Cho, Y (2003) The organizational boundaries of housebuilding firms in Korea. Construction Management and Economics, 21(7), pp. 671-680. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper investigates the boundary of activities undertaken by Korean housebuilding firms. First, it examines the contractual relationships between housebuilding firms and contractors, focusing on the existence of quasi-firm type organization in the Korean housebuilding industry. Second, it looks at how far Korean housebuilding firms diversify into other activities outside the industry. Secondary data analysis and an interview survey, carried out over the period between 1980 and 1995, were used. The results show that Korean housebuilding firms depend on a traditional contractual relationship with contractors but that quasi-firm type organization is not established. On the other hand, housebuilding firms diversify into both related and unrelated business. This diversification could be a short-term 'survival strategy' under a regulated environment rather than a long-term 'growth strategy'.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracting; diversification; housebuilding; organizational boundary; quasi-firm |
| Index terms: | survival, housebuilding, diversification, secondary data, organizational boundary, contractual relationship, survey, strategy, interview |
| Subjects: | environmental science, data collection methods, contractual relationship, market analysis, sociology, management, construction integration |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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