Stewart, R A and Waroonkun, T (2007) Benchmarking construction technology transfer in Thailand. Construction Innovation, 7(3), pp. 218-239. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose – In an attempt to better diagnose the health of international construction technology transfer (TT) ventures and ultimately improve rates of TT, this paper promotes benchmarking as a tool for measuring baseline and future performance across a wide range of TT perspectives. Design/methodology/approach – Utilizing the results from a questionnaire survey of 162 construction industry professionals from Thailand, a TT performance measurement framework, consisting of eight diverse perspectives was formulated through exploratory factor analysis. Findings – The developed framework included eight perspectives which represent the enablers and outcomes of the TT process, namely: technology characteristics; government influence; relationship building; transferor characteristics; transferee characteristics; economic advancement; knowledge advancement; and project performance. This framework was utilized to provide a baseline benchmark index of TT performance in Thailand. A benchmark score of 70 per cent was determined, implying that up to 2005, construction TT ventures in Thailand have been operating moderately to highly effectively/successfully. Moreover, the TT performance of individual transferor nationalities operating in Thailand was compared. The study provides some evidence that Japanese construction firms are not only the leading exporter of construction services to Thailand but also perform slightly higher across TT performance perspectives influenced by the transferor. Research limitations/implications – Questionnaire items which attempted to explain the impact of cultural differences between the transferor and transferee were statistically problematic and subsequently removed from the conceptual framework. Cultural factors undoubtedly play a part in the international TT process on construction projects. Practical implications – The developed TT benchmarking method could be used by international funding agencies, governments of developing and newly industrialized countries and construction firms to more effectively evaluate the TT process and the outcomes it derives for the host construction sector. Originality/value – The paper provides a robust method for benchmarking the TT process and its derived outcomes in a construction context.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; construction industry; developing countries; performance measures; Thailand |
| Index terms: | performance measurement, funding, Thailand, project performance, international construction, construction industry, construction technology, exploratory factor analysis, developing country, performance measure, cultural difference, survey, construction firm, methodology, construction project, evidence, questionnaire, agency, technology transfer, conceptual framework, construction sector, benchmarking |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, statistical analysis, sociology, cross-cultural studies, Geography, production management, project management theory and practice, development economics, performance measurement, theoretical framing, research methods, knowledge management, economic analysis, strategic management, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, organization, digital engineering |
| Topics: | Quality Management, International Construction, Digital Applications, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, 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