IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/conmgt/v37y2019i12p712-726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How organizational boundary choices impact capability development

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Galvin
  • Stephane Tywoniak

Abstract

As construction-oriented public sector agencies have outsourced more and more of their construction-related activities, they have often suffered from an inability to provide appropriate oversight due to degraded capabilities. This had led to calls for these agencies to rebuild capabilities across different technical areas. A firm’s boundary choices—make, buy, ally and dual modes (make and buy simultaneously)—may impact the ability of a firm to maintain and even build new capabilities, and in this article, we seek to investigate the impact that boundary choices have upon rebuilding capabilities and the extent to which organizations may make sub-optimal choices economically to potentially create opportunities for learning and knowledge sharing. Using qualitative data from three project-based public sector organizations managing large construction projects, we observed that neither pure make nor buy decisions assisted significantly in capability building. Dual modes provided firms with some opportunities to build capabilities, but the most successful decisions seemed to occur in respect of using intermediate governance modes such as alliances. We also observed that the boundary choice was just one dimension of the capability building process and suggest organizations require a multi-pronged strategy to rebuild capabilities over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Galvin & Stephane Tywoniak, 2019. "How organizational boundary choices impact capability development," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(12), pages 712-726, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:37:y:2019:i:12:p:712-726
    DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2019.1582789
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01446193.2019.1582789
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01446193.2019.1582789?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:37:y:2019:i:12:p:712-726. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.