Local Embeddedness and Knowledge Management Strategies for Project-Based Multi-National Firms Amy Javernick-Will, University of Colorado-Boulder Abstract: Multinational, project-based organizations are faced with competing challenges of adapting to a local marketplace and integrating various offices globally. Case studies with 14 multi-national real estate development, general contracting, and engineering firms revealed types of knowledge required for international operations, knowledge management strategies, and the level of embeddedness within the local project area. Eightynine interviews were recorded, transcribed, and imported into qualitative coding software. Analysis of the data built propositions regarding different levels of local project embeddedness and the relationship between embeddedness and knowledge management strategies. The findings indicate that firms with a low level of local embeddedness have more formal knowledge management platforms to share local knowledge, whereas firms with a high level of embeddedness, which require the most local knowledge, lack formal knowledge management strategies to share their knowledge across projects. Keywords: Knowledge Management, Contingency Theory, Organizational Strategy
Embeddedness,
EMJ Focus Areas: Knowledge & Information Management, Organization & Work System Design, Strategic Management
T
homas Friedman (2005) popularized the expression, “The world is flat.” Indeed, we live in an increasingly globalized world – one characterized by interconnectedness through technological innovation and one in which organizations continue to expand geographically to operate in multiple markets; however, many scholars and practitioners agree that while technological innovations have meant greater possibilities for collaborative communication, the world remains strikingly different depending upon operating location (e.g., Ghwmawat, 2001). Multinational, project-based firms face particular challenges. Each project location has different institutions – regulations, norms, and cultural-cognitive beliefs – that the organization must understand and to which it must adapt in order to gain local legitimacy for the project (Javernick-Will and Scott, 2010; Scott, 2001). At the same time, one of the key competitive advantages of large, multinational organizations is the organizational knowledge they have accumulated in multiple markets over time. If this knowledge is recognized, integrated, and transferred, it can be a resource as important as capital to the firm (Grant, 1996b) and can positively influence project capabilities and performance (Landaeta, 2008). Thus, a particular challenge for project-based, multinational organizations is the competing requirements of adapting knowledge to the local marketplace and integrating organizational knowledge across the firm.
This article reports findings from case studies of 14 multinational real estate development, contracting, and engineering consultant firm’s knowledge management strategies. Prior studies that have been completed on internationalization and knowledge management typically treat firms as homogeneous entities, despite the acknowledgement that differences exist between firms and their internationalization and knowledge management strategies. This study addresses this gap by identifying and contrasting knowledge management strategies based upon firm type and comparing this with the level of embeddedness in a project area for different types of firms. Literature Review Multinational project organizations face challenges of adapting to the local project area and integrating organizational knowledge across the firm. These often-conflicting goals may be based upon contingent differences of firm type. This section briefly reviews organizational learning, knowledge management, and the concept of embeddedness. Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management Multinational engineering, construction, and development firms work on projects in a multitude of diverse countries, encountering many differences in each market they enter. Many of these differences result from the entrant firm working with other foreign firms, and with local firms and governments that operate under a different set of institutions – regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements (Scott, 2001; Scott, 2008) – than those to which the entrant firm is accustomed. Acquiring the institutional knowledge required to work within each project location is critical (Lord and Ranft, 2000; Javernick-Will, 2009) as it can reduce knowledge gaps for entrant firms (Peterson, Pedersen and Lyles, 2008). This can, in turn, reduce problems with understanding laws and norms (Eriksson, Johanson, Majkgard, and Sharma, 1997), lessen cost overruns, delays, misunderstandings, and damaged reputations (Orr and Scott, 2008) and decrease the entrant firm’s liability of foreignness (Hymer, 1976; Zaheer, 1995). Because of these advantages, the internationalization process view stresses the importance of learning about the new market during internationalization (Johanson and Vahlne, 1997). Following this view, most studies have focused on learning through direct experience during internationalization. These studies have shown the importance of experience (Barkema and Vermeulen, 1998; Delios and Beamish, 2001), and the positive relationship between experience and survival rates (Li, 1995). Because of the focus on direct experience and time within a location, these studies suggest that increasing presence and relational ties within a local area will reduce the negative impacts a multinational organization incurs in an area.
Refereed Research Manuscript. Accepted by Associate Editor Thamhain. 16
Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
September 2013
In addition to the requirements of adapting to new markets, an equally important challenge for multi-national organizations is recording and sharing knowledge across regions. For project-based engineering and construction firms, this poses a particular challenge. Project teams within these firms may enter and leave an area frequently – the project team which worked on the initial project in a region will often not be assigned to a subsequent project in the region. Being able to capture, transfer, and reuse the knowledge acquired through past projects will, therefore, aid the organization in avoiding duplicate efforts and repeated mistakesIndeed, Landaeta (2008) found that knowledge transfer across projects can benefit project performance and capabilities. As a result, organizations have focused on transferring knowledge across the firm, and scholars have identified knowledge as a resource with at least as much importance as capital (Grant, 1996b). Within knowledge management, scholars have devoted attention to the importance of knowledge to an organization (Grant, 1996b; Spender, 1996), the dimensions of knowledge – including tacit, explicit, and others – (Nissen, 2006; Nonaka, 1994; Polanyi, 1967; Winter, 1987), and the generalized methods for knowledge transfer – including a codification strategy to transfer knowledge through technologies or a personalization strategy to transfer knowledge through social interactions (Carrillo and Chinowsky, 2006; Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney, 1999). Although it is well understood that acquiring local knowledge is critical to the internationalization process and that an important strategy for global organizations is the capture, sharing, and reuse of knowledge across the organization, little is known about the tradeoffs between adaptation and integration, and what strategies work best in order for different types of organizations to balance these demands. Instead, studies regarding internationalization and knowledge management tend to treat firms as homogeneous entities, despite the acknowledgement that differences exist between firms and their organizational learning and knowledge management strategies (Lord and Ranft, 2000; Petersen et al., 2008). Rather than argue that all organizations should be structured similarly, contingency theory may help to account for these differences. Contingency theory argues that an organization must choose a structure and strategy that is contingent on a wide variety of factors, including environmental complexity (Lawrene and Lorsch, 1967), technology, and techniques of production (Thompson, 1967; Woodward, 1965). Superior performance should result when there is an appropriate match between organizational structure and strategy and the contingent variables. For project-based multinational firms, it seems that some of these differences relate to the degree of adaptation and embeddedness required by the firm. Embeddedness Different organizations can be more or less embedded within a project location. This embeddedness may be due to the need for specific local knowledge or due to their purpose of entry (Geertz 1983). For instance, drawing from Bartlett and Ghoshal’s model of multinational corporations, some organizations must seek to be locally responsive and adapt to the diverse locations in which they operate. In order to be responsive, they need to obtain knowledge about the project location, which will require the formation of local relationships and networks. The concept of embeddedness has been used to describe how social structure and networks influence economic action and outcomes (Polanyi 1957, Granovetter 1985). Although scholars have defined embeddedness Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
