Kale, S and Arditi, D (1998) Business failures: Liabilities of newness, adolescence, and smallness. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(6), pp. 458-464. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The contextual factors of a company, particularly age and size, are commonly argued to have important implications on its survival chances. The research presented in this paper explores these implications in the context of the construction industry by analyzing the age distribution of failed construction companies and computing age-specific failure probabilities over a 10-year period (1985-1994). The research findings support the liability of adolescence rather than the liability of newness concept. Computed age-specific failure probabilities reveal a pattern of failure in the U.S. construction industry where the risk of failure increases initially with increasing age, reaches a peak point and decreases thereafter as companies grow older. Youngness of a construction company, which implies lack of organizational learning and lack of legitimacy, coupled with smallness, appears to be the main factor explaining this pattern. The paper finally addresses the strategic implications of increasing turbulence in the construction industry on the survival or failure of construction firms.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | liability, business failure, organizational learning, construction company, construction firm, computing, turbulence, legitimacy, survival, construction industry |
| Subjects: | professional development, sociology, industry analysis, liability law, organization, computing systems, environmental science, economic analysis, fluid mechanics |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here