Abdul-Aziz, A R (1994) Global strategies: A comparison between Japanese and American construction firms. Construction Management and Economics, 12(6), pp. 473-484. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
An in-depth study on 16 major overseas contractors and desk research on 100 others from various countries revealed that some have adopted global strategies during the turbulent 1980s. The world is perceived as a single operating platform. This implies that they harbour no inhibitions to serve anywhere. Their actions include utilizing specific countries as a springboard to enter other national markets as well as sources of landbound competitive advantages. These firms associate with all sorts of private and public bodies from around the world to expedite their advancement. Proper coordination and management is required so that their organizations behave as integrated groups. This paper centres on Japanese and American contractors to indicate the possibility of the former with their global appetite capturing a greater share of the world construction market at the expense o.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | American contractors; global strategies; Japanese contractors |
| Index terms: | competitive advantage, coordination, markets, construction firm, platform, construction market, strategy, harbour |
| Subjects: | organization, market analysis, economic analysis, management, infrastructure and transport systems, digital design |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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