COLLABORATIVE WORK AND KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN THE

PROJECT OPERATION
Blasco, Jaume1P; Estay-Niculcar; Christian A.1 2 ; Masarnau, Joan1
1
Departament de Projectes a l'Enginyeria – Univ. Politècnica de Catalunya – España
2
Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María – Chile – Ecuador

ABSTRACT
During first half of 20th century it was possible to believe that the projects were work
of a person with a group of devotees participating in their area, but submitted to the
rules of whom provide the knowledge. This approach now is not suitable for the
project operation; there is not human person today that may supply all the aspects of
the project and to master all the knowledge that are necessary to address the
problem and to get a creative solution and to execute it . Nowadays, it is recognised
that a good project is a teleological creation of a team providing all the specific
knowledge and, simultaneously, creating new knowledge required. To assume this
vision, an explanatory model of general validity for projects is presented, which
permits understand: the role of the virtual collaborative work, the knowledge creation
process, the management of people, and the repercussions on the learning and the
projects.

RESUMEN
Durante la primera mitad del siglo XX fue posible creer que los proyectos eran obra
de una persona con un séquito de subordinados que participaban en su pequeña
parcela, pero sometidos a la férula de quien aportaba los conocimientos. Este
planteamiento ya no es apto para los proyectos de ingeniería actuales en los que, a
todas luces, es evidente que no hay persona humana que pueda abarcar todos los
aspectos del proyecto y dominar todos los conocimientos que son menester en el
planteamiento, y la resolución mental y la ejecución física. Ha tomado forma y nuevo
vigor el reconocimiento de que el buen proyecto es creación teleológica conjunta de
un grupo de personas que hace uso de sus conocimientos particulares y que, a la
par, va generando los nuevos conocimientos que requiere la consecución. Para

298
asumir esta visión, se presenta un modelo explicativo de proyectos de validez
general, que permite comprender: el rol de los entornos de trabajo colaborativo
virtual, el proceso de creación de conocimiento, la gestión de personal, y las
repercusiones sobre la enseñanza y los proyectos.

INTRODUCTION
The Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are referred to exogenous
knowledge, outside to the body, accumulated by the humanity in different ways
through complex social processes (writing, numbering, the press, ICT, and so one).
Meanwhile, the individual has not increased significantly both its information process
capacity and its knowledge ontological (to give sense).
We need to modify the working methods required for an efficient use of the new tools
(by example, the ones requires by the ICT), and to aim to research the evolution of
the project idea as well as of its crafts (? métiers? ) inasmuch affects directly the to
the company, to the project as business operation and the learning.
To understand it, we present an explanatory model of general validity projects, but in
this paper, when we talk about actors or objects we make reference to projects in the
engineering field.
So, in this paper, and in order to rationalise the use in engineering projects,
unconscious forms of problem solving by a group of people are presented as a
psychological capacity resulting from the evolutionary phylogenetic process. The
model is useful, for example, to understand: the role of the virtual collaborative work,
the knowledge creation process, the management of people, and the repercussions
on the learning and the projects.

1. BACKGROUND FOR A MODEL OF PROJECTS

Readers can ask itself why the authors of this paper explain them largely with Varela,
Piaget and Vygotsky and others, when it is possible to say that the project operation
is solved with common sense and experience. We would like to show to the readers
something that may be they know, but we have worked in a uncommon way and it
has been a sweat.
To be respectful with our masters and the readers, first, we must try to present the
phenomenological model that permits the understanding of the project operation
further of a solving-problem process supported by the common sense and the

