Caerteling, J S; Halman, J I M; Song, M and Doŕe, A G (2009) Impact of government and corporate strategy on the performance of technology projects in road construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(11), pp. 1211-1221. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In this study, we focus on road construction and analyze technology development projects. Based on the business strategy literature and literature on technology policy, we test the relative importance of a firm's strategies and government as a buyer and champion. Our empirical findings stress the value of government championing behavior. Our results show that in road construction, championing behavior is more important than public technology procurement for project performance. The results even suggest that government championship is more important than a firm's strategic orientation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | corporations; government; highway and road construction; technology |
| Index terms: | technology development, relative importance, road construction, strategy, project performance, business strategy, technology policy, corporate strategy |
| Subjects: | business, civil engineering, project management theory and practice, innovation and technology management, risk assessment, strategic management, management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Governance, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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