15122015

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khoa, Vo Dang, and Thanwadee Chinda. 2025. "Dynamic Effects of Management Support on Knowledge-Based Competitiveness in Construction Companies" Buildings 15, no. 12: 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15122015

APA Style

Khoa, V. D., & Chinda, T. (2025). Dynamic Effects of Management Support on Knowledge-Based Competitiveness in Construction Companies. Buildings, 15(12), 2015. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15122015

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop