CORO: ESpEJOS Y SILENCIOS

Buckley et al. (1988) suggested three categories of competitiveness measures, as actual performance, the generation of assets and the process, which may turn assets into performance (Henricsson and Ericsson, 2004). Also national, industrial and the firm are identified as the three levels of abstraction for measuring competitiveness (Momaya and Selby, 1998; Flanagan et al., 2005) while Flanagan et al., (2007) extend the levels to include project in case of construction industry.

Furthermore, Flanagan et al. (2007) provide taxonomy for analysing competitiveness of the construction sector within the four domains. Nevertheless, they did not seem to categorically answer their question ‘Is there a research domain for competitiveness of industry?’ Flanagan et al,

(2004) concluded that competitiveness can be measured at any of the four levels abstraction and the choice of approach will dependent of the level (Flanagan et al., 2005).

2.16.1 National Competitive Domain

There is no apparent agreement on how to view national perspectives as a domain for analysing the construction sector. However, Different researchers use variety of models, while deploying different methodologies to investigate a nation’ competitiveness in construction sector. A summary from Dikmen and Birgninul (2006) is shown the Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Construction Management Research Domains

Author

Study/Survey/Research

Model

Arditi and

Gutierrez (1991) Factors competitiveness of US contractors that affected the working abroad during 1980s

Crosthwaite (1998) International performance of British construction companies.

Ofori (1994) Formulation of a programme for developing Singapore’s construction industry

Used Porter’s (1998) diamond Model

Pheng et al. (2004) Explored the advantages of top British and Chinese contractors in the global market

Used internationalisation ratios in the OLI + S (ownership, locational and internalisation advantages + specialty advantages) model,

Oz (2001) Investigated the sources of competitive advantage of Turkish contractors in international markets

Used Porter’s (1998) diamond model

Seymour (1987) Analyse the multinational

construction industry Used

Dunning’s (2000)

eclectic paradigm

Pheng and

Hongbin (2003

Investigated the internationalisation of Chinese construction enterprises

Used Dunning’s (2000)

eclectic paradigm Cuervo and Pheng

(2003) Analysed ownership advantage and the the significance of disadvantage factors of Singaporean transnational construction corporations in the international construction market

Pheng and

Hongbin (2004)

Proposed an OLI + S model for measuring the degree of internationalisation of multinational corporations

Used Dunning’s (2000)

eclectic paradigm

Examining the competitiveness of construction in relation to a nation is viewed the same as analysing how the construction organisation within the nation competes with rest in the world (Flanagan et al., 2007).

2.16.2 Industrial Competitive Domain

To summarize, firm competitiveness is related to market performance, with high productivity and low costs being the keys to success. By moving one level higher, to the industry level, the analysis is likely to lose a significant

level of detail. Often, a valid sample of projects or firms’ performance is aggregated to represent the industry’s performance. However, whilst this gives an interesting overview, it makes it very difficult to analyse cause outcome- relationships. (Flanagan et al., 2005).

An organisation’s competitiveness is related to market performance, with high productivity being the key to success. The objective of firm competitiveness, after having secured survival, is the creation of new growth options that create value for shareholders. Hence, competitiveness is associated with achieving an objective. In other words, competitiveness is not an end but a means to an end (Buckley et al., 1988).

2.16.3 Organizational Competitive Domain

Firm-level competitiveness is of great interest among practitioners. It has been argued that nations can compete only if their firms can compete (Porter, 1998). Porter says, “It is the firms, not nations, which compete in international markets.” The environmental factors are more or less uniform for all competing firms. The variance in profitability could be attributed to the firms’ characteristics and actions (McGahan, 1999). Other pro-firm views (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989; Prahalad and Doz, and 1987; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990) focus on individual firm and their strategies for global operations, and resource positions to identify the real sources of their competitiveness.

Parson (1983) explained the three-level impact of IT in detail. At the industry level, it changes an industry’s products and services, market and production economies. At firm level, it affects the five key competitive forces. At the strategic level, it affects the firm’s strategy in low-cost leadership, product differentiation and concentration on market or product niche (Tan, 1996).

For a firm to gain SCA it must continuously seek to add value to its activities. This could be done through continuous improvement of operational effectiveness, efficiency, improve business performance and

increase stakeholder satisfaction (Porter, 1998; Nicoletti and Scarpetta, 2003; Flanagan et al., 2004).

At the firm level, all projects completed in one fiscal year may be aggregated to show the firm’s performance in delivery and profitability. However, firms are often interested in more overall financial and market performance, which is not covered by the project approach (Flanagan et al., 2005).

2.16.4 Project Competitive Domain

In summary, national competitiveness often includes elements of successful trade performance in the international markets that will in turn lead to sustained and rising standards of living in terms of rising real incomes. In other words, the objectives of the competitiveness of nations centre on human development, growth and improved quality of life (Flanagan et al., 2005).