Han, S H and Diekmann, J E (2001) Approaches for making risk-based go/no-go decision for international projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(4), pp. 300-308. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The world economy is becoming more global due to agreements such as the "Uruguay Round" in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The globalization of the construction industry provides tremendous opportunities for contractors to expand into new foreign markets. However, international construction involves all of the uncertainties common to domestic construction projects as well as risks specific to international transactions. Consequently, in opposition to the worldwide globalization trend, only 19% of the U.S. top 400 contractors actively seek international contracts. This paper discusses current approaches related to entry decisions into international construction markets. It then develops a comprehensive approach for making stable and systematic go/no-go decision for international projects. Finally, a pilot study is used to demonstrate and validate the approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | becoming, Uruguay, domestic construction, international construction, agreements, markets, construction industry, globalization, international project |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, philosophical process, economic factors, Geography, contract formation, economic analysis, construction type, strategic management |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Contract Administration, International Construction |
| 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