299
experience (but not in contradiction with both) and, furthermore, conduct the formal
discussion and criticism in a phenomenology of the technique.
We understand that the project activity is not the simple juxtaposition of the manners
in the project, but it stems from cognitive processes. By this reason and knowing that
between Piaget (1967) and Vygotsky (1934) exist differences, we like emphasise the
coincidences: both formulate development theories; both are concerned cognitivist;
and, the two aim to draw up a representation theory.
From any representation theory and of the concept of operational image, and of the
concept of problem space defined by Newell & Simon (1972), the idea of activity
zone can be developed as technical and organisational necessity, and owning to the
autonomy of the individual, and place where begin the search of the solutions
through representations. In this sense the activity is an answer to reach the
objectives having specific resources and specific overcoming limitations. Such sense
of activity does not consider the project as cognitive process, therefore, we cannot
say that activity zone generates organised knowledge. Furthermore, if ‘the
representations leave the scene’1, then acquainted and known, subject and object,
determine and emerge them simultaneously. In philosophical term: the knowledge is
ontological’2.
We believe that the models that stem from this approach are usually troublesome
and not very suitable to the current times and do not take advantage of conceptual
resources of the cognitive sciences, such as: zone of proximal development,
structural coupling and autopoiesis, and enaction.
The use of these conceptual resources helps to lighten the models and to resolve
some practical situations observed, for example:
• Each individual can use differently and with different purposes a common manner
of apprenticeship or work;
• Within a task, the strategy is changed, because each person has more or less
conscience of her zone of proximal development, that is to say, has more or less
self-taught skills. For example, a person knows what is ready to learn/to master
and can take decisions with greater or lesser autonomy.

1
“Las representaciones abandonan la escena” (Varela, 1988).
2
“Conocedor y conocido, sujeto y objeto, se determinan uno al otro y surgen simultáneamente. En términos
filosóficos: el conocimiento es ontológico.” (Varela, 1988)

300
• Each individual adjusts the task that is assigned to an optimal degree of difficulty.
It is a way in which it manages its motivation.

By technical project we means the results-oriented teleological process, which

operates with design actions. In this case, the design is present in each instant of
the technical project, and so, the design as process has a finality. We can say that
the knowledge is designed because the technical project is intensive in knowledge
created and emerged in each instant.

2. PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODEL OF THE PROJECT

The model is composed by three related pillars amongst themselves (Figure 1).

Figure 13

2.1. Fundamental Pillars

a. Proposition. The project is a group of descriptive propositions (of creation and
decision) and oriented to the action, which are situated in the world of the ideas or
the knowledge. For example, orders, drawings, edicts, rules and procedures, among
others.

3
Actividad inmediata: Immediate activity. Actividad material: Material Activity. Actividad mediada: Mediate
activity. Artefacto: Artifact. Artefactual: Artifaltual. Asimilición estructural: Structural assimilation. Conciencia:
Conscience. Conocimiento: Knowledge. Idea de Proyecto: Project idea. Objetos intermedios: Intermediate
objects. Organizativa: Organisational. Proposiciones en el mundo real: real-world proposition. Simbólica:
Symbolic.

301
b. Activity. During the phases of the project the propositions are implemented on
intermediate objects of an immaterial type (linguistic objects, by example) or material
type (machinery, equipment, by example).

c. Action. The execution of propositions leads to the action that will consist,
essentially, in the management of the intermediate objects of an organisational type
(business structure, accountability plan, by example), artifactual type (the pencil, the
PC, trucks, by example) and symbolic (maps, diagrams, sketch, by example),
available and pertinent to the project.

2.2. Relations and collaborative work

The intermediate objects has an important place in the communication among the
pillars of the project. Since they are generally of hybrid nature (material and
immaterial), they are an excellent medium of cooperation (association of persons for
common benefit4) and coordination among the actors of the project.

3. CREATING KNOWLEDGE IN THE PROJECT

The material activity takes place on the material objects. In agreement with Leontiev
(1975), the material activity concerns "to the capacity to adapt the activity to the form
of any object and its reproduction."
Two types of activities take place on the immaterial objects: immediate and mediate.
The immediate activity consists of the assimilation of the nature external to the own
structures. The mediate activity is when the object is identified through its objective
interaction with other properties.
This mediate activity account the finality of the activity for the individual, therefore,
will be had capacity to assign purposes, so the activity is teleological. Say in other
way, the collective activity makes emerge the conscience of group and, as
community of practice, the own conscience of project.
Finally, the activity is richer than the forwarded activity, and the knowledge ? which
emerges from the interaction between intermediate objects and people? are
consolidated in tacit and/or explicit way.

4
Of the thesaurus from http:www.britannica.com. Read 5/9/2002.

302
4. IMPACT ON THE TEACHING AND PRACTICE OF PROJECTS
Here is analysed the impact of the previous item on the teaching and the practice of
projects with references to the virtual collaborative environments, the knowledge
creation knowledge and management of people.

