Xu, T; Bower, D A and Smith, N J (2003) Forms of collaboration for foreign contractors in China. In: Greenwood, D J (ed.) Proceedings of 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, Brighton, UK.
Abstract
According to a pilot study on foreign contractors' opportunities in China, foreign contractors are not likely to sustain business without collaboration from Chinese design institutes or construction enterprises. Based on the pilot study and the current Chinese construction related regulations, the paper identifies the possible Sino-foreign contractor collaboration forms, namely merger and acquisition, joint-venture, project-based collaboration, and strategic alliances. The paper then analyses the feasibility and stability of the various forms of collaboration and recommends the strategic alliance as the most appropriate collaboration form for foreign contractors. Changes among forms of collaboration are discussed.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; design institute; enterprise; foreign contractor; strategic alliance |
| Index terms: | foreign contractor, strategic alliance, merger, collaboration, acquisition, China, stability, regulation |
| Subjects: | partnership management, Geography, management, political science, structural engineering, business |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, International Construction, Governance, Geographical Context, Organizational Design, 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