Pemsel, S and Widén, K (2011) Bridging boundaries between organizations in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 29(5), pp. 495-506. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Organizations have boundaries that serve various purposes; for example, differentiating internal operations from external activities and controlling flows of information. Boundaries can however hinder knowledge exchange in inter-organizational collaboration, leading to less effective outcomes. Empirical results from comparative case studies on how boundaries between organizations in a project can be bridged effectively to support knowledge exchange are presented. End-user organizations and real estate companies form the subjects of the enquiry. The results show that the depth of involvement of the end-user organization varies widely and, with it, the use of bridging roles and activities. To identify bridging strategies that can foster productive knowledge exchange in inter-organizational collaboration, it is necessary to understand contextual aspects of end-users' needs to ensure the availability of sufficient competence within, and time for, the project team to perform its duties.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | bridging strategies; communication; end-users; organizational boundaries; projects |
| Index terms: | organizational boundary, collaboration, construction organization, project team, real estate, case study, boundaries, strategy, knowledge exchange, competence, duty |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, sociology, real estate economics, personnel development, knowledge management, property law, management, organization, project delivery, contractual role |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Project Management, Legal Issues, Information Management, Urban Studies, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Research Practice |
| 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