differently, this research will expand on Orr and Levitt’s (2011) working definition of local embeddedness as, “... the level of interaction, coordination or negotiation between an entrant and other entities in the social and institutional environment that surrounds a global project”. Thus, on an international scale, the degree of embeddedness within a local context may cause observable differences in a firm’s internationalization strategy (Melin, 1992; Orr, 2005). Drawing from contingency theory and the concept of embeddedness, Orr and Levitt (2011) showed that different types of firms have different levels of embeddedness on a project, leading to more or less emergent uncertainty and required knowledge in foreign markets. For instance, they found that more deeply embedded firms, which they measured by comparing the number of local relationships and typical project engagement characteristics such as budget, contractual type, and profit terms, have a greater number of relationships with locals and thus may require more knowledge related to operations in an area. They also found that more embedded firms face additional uncertainty and costs. This article expands upon Orr’s definition of embeddedness to include not only relationships with local entities but also organizational controls concerning employee utilization and the location of project staffing. Given the large differences that exist between different firm’s business goals, processes, and levels of embeddedness, this research adds to the body of knowledge by first identifying knowledge management strategies for different types of firms, and then comparing differences in levels of embeddedness to differences in knowledge management strategies. Research Method This research used a qualitative case-based method. This method allowed an in-depth analysis that other methods used on larger samples typically cannot attain (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). The data collection entailed semi-structured but open-ended questions that allowed informants to respond openly without the constraints of predefined answers. This also allowed them to provide additional details and descriptions that could not be obtained in structured survey questions. The results reported in this research were part of a larger initiative aimed at discovering how firms acquired and transferred different types of institutional knowledge through their firms. For this research, 89 participants that were employed by 14 multi-national firms in the Architecture/Engineering/ Construction (AEC) sector were interviewed. These interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed. In order to address the existing gaps in literature that largely ignore firm differences related to knowledge management strategies, the case studies were selected for theoretical variation, ensuring different types of firms were studied. These organizations include real estate developers who finance, acquire land, prepare a site, hire contractors to build a project, and own the completed project; contractors who are responsible for the overall project delivery; and engineering project consultants who plan and design projects for clients. For validity reasons, firms were also selected for literal replication – meaning more than one organization within each type of firm was included to ensure that results were replicated. Due to confidentiality restrictions, redacted information on the organizations (including the type of organizations, the numbers of countries in which each organization operated in 2007, and the number of participants interviewed within each organization) is shown in Exhibit 1.
September 2013
17
Exhibit 1. Case Study Information
Owner/ Real Estate Developer
Contractors
Engineering Consultants
Company (Coded)
# of Respondents
# Countries with Offices (2007)
Goodge Street
5
2
Holborn
4
16
Tottenham Court
6
19
Oxford Circus
9
12
Leicester Square
12
18
St James Park
5
21
St Pauls
7
25
Charing Cross
9
32
Fulham Broadway
4
11
Hyde Park
5
15
Piccadilly Circus
4
26
Farringdon
8
28
Paddington
3
29
Angel
8
36
Total Respondents:
89
The interviews were held in company offices from September 2007 through August 2008 and ranged between 30 minutes to over 2 hours. Participants varied in title, including Project Engineer, Project Manager, Director, Executive, and President. Prior to conducting the interviews, the interview scope was defined, including identifying and mapping key questions to subtopics (Singleton and Straits 2004). For instance, key questions were asked regarding the types of knowledge needed for international projects, how this knowledge was initially acquired, how this knowledge was shared, and what motivated knowledge sharing or knowledge hoarding. Additional questions focused on the company’s incentives, relationships, and project team composition and utilization. For each organization, the knowledge sharing methods available to employees were first identified. Employees were then asked specifically how they obtained and shared knowledge for their projects. This included asking how they know “who knows what” within the organization and what processes they used to obtain and share various types of knowledge that could originate from internal or external sources. In addition, they were asked to identify, for a specific project, the project team staffing location (e.g., percentage of employees located on site versus other offices) and utilization (e.g., employees who work on simultaneous projects versus full project dedication). In addition to the interviews with participants, documents and secondary data (knowledge management procedures, office locations, etc.) were collected that was available publicly or provided by the participants. Where possible, interactions and processes were also observed. By utilizing more than one data collection method, the validity of the identified constructs – the knowledge sharing strategy and level of local embeddedness of the firms – was increased (Eisenhardt, 1989). In addition, by interviewing more than one respondent within each firm and interviewing participants from multiple firms, internal construct validity concerns were addressed by allowing the results to be replicated across participants and cases (Eisenhardt, 1989, 1991). 18
To create the case studies of knowledge management strategies, over 100 hours of audiotape were recorded, transcribed, and imported (along with other relevant documentation) into a qualitative software coding program – QSR NVivo®. Nvivo allows researchers to manage data and ideas, and query the data to report results (Bazeley and Richards, 2000). The interviews and documents were then coded (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990) into various categories. Initially, these transcripts and documents were coded into macro-categories (or first-order nodes) based upon reoccurring themes that addressed the primary questions of the research. For instance, macrocategories included knowledge sharing methods, knowledge acquisition methods, knowledge types, company incentives, employee utilization, etc. Each of these macro-categories was then analyzed and coded into micro-categories, or second-order nodes, to determine specifics of what was occurring. NVivo coding queries were used to discern large trends. For instance, a coding query was completed to determine types of local knowledge needed that were also identified as being important. A matrix query was then performed to determine the relative frequency of important knowledge for different types of firms. Similar queries were completed for knowledge sharing methods. The level of embeddedness was determined separately by analyzing responses within each organization to determine a trend based upon the median across the respondents. From this data, an excel table was