4.1. The return to the socratic method

The digitalisation of the information modify the knowledge creation systems as the
learning and the project. These systems will produce a pertinent, coherent and
truthful structured knowledge if and only if their production and treatment processes
have only adequate strategies and take profit of the faculties of the actors as:
deduction, prediction, formulation and verification of hypothesis, and search of
interaction.
In this case, the strategy must develop one structured logic in network that includes
reasoning and research processes of maieutics kind (teacher does not transmit a
completely structured knowledge, but it extracts the knowledge from the own
disciple).
The return to Socrates means that the centre of the learning of the project is the
disciple and not the teacher, and the core of the project is the group.

4.2. Needs and space

These strategies requires technology and instruments, cognitive resources, and
suitable spaces:

a. Technology (techné + logos) and instruments: Instruments of management

(planning and control), expression and communication, data register, and information
processing, informatic instruments and technologies of integration with the
environment.

b. Cognitive resources. It includes competence such as:

• conscience of the need to recognise the differences of rhythm and aptitudes of
apprenticeship as well as the need to give suitable answers;

303
• capacity: to apply active learning methods and holistic learning5 and, look for/to
find suitable tools to the individual apprenticeship styles (ways);
• flexibility and adaptability organisational;
• aptitude for the communication, social relations and team work; and,
• aptitude to work in actor-network.

c. - Space:
• ergonomic workplace;
• ergonomic virtual space; and,
• informatic net.

An important and remarkable space are the virtual working collaborative

environments, which facilitates the communication among intermediate objects.

4.3. Pillars for the construction of the model of project

4.3.1. Activity notion
The cognitive psychology understands the mental structure as a network or web of
related concepts, and admits the existence of zones more actives.
In view of a problem, the activation is high and it is the suitable moment to integrate
the novelty in our frame of action-thinking: the irradiation of the activity happens.

4.3.2. Interactivity
It is the web of activities among actors in the context of the project, and is the source
of the process of apprenticeship and knowledge creation.

4.3.3. Cooperation
Social interaction is essential for cognitive change that we need to work in a project.
Therefore, now to cooperate implies accepting a change in the idea of
space/organisation of work. Not understand it means the exclusion and/or aisle of
individuals of a collective, and to stop knowledge creation process.

5
... both are not learned in short courses (!), we think.

304
4.3.4. Interaction education-teaching
How we learn?, the answer is not simple, more if we assume the fact to educate
mediated the experience.
Learning and teaching are in strong interaction. A change in one of them means
necessarily an immediate effect on the other, either a positive or negative sense. A
structural connection must exist between teacher and disciple.

5. CONCLUSIONS
We have presented what we are doing and we thought to follow in it, after obtaining
our conclusions about the manners used in projects. For this reason, we left to the
reader its own readings and conclusions. We allow to give some clues.
Is it enough with the common sense to improve the practices of the operation
project? Will we be not trivialyzing the common sense?
We treated, and will continue trying, to know and to give account of the details that
form the common sense. Any suggestion, even about the uselessness of our work,
will help us to improve.

6. REFERENCES
Note: In the text we refer the year of the original edition.

Leontiev, A.N.(1975/1984). Activité, conscience, personnalité. Éditions du Progrès,

Moscou.
Newell, Allen; y, Simon, Herbert H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Prentice Hall
International.
Piaget, J. (1987). Biología y conocimiento ensayos sobre las relaciones ente las
regulaciones orgánicas y los procesos cognoscitivos. Siglo XXI. México.
Varela, Francisco. (1996). Conocer. Colección El Mamífero Parlante. Barcelona-
Madrid:GEDISA.
Vygotsky, Lev. (1995). Pensamiento y lenguaje. Serie Cognición y desarrollo
humano. Barcelona-España:PAIDOS.

CORRESPONDENCE:
Jaume Blasco i Font de Rubinat. Departament de Projectes d’Enginyeria - ETSEIB,
Diagonal 647, planta 10, 08028 Barcelona, Catalunya, España.
e-mail: jaime.blasco@upc.es, masarnau@eic.ictnet.es, ch_estay@hotmail.com

305