Burl, David Graham (2010) Do joint ventures out perform sole ventures in business and financial terms: The case of the construction and property development sectors. PhD thesis, University of the West of Scotland, UK.
Abstract
Given the recent popularity of Joint Ventures and Strategic Alliances as an organisational form, and the implication of superior performance (versus Sole Ventures); this Research Study attempts to determine the existence of, and reasons for, any differential performance. Underpinning theory was fundamentally identified in four related `core' literatures: Transaction Cost Economics; Theory of the Firm; Interorganisational Theory; Joint Venture/Strategic Alliance Theory. This was supplemented by a fifth discipline focusing on `knowledge management' and `ceativity' - viz. Organisational Learning. A broad range of relevant factors was reviewed - but the research focused on five working hypotheses, derived from the application of intuition to the literature. The Study adopted a holistic approach, attempting to evaluate both the comparative `business' (e. g. input/output quality); and `financial' (e. g. profitability) performance of Joint Ventures versus Sole Ventures. `Business performance' was explored by generating a Survey Instrument from the literature and conducting Key Informant Interviews with highranking, experienced executives (from the Joint Venture-rich Construction and Property Development sectors). `Financial performance' was explored by developing a substantial `convenience sample' of financial data; subjecting it to Ratio Analysis and Descriptive Statistical Analysis; and using it to generate a Survey Instrument which provided the basis for a Key Informant Interview (again with a Construction and Property Development executive). The data produced by the Key Informant Interviews was then grouped under the five Working Hypothesis headings - and discussed in relation to specific hypotheses. An attempt was made to reconcile theory and practice in the Conclusion - again on a structured hypothesis-by-hypothesis basis - where literature `concepts' were compared with empirical `percepts'. The hypotheses were able to provide the basis for some qualified assertions about comparative Joint Venture/Strategic Alliance performance. Thus, the contribution of this Thesis comprises the empirical testing of concepts contained in the five literatures which constitute the theoretical base for the research study. It is hoped that `knowledge conversion' (pure to applied knowledge) will occur via academic and professional conduits; resulting in the operationalisationo f conceptsi n practical joint ventures ettings.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | business performance, testing, intuition, executive, profitability, knowledge management, property development, theory of the firm, strategic alliance, organizational learning, interorganizational, survey, transaction cost, holistic approach, ratio analysis, financial performance, interview, conversion, joint venture, statistical analysis |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, professional development, economic development, cognitive psychology, manufacturing engineering, business analysis, data collection methods, economics, financial analysis, practitioner, partnership management, data science, economic analysis, business, professional practice |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Cost Management, Urban Studies, Quality Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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