created that compared macro trends for each company, ensuring that the results reported represented a complete picture of the data collected for each organization. This included each organization’s knowledge management strategies and important types of institutional knowledge, that were based on the relative frequency of responses within NVivo. It also included the data collected regarding employee utilization, relationships, and location of staffing. This data was supplemented with findings regarding general budgets, contractual type, profit terms, and number of relations from research conducted by Orr and Levitt (2011). Due to the involvement of the same or similar firms in both studies, we supplement Orr and Levitt’s work to determine the level of local project embeddedness for each firm type. The comparison of data on knowledge management strategies, the local knowledge needed, and the level of local embeddedness led to the propositions of knowledge management strategies based upon the level of local embeddedness of the firm. Results and Discussion This section will discuss the results regarding important local knowledge, knowledge management strategies, and embeddedness in project locations based upon firm type. Important Local Knowledge The larger study found that multinational firms had different types of important local knowledge for their international projects based upon firm type (Javernick-Will and Scott, 2010). The two most frequently mentioned types of important local knowledge for multinational development firms were social norms/ expectations and language, concepts and meanings. In contrast, the most frequently mentioned types of important knowledge for multinational general contracting firms included operating laws; logistics; material and labor availability; productivity, quality and cost; and multinational engineers most frequently mentioned design and construction standards and work practices as being important. See Exhibit 2 for the two most frequently mentioned Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
September 2013
Exhibit 2. The Most Frequently Mentioned Types of Local Knowledge that are Important for an International Project Based upon Firm Type Firm Type
Ranking of Relative Frequency of Response
Developers
Contractors
Engineers
1
Social Norms, Expectations & Local Preferences (18.6%)
Operating Laws (13.0%)
Work Practices (14.5%)
2
Language, Concepts & Meanings (12.4%)
Total References each firm type
97
Logistics (11.1%) Mtl & Labor $, Quality, Availability (11.1%) 207
Design and construction standards and permits (12.7%) 165
Relative frequencies are listed in parentheses. See Javernick-Will and Scott (2010) for the complete listing of relative frequencies of mention for all 14 types of important local knowledge identified for each firm type.
types of important knowledge for each organization type. Additional details on the results of this analysis can be found in Javernick-Will and Scott (2010). The important knowledge for real estate developers is very contextual and embedded within the project location. Understanding concepts, meanings, and social norms necessitates an intense knowledge of the population’s preferences, reasoning, and cultural beliefs. It requires a deep understanding that often requires many relationships with companies and locals in the project location. As a result, real estate developers frequently spend a large amount of time in an area in order to acquire this knowledge. Many indicated that they would be collecting knowledge an average of 1-2 years in a location prior to starting a project. As one respondent from a real estate development firm indicated, …real estate is and has always been a long-term business. You make your most money out of real estate over the long haul…. So, we must spend time in an area doing research, running around and meeting everybody, studying maps and the historic progression, talking to public officials about how they wanted to grow and what their ideas were… so we develop relationships slowly to ensure that our project will be successful” (Goodge Street). Another reiterated this when he said, “real estate is a local business” (Tottenham Court). In contrast to this deep contextual knowledge, the most important knowledge for contractors changes frequently and is more dependent on the precise project location at the time of the project. For instance, logistics for a project and information about labor and material costs, quality, and productivity changes frequently and is dependent on the exact project location. As a result, contractors spent less time to acquire this knowledge in advance of starting the project – typically a short visit prior to the bid or negotiated award and shortly afterward. One respondent from a contracting firm indicated that they start a project through the client’s invitation to tender, then they, “would visit the area and start collecting the preliminary data. The two main areas we concentrate on is the mobilization of staff and the restrictions to it and the financial approach into the country, including the tax system and the payments.” They again collect knowledge of the area once the contract is awarded, attending to, “laws regarding importation of equipment and labor…logistics….the availability Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
of equipment and spare parts… and rates and productivity of local contractors” (Charing Cross). Finally, important knowledge for engineers requires an understanding of the approval processes and standards, and information regarding labor and work practices that would influence their design. One respondent indicated, “local codes and practices require different values and different approval processes that influence our designs and documentation” (Angel). Acquiring this knowledge often requires an understanding from past projects, relationships with the bodies that govern the process, or contracts with local consultants. In addition, engineers frequently exchange technical knowledge across projects and have strong organizational networks due to working on projects around the globe from different offices. To explain this, one respondent indicated, “we are working on so many projects in so many different markets and we have so many different skills that we offer…. So we kind-of bring the skills in and pull skills in from other areas… so we really operate as global knowledge networks” (Angel). In summary, real estate developers tend to require the most tacit knowledge that is deeply engrained within society, including normative and cultural-cognitive knowledge. Acquiring this knowledge takes time and requires a deep understanding of the local area (Javernick-Will, 2009). Conversely, contractors and engineers require a mix of regulative and normative knowledge, some of which they can acquire by contracting a third party, i.e., contracting with a local engineering consultant to navigate the approval processes, and some of which must be understood by internal team members. Thus, in contrast to the developers, contractors spend less time initially collecting knowledge because the knowledge changes frequently and is site specific. Engineers more frequently acquire the knowledge internally in the company – many multinational engineering firms operate in multiple locations and have previously acquired the information they need (Javernick-Will 2009). Knowledge Strategies One of the primary goals of the larger study was to uncover the methods used to transfer this local knowledge from a project area – institutional knowledge (regulations, norms, cultural beliefs) – across project teams. Past work identified different knowledge transfer methods (Javernick-Will and Levitt, 2010) based on the type of institutional knowledge exchanged. Although most firms used a combination of methods to transfer knowledge, this prior
September 2013
19
