Hampson, K D (1994) Technology strategy and competitive performance: A study of bridge construction. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.
Abstract
Pragmatic construction industry professionals, accustomed to intense price competition and focused on the bottom line, have difficulty in justifying investments in advanced technology. Both researchers and industry professionals need improved analysis tools and understanding of how technology affects results. This exploratory research sought an answer to the question "Does Technology Strategy Matter?" The technology strategy framework developed in this research provides a powerful analysis tool allowing researchers and managers to evaluate the technology strategy of firms. Five dimensions were synthesized from the background literature and operationalized for use in this research. They were: competitive positioning, sourcing of technology, scope of technology strategy, depth of technology strategy, and organizational fit. Detailed rationale for selection of these dimensions and a series of 29 measures that make up the five dimensions is provided along with guidelines for use. Researchers can use the measurement framework to provide a structured mechanism to investigate and understand technology strategy; industry professionals can use it to better define priorities and evaluate alternative approaches to technology. Exploring relationships between technology strategy and competitive performance required creating and testing comparative indicators for the competitive performance of privately-held construction firms. This research provides researchers and managers with a series of competitive performance benchmarks. Additionally, this research collects and distills considerable information regarding the market and technical characteristics of the California bridge construction industry. It discusses appropriate technology strategy for industry niches and the formation of technology strategies in construction firms. Links with business strategy were also examined. Finally, this investigation provides a foundation for future investigation of advancing construction technology. The results suggest that technology strategy does matter. It demonstrates positive associations between technology strategy and competitive performance, providing a level of specificity not before seen in the technology strategy literature, and making an original contribution to understanding technology strategy in construction.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Tatum, C B |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competition; market; measurement; construction firms; construction technology; bridge construction; business strategy; investment; technology strategy; professional |
| Index terms: | dimension, testing, construction industry, construction technology, exploratory research, investigation, technology strategy, bridge construction, appropriate technology, competition, strategy, business strategy, construction firm, manager |
| Subjects: | professional practice, health monitoring assessment and metrics, data collection methods, technological development, organization, digital engineering, business, practitioner, market analysis, industry analysis, management, research methods, infrastructure engineering |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Roles and Professions |
| 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