4.5 Article

Mobilizing Institutional Knowledge for International Projects

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 136, Issue 4, Pages 430-441

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000110

Keywords

Institutional differences; Institutional knowledge; International business; Knowledge management; Organizations

Funding

  1. Stanford Graduate Fellowship
  2. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering
  3. Collaboratory for Research on Multinational Projects

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multinational engineering consultants, contractors, and real estate developers work on projects in various countries, encountering many challenges that arise from cross-national differences. These projects frequently bring together diverse participants in an unfamiliar environment. In these situations, firms are exposed to different institutions-regulations, norms, and cognitive-cultural beliefs-that can increase misunderstandings, delays, and costs. Knowledge of these institutional elements is critical to create a project that is both locally sustainable and profitable for the firm. Departing from institutional theory and the knowledge-based view of the firm, we conduct exploratory research based on interviews from informants in 15 firms to identify the methods that multinational real estate developers, contractors, and engineers use to transfer and mobilize institutional knowledge for their global projects. We contribute to theory by adding to the developing literature that uses institutional theory to examine differences on global projects and by analyzing the specific methods firms use to transfer institutional knowledge internally, across projects and divisions. Ultimately, this research, combined with the work of others, can develop new processes for firms engaged in international projects to enhance their mobilization of institutional knowledge, and thereby improve the outcomes of international projects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available