work identified that a striking difference existed between the use of these methods and the type of knowledge exchanged. Based upon the relative frequency of responses, social methods were used most frequently when contrasted with formal methods and interactive online systems, across all types of institutional knowledge; however, social methods, which required personal connections and interactions through discussions and meetings, increased as the knowledge generally became more tacit, accounting for 47%, 57%, and 73% of the methods mentioned to exchange regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive knowledge respectively. In contrast, formal methods, which included reports, procedures, processes, and project databases, decreased as the knowledge became more tacit, accounting for 43%, 30% and 27% of the methods mentioned to exchange regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive knowledge. Interactive online platforms, which include both social and formal methods and are described below, accounted for the difference (Javernick-Will and Levitt, 2010). Based on this past work, further exploration was warranted to compare knowledge management strategies and firm types, which the previous work did not address. Exhibit 3 lists the relative frequency of mention of knowledge management strategies to locate and transfer knowledge within the organization – formal, interactive online platform, and social – for each company in the research. These strategies were validated with other data provided by the company to holistically understand the knowledge management strategy employed. The macro-categories coded included formal knowledge management strategies that transfer knowledge through general online systems or project databases that contain lessons learned, organizational procedures, or reports; socialization knowledge management strategies that transfer knowledge
via on-the-job mentoring, personal discussions, the transfer of people, or through in-person project reviews, meetings, or teleconferences; or, finally, a category termed interactive online platforms, which is a formalized system that transfers tacit and explicit knowledge through intranets that combine the ability to locate explicit information with tacit knowledge exchange through person-to-person connections (JavernickWill and Levitt, 2010). For instance, these platforms include personal profiles for each employee, allowing other employees in the organization to search for people based on expertise or experience in a project location. It also allows connections to be formed through forum question postings and responses, which then link to other responses, processes, or procedures within the organization. These not only allow people to connect with others but also allow employees to more accurately interpret and apply the information from respondents on their projects as they have background knowledge of the respondent. Furthermore, these platforms allow knowledge to be distributed across the larger organization. In general, the developers relied on socialization knowledge management strategies to transfer knowledge and did not employ formal methods as abundantly. They transfered knowledge frequently in a manner where knowledge was not written down or made explicit for everyone in the organization to benefit. Instead, they relied on deep, personal relationships to transfer knowledge within social networks through on-the-job training or crossfertilization, and relied on management and the organizational structure to facilitate connections for the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. For instance, an employee from Holborn stated, “we know whom to call to get good advice due to meeting, socializing, and talking.” Another developer, Goodge Street, replied that he
Exhibit 3. The Most Frequently Mentioned Knowledge Management Strategies for Each Organization
Formal
Interactive Online Platform
Social
Total References per Firm
OWNERS/REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FIRMS Holborn
26%
0%
74%
39
Goodge Street
27%
0%
73%
55
Tottenham Court
33%
0%
67%
36
Oxford Circus
20%
0%
80%
41
St Pauls
22%
7%
71%
69
Leicester Square
38%
0%
62%
39
Charing Cross
38%
19%
43%
53
St James Park
59%
14%
27%
24
CONTRACTING FIRMS
ENGINEERING CONSULTING FIRMS
20
Hyde Park
8%
0%
92%
25
Paddington
24%
0%
76%
29
Fulham Broadway
34%
0%
66%
56
Angel
15%
37%
48%
84
Piccadilly Circus
22%
34%
44%
50
Farringdon
16%
51%
33%
90
The category with the highest relative frequency is bolded for each firm Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
September 2013
learned through, “personal knowledge and the experience that comes along the way.” An employee from this same company said that he learned, “in the hallway.” These methods are often excellent at transferring knowledge, particularly contextual knowledge and information that is required for international projects (Javernick-Will and Levitt, 2010); however, they limit the reach of the knowledge. Instead of having access to the entire organization’s knowledge, the knowledge transferred is often confined to each employee’s personal networks. The group of general contractors involved in the research varied regarding their knowledge management strategies. Similar to the developers/owners, four of the five contracting firms studied relied most heavily on socialization knowledge management strategies. They frequently relied upon on-thejob training, personal interaction, and the transfer of people to exchange knowledge, but there was one outlier that relied on formal knowledge management strategies, such as reports and project databases to transfer knowledge across project teams and geographies. For instance, frequent statements from contracting firms included, “You mainly learn by experience and on the job training” (Oxford Circus), “Senior management knows many things and people and….makes it a point to visit projects and transfer knowledge” (Charing Cross) and, “We share knowledge by working together with an experienced person” (St. Pauls). The most global of the companies (Charing Cross) who completes 100% of the work performed outside of the headquarters’ country, was in the process of implementing an interactive online platform to transfer explicit knowledge and connect people through question and answer forums and communities of practice. In general, however, knowledge transfer was limited to an employee’s personal network and the project teams to which the employee was assigned. The engineering consulting firms were also very diverse; however, they generally had the most advanced knowledge management strategies, often utilizing interactive online platforms to transfer knowledge. Although two of the organizations relied almost exclusively on social methods to transfer knowledge, the remaining four had at least one formalized method to transfer knowledge across project teams and regions. Of those which relied on socialization knowledge management strategies, representative
statements included, “We usually learn through experience on the project. There tend to be a bunch of grey wrinkly’s that move from place to place” (Hyde Park). Some of the organizations used formal methods of written reports and procedures while others created interactive online platforms to allow people to search for other employees and projects based upon experience, ask and respond to questions via forums, and/or search for information through formal reports and procedures. For instance, a respondent from Farringdon replied, “We rely heavily on our intranet to exchange questions and answers, processes, and who to go to, etc. It is part of our work distribution process.” One company (Angel) that used its interactive online platform heavily indicated, “People are connected to others – online through forums and searches and informally through social networks that have been established.” It should be noted that, while many respondents indicated that they first located people with whom they exchanged knowledge through the interactive online platform, after they established a connection with this person, they would then change strategies to transfer knowledge using social methods. The benefit of these interactive online platforms is that they allow connections to be established and knowledge to be shared across projects and geographies so that employees are not limited to their individual network’s experience and can instead tap into the organization’s global collective knowledge more easily. In general, although some multinational engineering organizations still relied on socialization knowledge transfer strategies, these organizations had the most formalized methods and strategies for transferring knowledge across projects and regions. The organizations with established, interactive online platforms had been engaged the longest with establishing a formal knowledge management strategy within the organization. In contrast, multinational general contractors were less formal in their strategies and multinational developers were the least formal, relying upon social networks, on-the-job experience, and personal connections to obtain and exchange knowledge. As a result, although many internationalization strategies and knowledge management strategies assume that all firms are alike, there appear to be major differences based upon firm type. To answer why these differences exist, this research analyzes the level of embeddedness within a location according to firm type.
