Cumplimiento normativo: GDPR / RGPD

Hence, what is it possible to learn about the SaP and ANT theoretical approach to study collaborative strategizing and innovation in construction? As it was discussed, there are not many previous studies of SaP in construction, since strategy management literature has mainly focused on the macro-level of the organisation, whereas some other studies of SaP in construction focused on discourse analysis, subjectivity, activity-based view, etc. (e.g. McCabe 2009 Laine & Vaara 2007; Johnson et al. 2003). This research considers the supply chain’s integration and responds to the gaps in literature to widen the strategizing network under analysis by considering external actors (e.g. suppliers, sub-contractors, consultants, etc.) as direct participants in strategizing and innovation.

The decision to combine these two theoretical lenses, in particular SaP as a general theoretical framework, and ANT as a more applied lens in the analysis, allowed to focus on the role of actors during strategizing activities happening in specific organisational settings (praxis). According to ANT, actors included both human and non-human relations of actor- networks through the process of translation. Hence, a great emphasis was put both on the contractor and its supply chain in collaborating and managing innovation, and on objects, such as BIM, which possessed the characteristics of being both multiple and fluid, thus changing shapes and influencing the actors’ activities. The combination of SaP with ANT allowed a clearer theoretical analysis on the data, since ANT can also be considered as a methodology. Therefore, the first contribution is the focus on strategic episodes, in which

195

collaboration and strategizing is analysed through an ethnographic approach which made even clearer how strategy and innovation actually happens in everyday practices. This means being able to stay closer to the actors of the study and understand more deeply how non-human actors can influence collaboration and strategizing by directly observing how they work and interact.

Furthermore, both SaP and ANT emphasise pluralistic contexts, as places in which different actors can strategize and build relationships. In this study, pluralistic contexts have been central in the analysis because the organisational settings, such as meetings, workshops and other events did involve a wide range of organisations and non-human actors. These settings, which are part of actor-networks, are characterised by heterogeneity of identities and interests, and social relations. Hence, in pluralistic contexts it has been discussed how CIS occurs among multiple actors, and it is influenced by non-humans as they are differently enacted, but also assume different connotations in different contexts. It has also been argued how these objects can influence power dynamics among actors and how this power fluctuates between TCC and the supply chain. In the construction industry many organisations work on a single project, thus many interests are present, power is diffuse, and many objects are mobilised. In particular, my theoretical approach of SaP and ANT is rather suitable to analyse these contexts, giving insights on how inter-firm collaboration occur, as it is assuming more and more importance in the construction industry.

Another contribution, which is linked to Callon’s (1986) model, refers to the analysis of how the actor-network has been built by John (see chapter 5). This discussion has helped to have a clearer vision of all the interests at stake, and how John has been able to focus these interests into the network, in order to enrol the suppliers. My analysis added a phase of “pre-interessement”, in which John and the purchasing team used questionnaires, surveys, and site visits to detect the right supplier firms to engage with, thus trying to converge and guide shared interests into the actor-network. Therefore, the actors are not being enrolled in a top-down and impositional way that Callon (1986) discusses. My findings indicate a greater degree of negotiation and equity between actors. Moreover, my contribution to classic ANT ideas is that it is possible to talk about a “symbolic enrolment” in which actors are given a space to voice their interests and identities (e.g. during workshops, and relationship meetings).

196

Concerning my contribution to studies of collaborative innovation and supply chain, this theoretical approach, together with an ethnographic method of analysis, allowed for an explanation of collaboration happening in organisational settings involving different actors, therefore providing a bottom-up perspective of how CIS is shaped, and how relationships among the actors are constructed within the actor-networks. Hence, collaboration and the implementation of innovation can be understood from a point of view which has not been widely analysed in the construction industry, by taking into consideration everyday practices and strategizing as it occurs in specific contexts. Moreover, collaboration implies and constitutes innovation, and vice versa (see Figure 7.1), and their mutual implementation generates strategizing. It has been discussed how this relationship finds its application in my data, even though some ambiguity has been highlighted, for example, during the SHT clash detection exercise, as innovation (the implementation of BIM as means of communication and information sharing) did not imply effective collaboration, and thus CIS was hindered.