Knowledge management (KM) has infiltrated the world of managing and organising organisational activities and resources (Heisig et al., 2016), and the construction industry is no exception. Traditionally, construction organisations have been known to use project management techniques in project planning and execution to achieve project management performance outcomes in terms of time, cost and quality (Handzic and Durmic, 2015; Yeong and Lim, 2010; Zhai et al., 2014). However, the inability of such techniques in achieving the desired outcomes for the past 70 years have led construction organisations to search for a more viable and sustainable approach (Flyberg et al., 2003), with KM identified as a promising one. This explains why a considerable number of construction organisations have turned to KM implementation (Idris and Kolawole, 2016). Construction organisations are known to use a large number of knowledge workers (k-workers) in project teams which comprise project managers, engineers and technical staff from different backgrounds who work together to achieve the desired project performance outcomes. In fact, the knowledge of project team members has been deemed the most critical asset leading to successful project performance outcomes (Idris and Kolawole, 2016). However, recent studies have suggested that construction organisations have little understanding of knowledge and KM (Idris and Kolawole, 2016). This is evident from the study of Handzic and Durmic (2015) where projects are still not delivered on time, within budget and the required quality, with a failure rate of up to 70 per cent. Because of this, many construction organisations are slow to implement KM in projects. Further, studies conducted on this sector are still scarce (Ajmal et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2013), with limited attempts to apply the KM processes and knowledge conversion modes to the construction setting. Another major issue is that the KM critical success factors (CSFs) proposed by researchers within the construction domain remain fragmented, with a comprehensive framework and definition yet to emerge, let alone a perplexing definition by AlTmeemy et al. (2011) who view KM CSFs in terms of end results rather than the means to achieve them in projects. This has further confused the construction industry regarding what KM CSFs really mean. It is therefore not surprising when Yeong and Lim (2010) discovered that project failures were attributed to poor KM implementation in project planning and execution, where the knowledge acquired from previous projects was not leveraged. These issues suggest the imperative need to use proper procedures and techniques to acquire, create, share and store knowledge amongst the project staff (Donate and de Pablo, 2015) to ensure project performance success. Taking the cue from Drucker (1993) that the ability to identify and harness new knowledge is vital, particularly for project-based organisations to compete in this knowledge economy, this study reviews the KM processes, knowledge conversion modes and KM CSFs from the conceptual standpoint to guide construction organisations towards successful KM implementation to achieve the desired project performance outcomes. The resulting findings will benefit not only construction organisations but also policymakers and industry, particularly when supported by future empirical data to enrich the body of knowledge in this area.