Exhibit 4. Embeddedness Based upon Firm Type
Engineering Consultants
General Contractors
Developers
3-6
1
1
Regional/Country/Global Offices
On site
On-site or regional office
U.S. $3-24M
U.S. $50-80M
U.S. $50M-$1.7B
Professional fee
Lump Sum, Fixed Price
N/A
Markup on Fee
5-40% Contract Value
12-25% ROI
36-679 (Mean: 282)
669-1680 (Mean: 1172)
63-144 (Mean: 90)
6.8
15.4
16.6
Typical Employee Utilization#projects/year Project Staffing Budget (From Table 6.3 of Orr & Levitt, 2011)
Type of Contract (From Table 6.3 of Orr & Levitt, 2011)
Profit Terms (From Table 6.3 of Orr & Levitt, 2011)
Total number of relations (From Table 6.4 of Orr & Levitt, 2011)
Relative local embeddedness (From Table 6.5 of Orr & Levitt, 2011)
Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
September 2013
21
This research combined work from this study with results from Orr and Levitt’s (2011) embeddedness work to help analyze and explain these discrepancies. Embeddedness The important types of knowledge for these firms imply that each firm varies based upon its level of required local embeddedness on an international project. To explore this concept further, information was collected on the average number of projects each employee worked on per year, and the location of staffing (on-site, regional, or country/global offices). Exhibit 4 presents this data and highlights results regarding relationships, budget, contract types, profit terms, and the degree of relative embeddedness from Orr and Levitt’s (2011) study of engineering consulting, general contracting, and development firms. Orr and Levitt (2011) found tremendous variance in the number of relationships these firms have with local companies. Of the firms they studied, general contractors had the greatest number of relationships, and engineering consultants and developers typically had fewer relationships. Some exploratory questioning in this research also asked about the number of local relationships. In general, real estate development and contracting firms indicated a greater number of local relationships (designers, government agencies, subcontractors, utility companies, etc.) within a foreign location than engineers. The number of relationships, however, is typically dependent on the contract and relationship with the developer/owner. Sometimes clients ask the engineer to complete a very narrow design scope while other times they are required to perform project management tasks that include interacting and overseeing approval and permitting processes with the local government. Similarly, general contracting firms are often hired by developers/owners to provide project management services, which entails contracting with multiple subcontractors and overseeing approval processes and procedures for the project. Due to this relationship, the developer often does not have as many formal contractual relationships in the local area as the general contracting firm; however, every developer indicated that they have an informal relationship with these subcontractors, particularly the major subcontractors, requiring local interaction and correspondence. In addition to the number of relationships, Orr and Levitt (2011) collected data regarding the project budget, type of contract, and profit terms for each firm type. Budgets increased with increasing scope, risk, and responsibility from engineering consultants to general contractors to developers. Likewise, contractual and profit terms for engineering consultants and general contracts differed. Consultants typically receive a professional fee for their services and achieve profit through a markup on that fee. They generally bill by the hour to produce a service requested by the client. General contractors also have a set scope, but they often have a lump sum, fixed price contract for that scope, and achieve profit from the difference between the contractual value and the amount spent on the project. If they are contracted to a fixed price, they generally have more risk than the design consultants. Developers, on the other hand, achieve profit from a return on investment. They are investing the most money and have the most to lose if the project is not successful. Whereas contractors and engineers receive money and profit once the project is completed, developers are committed to the project for a lengthy period of time to receive a return on their investment. To meet their profit expectations, the project must be locally accepted and sustainable, resulting in a low vacancy rate 22
and requiring strategic efforts aimed at acquiring local knowledge (Javernick-Will and Scott, 2010). For this phase of the research, information was also collected regarding the location of the company’s project staffing and employee utilization rates based on the average number of projects an employee works on per year. Employees of engineering consulting firms were often not located at the project site. In fact, engineering consultants frequently distribute work across multiple offices to achieve 24-hour working days, balance workload, and achieve cost benefits; therefore, employees may be staffed in China working on a project located in London. For instance, one employee in an engineering consulting firm was located in the UK. He indicated that the number of times they visit an office will, “depend on the project and how far away it is… if it was somewhere in Europe than it is not unusual to go [visit] weekly… If it gets to the Middle East then it might be a couple of visits a month, but if it’s out in the Fast East that ends up being monthly or longer.” None of the employees interviewed from these organizations were located at a project site. As one interviewee who was located in the U.S. explained, “We are designers, not builders … we don’t actually build the projects ... the demand for someone to be there [from our organization] while it is being built is not great, whereas a company like [a contracting firm] has to have people onsite.” On the other hand, employees of general contracting firms are staffed on the project site. They must manage the day-to-day operations of the construction, coordinate with local authorities to receive inspection approvals, etc. and manage the multiple subcontractors. If a local office did not exist, expatriates were sent to work in the project location. All indicated a preference for hiring locals – attempting to minimize the expatriate to local ratio; however, all required multiple project team members to be on site: “construction is done at the site.” In many cases, they had to set up construction camps and train locals (depending on the location) prior to starting construction. Employees of developers were either staffed at the project site, or, more frequently, from a local regional office; however, as indicated previously, they reiterated that real estate development is a “local business” and their regional offices would not be located far from project sites. In addition to not typically working at the project site, employees of engineering firms indicated that they generally work on 3-6 projects per year, depending on the type of project and scope. They may even complete multiple projects at the same time, again depending on the project size and scope. Staffing these engineers at a main company office allows them to easily switch between project teams and share technical knowledge freely among projects. In contrast, general contractors typically work on one project over the entire contract, and, therefore, only work on approximately one project per year. As one employee from a contracting firm indicated, “Most of the projects have a duration greater than one year, with 95% of the project staff fully dedicated to that project.” Occasionally, the size of the contract necessitates a project commitment of multiple years. Similar to general contractors, project managers within development firms are generally fully dedicated to a project, working on only one project per year; however, these firms tended to focus on the volume per employee, with one firm requiring a turnaround volume of $1 million/month per employee. The focus on a singular project causes staff of general contracting and real estate development firms to concentrate their efforts on the project and local relationships versus the organization, and thus, employees of general contracting and development firms appear to be Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
