Lee, Y S; Kim, J J and Lee, T S (2016) Topological competiveness based on social relationships in the Korean construction-management industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(11): 05016014, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A recent study reported that the construction management market has grown more competitive. In this environment, identifying a company's competitive position enables a study of competitor strategies and the ability to select the most suitable path to profitability. This study suggests a methodology to analyze topological competiveness based on social relationships between firms modeled according to four subnetworks: Joint contract networks linked directly between firms, public and private networks linked indirectly by owners, and building and civil networks linked indirectly by work type. This study proposes an analytical framework measuring topological competiveness from four perspectives: The network topology among each subnetwork, centralities and structural positions among the firms, cohesive subgroups and strong relations in the subnetwork, and the structural equivalence among firms. Using 2,984 cases of Korean construction management projects from 1997 to 2013, an empirical analysis of topological competiveness validated the methodology to diagnose competitiveness and select the most suitable relationships with competitors to create company growth.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | organizational issues; social network analysis; topological competitiveness |
| Index terms: | strategy, social network analysis, analytical framework, topology, methodology, subgroup, owner, organizational issue, profitability, competitiveness |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, economic analysis, business, market analysis, research management, sociology, management, research methods, geometry and topology |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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