Strategizing in construction: Exploring practices and paradoxes

Löwstedt, M (2015) Strategizing in construction: Exploring practices and paradoxes. PhD thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.

Abstract

The starting point of this thesis was an identified lack of strategy-related research within the construction industry as well as a lack of comprehensive strategy management at the organizational level in construction. A growing number of researchers have highlighted the importance of strategy research in construction in regards to increase understanding of long-term development and change on the organizational levels of construction companies. The overall purpose of this thesis is to explore how strategizing in construction is deployed using a Strategy-as-Practice (SAP) lens. Two main research questions have driven the research: 1) How is strategy perceived and enacted at the micro level in a construction company? 2) What practices enacted at the micro level can be linked to organizational outcomes and change on various macro levels in a construction company?In order to answer these questions, I draw on rich empirical data from an in-depth case study of a large construction company (Alpha) and combine insights from using three different methodological approaches: narrative analysis of interviews, observation studies, and a short ethnographic study. The findings show that traditional strategy practices such as annual reviews, strategic planning, and strategic workshops did not seem to be overtly consequential for organizational outcomes and directions in the organization. Instead the findings reveal how the managers collectively identify with and foregrounded the craftsmanship of to the building site. This over time seems to have embedded a common set of practices that permeate all the organizational levels, including project levels, middle-management levels, and higher levels, through a top-down as well as bottom-up negotiation encompassing mainly those with the appropriate and legitimate craftsmanship-grounded habitus. This phenomenon could be considered as a pattern of strategizing in itself and it highlights that there is a tension (paradox) in regards to what the key practices are and what the actors actually do in relations to strategy in construction. It is suggested that the social process relating to the strong collective identification may have negative consequences for long-term change and development in the construction industry since one of its main mechanisms is to self-reinforce itself to remain the same. This thesis also contributes methodologically and theoretically, both to SAP and to construction, by showing how underlying logics of practices are more readily discerned by studying them as they are enacted between different groups interacting at boundary interfaces.

Item Type: Thesis (Doctoral)
Uncontrolled Keywords: crafts; building site; negotiation; strategic planning; case study; interview
Index terms: negotiation, construction industry, social process, strategic planning, case study, strategy-as-practice, workshop, paradox, narrative, construction company, building site, strategy, manager, interview
Subjects: data collection methods, social theory and frameworks, management, site and location studies, qualitative and interpretive research, conflict resolution, industry analysis, organization, construction type, practitioner, communities and social development
Topics: Research Practice, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Geographical Context
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

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