September 2013
more heavily embedded in the project and project location than engineering employees. While both the real estate developers and contractors would be fully dedicated to the project for the duration of their contractual or financial commitment, the contractors would often leave at the end of their contract for the next project. As one indicated, “Every project is a prototype and then you move onto something else.” In contrast, the real estate developers would stay for years in one location, as one executive reiterated the importance of the local business of real estate, he indicated, “Real estate development is a… local business, where, without exception, to be successful, you have to think and act locally, you cannot ride in on your stallion and say, ‘You know, I built 100 buildings in America, Mr. Paris. Are you ready for me?’ because the French will say, ‘No!’”. Orr and Levitt (2011) found similar results for their measure of firm’s local institutional embeddedness in the host country environment. They assessed the level of engagement of four firm types based upon eight key project activities: buying land, handling resettlement issues, getting goods through customs, applying for permits and entitlements, procuring local labor, procuring local supplies, negotiating with local government, and entering into locally enforced contracts. Based upon their qualitative assessment of 4-5 interviews within each type of firm, they estimated that the total relative embeddedness in the project area was highest for developers, followed closely by general contractors. Project engineering consultants had the lowest relative embeddedness (see Exhibit 4). When Orr and Levitt’s (2011) prior embeddedness measures are combined with the embeddedness insights gained from this research regarding the location of project staffing and employee utilization, the exploratory results remain the same: real estate development and general contracting firms are the most heavily embedded within a project location. Although the level of embeddedness appears to be dependent on project type and scope, both the general contracting and development firms engage in activities that require the greatest degree of local institutional knowledge and the greatest number of relationships. This work also found that employees of general contracting and real estate development firms generally work on one project per year and are staffed on-site or within a close regional proximity to the project location. Due to their physical location and project focus, general contractors generally have more employees on site and a greater number of contractual relationships; however, developers have the greatest financial investment in the project and face the most risks. They are also committed to the project for a longer period of time in order to achieve their expected profit. This profit is dependent on achieving revenue expectations, which requires the project to be locally accepted. As a result, it helps confirm their need for deep local knowledge of social norms/expectations and concepts/meanings. Engineering consulting firms, on the other hand, generally have lower numbers of relationships with local companies, have a lower budget and profit, and the employees within these firms generally work on multiple simultaneous projects from diverse locations across the globe. As a result, the following propositions are developed: Proposition 1: Engineering consulting firms are less embedded in a project location than contractors or developers and are more embedded within their firms based upon employee utilization, profit risk and terms, project staffing, and the number of project relationships.
Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
Proposition 2: General contractors are more heavily embedded in a project location than engineering consultants through the completion of the project due to the number of project relationships, the company’s utilization of employees, and on-site staffing. Proposition 3: Developers, in contrast to general contractors or engineering consultants, are the most deeply embedded in a project location for the duration of the project lifecycle and beyond due to their investment, role on the project, and profit terms. Although the work on local embeddedness of firms is exploratory, our results confirm and extend findings by Orr and Levitt (2011), resulting in strong indications of variance in embeddedness by firm type. Knowledge Management Strategies Contingent Upon the Degree of Embeddedness Establishing the degree of local embeddedness by firm type helps us better understand the variance observed from this research in organization-wide knowledge management strategies. The firms which are most embedded within a project location primarily rely upon social methods to transfer knowledge, which may or may not reach across projects and geographies. Intuitively, this makes sense – these firms have a large number of relationships in a particular area and are dependent upon the local population to achieve their contractual obligations and profit expectations. As a result, they have less reliance upon the organization to achieve these results, and, instead have increased reliance on the local population. For instance, developers are often heavily invested in the project and are incentivized to focus on the project over the organization. As an example, one of the developers rewards its employees with a handsome bonus if the project is successful financially; conversely, employees are required to write a check if the project is a financial failure. Likewise, when contractors are staffed at a project location for the duration of a project, their relational ties with other project teams in the organization are strained as they build up their relationships with subcontractors, workers, and governmental officials within the project area. These project requirements emphasize a focus on projects over the organization. As a result, the project teams of real estate development and contracting firms, who are more deeply embedded in the project location, tend to choose a project adaptation strategy over an organizational integration strategy. On the other hand, engineering consultants continue to work on multiple projects in diverse locations at the same time. They frequently remain at a company office and continue to interact primarily with colleagues within the organization. They also have fewer project and local relationships than general contractors or developers. In addition, due to the lack of requirement to be staffed on site and the desire to condense project durations, multinational engineering firms distribute work geographically, requiring teams from multiple offices to communicate and work together. As a result, the organization is structured and incentivized to create knowledge management strategies that encourage employees to share knowledge across the organization; therefore, because engineering firms are less embedded in the project location, they are more focused on an organizational integration strategy over a project adaptation strategy. From this analysis, the following propositions are created:
September 2013
23
