Ulutas Duman, D and Green, S (2015) Understanding competitiveness in complex and dynamic environments: The case of Turkish contracting. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explore how international contracting firms maintain their competitive position. The adopted stance is positioned against the positivist and rational perspectives, which currently dominate the construction competiveness literature. In contrast to previous studies, the focus lies on the interpretations of senior executives within Turkish contractors, which have in recent years competed highly successfully in international markets. Emphasis is given to the dynamic capabilities view (DCV) and the extent to which it provides into the strategy of Turkish contractors. In contrast to other theoretical models, DCV is notable in the (rhetorical) emphasis given to dynamic environments within which firms continually re-position themselves. Static rationalist models of strategy have limited explanatory power in the context of the highly unstable markets within which Turkish contractors operate. An empirical research agenda is outlined together with a proposed set of research methods.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competitiveness; dynamic capabilities; process perspective; sense making; international contracting |
| Index terms: | senior executive, competitiveness, explanatory power, dynamic capability, research agenda, international market, markets, strategy |
| Subjects: | leadership, theoretical framing, market analysis, economic analysis, management, development economics, research management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, International Construction, Business Strategy, Human Resources |
| 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