Proposition 4: Organizations which are more deeply embedded in the project location, such as general contractors and developers, focus more on a project adaptation strategy than an organizational integration strategy. Proposition 5: Organizations which are less embedded in the project location, i.e., engineering consultants, will focus on an organizational integration strategy versus a project adaptation strategy. At the same time, a paradox exists. Many project organizations, particularly general contractors, may enter and exit a location for a specific project. They develop deep relationships with others in the project area and acquire a deep knowledge of the local culture, norms, and regulations. Once the project is over, the project team often disbands and moves to other markets to work on different projects. Because these organizations do not have a formal knowledge management strategy to capture and share knowledge, the deep knowledge gained from working in the project location is lost; therefore, if the organization reenters the region to complete a new project, they will once again need to acquire this deep local knowledge to successfully complete a project. This leads to the development of Proposition 6: Proposition 6: A paradox of embeddedness exists for project firms: the firms which need the greatest amount of local knowledge and relationships have the least formal knowledge management strategies to capture this knowledge within the organization’s memory, and share this knowledge with other project teams. Striking a balance between these competing demands is a complex and challenging task. Future work is required to examine the tradeoffs between project adaptation and organizational integration to lead us toward a theory of the adaptable, integrated project firm. Implications for Practice Engineering managers must carefully examine the knowledge management strategy employed and the level of embeddedness for their organization and projects. Specifically, they should examine the types of knowledge that are important to utilize on the project and determine if this knowledge requires a large degree of local knowledge or, instead, generalizable knowledge that can be obtained from the organization. The degree of required local or generalizable knowledge, combined with project requirements of contract type, profit terms, and budget, will influence whether or not the project team will tend toward increasing embeddedness in the local project area. The degree of embeddedness will influence a team’s strategic focus on either a project adaptation strategy or a global integration strategy, with a higher level of embeddedness increasing a project team’s focus on project adaptation. In addition, the types of knowledge that are important to the organization and the level of embeddedness will influence the knowledge management strategies implemented by the organization. The differences in these strategies exist in order to achieve the best fit of the project with the environment; however, engineering managers must ensure that their project team members maintain a balance between adaptation and integration because a tradeoff exists: if the engineering manager encourages project team members to focus solely on an adaptation strategy, the organization may suffer the consequence 24
of losing this knowledge and wasting additional resources on regaining this knowledge for its next entry into a country or area. In addition, the engineering manager should evaluate whether or not they are focusing on socialization knowledge management strategies, which are better suited for the exchange of tacit or local knowledge, or formalized knowledge management strategies, that capture and transfer explicit knowledge gained from projects. This is particularly relevant for the success of future project teams. Because the project teams which require the most local knowledge often come from organizations which have the least formal knowledge management strategies, managers must reevaluate their strategies and consider a way to better capture this knowledge or connect people to better retain this knowledge. To strike a balance between these two strategies, engineering managers can implement some strategic project tactics. For instance, moving staff between the organization and project, if even just for training purposes, can help to ensure balanced loyalties and increasing connections of personal networks at both the project and organization level. Similarly, ensuring that project team members are assigned duties at an organizational and project level can balance demands and loyalties. In addition, incentive structures that reward only project performance tend to limit the focus on the organization’s holistic well being and make employees less apt to help other project teams. Instead, organizations may choose to ensure that a portion of an employee’s review or payment structure is dependent on the organization’s success as a whole to expand the employee’s attention beyond their current project. Finally, a manager can encourage an organization to develop formal processes for capturing and storing knowledge gained from a project location. For this, it is important to remember, however, that all knowledge and information are not equal – knowledge that is known to change frequently, such as logistics, material and labor availability, and cost, may not be necessary to capture. Thus, an engineering manager must not only consider their level of local and organizational embeddedness and implications for contractual obligations and financial success, but also the types of knowledge that are important and the likelihood that this knowledge will remain valid to determine the optimal knowledge management strategy and best organizational controls to implement. Implications for Theory This research extended ways to evaluate the degree of local embeddedness for three firm types: real estate development, contracting, and engineering consultant firms. These new evaluations helped to confirm recent findings of Orr and Levitt (2011) that the degree of embeddedness varies depending on firm type, with owners/real estate developers and contractors requiring a deeper level of embeddedness than an engineering consulting firm. This research also collected evidence to compare the primary knowledge management strategies among organizations of different firm types. It found that owners/real estate development firms, and contracting firms most often employ a socialization knowledge management strategy to exchange knowledge within the firm. In contrast, engineering consulting firms employ interactive online platforms, that combine socialization and formal knowledge management strategies more frequently than contracting or development firms. When analyzed together, this research suggests that knowledge management strategies of project-based multinational organizations are linked to the degree of local embeddedness of the project. Developers and general contractors, who have the highest degree of embeddedness, have Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
September 2013
less formal knowledge management strategies than engineering consultants due to their prioritization and focus on the project over the organization. At the same time, because they are projectbased, the teams involved in these projects often disband and leave the project location after their requirements are fulfilled. If another project is contracted in the area by the organization, the organizational memory and knowledge of the local area is lost, requiring additional resources to achieve the level of knowledge obtained previously. Thus, this research suggests a paradox: while project-based general contracting and development firms have the greatest need for local knowledge and established relationships, they have the least formal knowledge management strategies to ensure this is captured for future use. Limitations and Areas for Future Research This exploratory research collected and analyzed data regarding knowledge management strategies based upon firm type, and collected additional details to validate the level of local embeddedness observed by Orr and Levitt (2011) based upon employee utilization and location of project team members. Data was obtained primarily through interviews lasting up to 2 hours, observations, and collected documents. The data was supplemented with recent results regarding project relations and relative embeddedness from Orr and Levitt (2011); however, both studies categorized levels of embeddedness qualitatively. Similarly, this research collected exploratory evidence of knowledge management strategies through interviews and some documentation and observation of key employees; however, additional research should be done to compare project teams within these three types of organizations from a larger sample size where quantitative data is collected for statistical validation. Given the propositions that have been developed from this research, future work can further define and measure levels of embeddedness for local knowledge networks versus organizational knowledge networks, determine the knowledge management strategies used for each project team and the organization, and, importantly, as Landaeta (2008) and others argue, link this to project and organizational performance. Doing so may help to identify project teams or organizations which are able to both adapt to the local project environment and capture and share knowledge gained from the project across the organization. Conclusions This article examined the knowledge management strategies and transfer methods of 14 multi-national organizations, including development, general contracting, and engineering consulting firms. This research found that development firms primarily relied on socialization knowledge management strategies to transfer knowledge. In contrast, contracting firms used a combination of socialization methods and formal methods to transfer explicit knowledge; and engineering consulting firms, while still relying primarily on socialization strategies, generally had the most formal knowledge management strategies with the most advanced organizations implementing interactive online platforms to transfer knowledge. In order to determine why this difference existed, the types of knowledge management strategies were compared with the level of embeddedness of these firm types. To do this, data were collected regarding the number of projects each employee was assigned to per year, and the location of project staffing. Results were compared to recent work by Orr and Levitt (2011) regarding the number of relationships, contract type, and budget and profit terms for each of the three types Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
of firms. The similar findings confirmed their previous results. This confirmation allowed for the creation of propositions that engineering firms are less embedded in a project location than contractors or developers, and more embedded within their organizations while general contractors and developers are more heavily embedded in a project. The data analyzed from this exploratory research suggests that knowledge management strategies differ for different types of firms in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry based upon their level of embeddedness within the local area; therefore, engineering consulting firms are less embedded in the project area and they rely less on a project adaptation strategy, focusing more on integration across the organization through both formal and socialization knowledge management strategies. Conversely, general contracting and real estate development firms are more heavily embedded within a local area, focusing more on the project and less on the organization. They also have less formal knowledge management strategies to transfer knowledge across projects and more programs set up to establish and adapt to the local environment; however, because project teams often disband after a project and may leave the project area, the firms that have the greatest need for local knowledge and establishing relationships within a local area are less likely to have formal knowledge management strategies. Thus, a paradox exists that must be further unraveled to understand how to both adapt the project to the local environment and society while encouraging the organizational transfer of knowledge to reduce repeated mistakes and improve performance of distributed project teams. References Barkema, H.G., and F. Vermeulen, “International Expansion Through Start-up or Acquisition: A Learning Perspective,” Academy of Management Journal, 41:1 (1998), pp. 7-26. Bazeley, P., and L. Richards, The NVivo Qualitative Project Book, Sage (2000). Carrillo, P. and P. Chinowsky, “Exploiting Knowledge Management: The Engineering and Construction Perspective,” Journal of Management in Engineering, 22:1 (2006), pp. 2-10. Chandler, A.D., Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of American Enterprise, Beard Books (1962). Delios, A., and P.W. Beamish, “Survival and Profitability: The Roles of Experience and Intangible Assets in Foreign Subsidiary Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 44:5 (2001), pp. 1028-1038. Eisenhardt, K.M., “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” The Academy of Management Review, 14:4 (1989), pp. 532-550. Eriksson, K. J. Johanson, A. Majkgard, and D. Sharma, “Experiential Knowledge and Cost in the Internationalization Process,” Journal of International Business Studies, 282:2 (1997), pp. 337-360. Ghemawat, P., “Distance Still Matters,” Harvard Business Review, 79:8 (2001), pp. 137-147. Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Transaction (1967). Granovetter, M., “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology, 91:3 (1985), pp. 481-510. Grant, R.M., “Prospering in Dynamically Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration,” Organization Science, 7:4 (1996a), p. 375. Grant, R.M., “Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the
September 2013
25
Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter 1996b), pp. 109-122. Hansen, M.T., N. Nohria, and T. Tierney, “What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?” Harvard Business Review, 77:2 (1999), pp. 106-116. Hymer, S.H., The International Operations of National Firms, MIT Press (1976). Javernick-Will, A., “Organizational Learning During Internationalization: Acquiring Local Institutional Knowledge,” Construction Management and Economics, 27:8 (2009), pp. 783-797. Javernick-Will, A., and R.E. Levitt, “Mobilizing Institutional Knowledge for International Projects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136:4 (2010), pp. 430-441. Javernick-Will, A., and W.R. Scott, “Who Needs to Know What? Institutional Knowledge and International Projects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136:5 (2010), pp. 546-557. Johanson, J., and J.E. Vahlne, “The Internationalization Process of the Firm – A Model of Knowledge Development and Increasing Foreign Market Commitments,” Journal of International Business Studies, 8:1 (1977), pp. 23-32. Landaeta, R., “Evaluating Benefits and Challenges of Knowledge Transfer Across Projects,” Engineering Management Journal, 20:1 (2008), pp. 29-38. Lawrence, P.R., and J.W. Lorsch, “Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 12:1 (1967), pp. 1-47. Li, J., “Foreign Entry and Survival: Effects of Strategic Choices on Performance in International Markets,” Strategic Management Journal, 16:5 (1995), pp. 333-351. Lord, M.D., and A.L. Ranft, “Organizational Learning About New International Markets: Exploring the Internal Transfer of Local Market Knowledge,” Journal of International Business Studies, 31:4 (2000), pp. 573-589. Melin, L., “Internationalization as a Strategy Process,” Strategic Management Journal, 13 (1992), pp. 99-118. Nissen, M.E., Harnessing Knowledge of Dynamics: Principled Organizational Knowing and Learning, IRM Press (2006). Nonaka, I., “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation,” Organization Science 5:1 (1994), pp. 14-37.
26
Orr, R.J., and R.E. Levitt, “Local Embeddedness of Firms and Strategies for Dealing with Uncertainty in Global Projects” in Global Projects: Institutional and Political Challenges, Cambridge University Press (2011). Petersen, B., T. Pedersen, and M.A. Lyles, “Closing Knowledge Gaps in Foreign Markets,” Journal of International Business Studies, 39:7 (2008), pp. 1097-1113. Polanyi, M., The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Books (1967). Scott, W.R. (Ed.), Institutions and Organizations (2nd Ed.), Sage (2001). Scott W.R., Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests, Sage Publications (2008). Spender, J.C., “Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Issue 1996), pp. 45-62. Strauss, A.L., and J.M. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications (1990). Thompson, J.D., Organization in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory, McGraw-Hill (1967). Winter, S.G., Knowledge and Competence as Strategic Assets, Ballinger (1987). Woodward, J., Industrial Organization: Theory and Practise, Oxford University Press (1965). Yin, R. (Ed.), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage (2003). Zaheer, S., “Overcoming the Liability of Foreignness,” Academy of Management Journal, 38:2 (1995), pp. 341-363. About the Author Amy Javernick-Will holds a PhD in civil and environmental engineering from Stanford University, and has been an assistant professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the University of ColoradoBoulder since 2010. Her areas of interest include global projects, global project organizations, knowledge mobilization and management, and disaster recovery. Contact: Amy Javernick-Will, University of Colorado at Boulder, Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, 428 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309; phone: 720-220-7220;
[email protected]
Engineering Management Journal
Vol. 25 No. 3
September 2013
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
