Benchmarking construction technology transfer in Thailand

Abstract

In an effort to more rapidly develop their infrastructure, economies and living standards, many newly industrialized countries, such as Thailand, have embarked on a series of international Technology Transfer (TT) initiatives within the construction and other industries. However, these initiatives have not immediately translated into enhanced capabilities and competitiveness within indigenous firms, resulting in a sustained reliance on foreign firms. With few clues as to why TT ventures have not created expected outcomes for the indigenous construction industry, newly industrialized countries lack direction on how to more rapidly diffuse best-practice technology. Management philosophies such as benchmarking and performance measurement have become essential activities for firms, across all industry sectors, to achieve continuous process improvement and maintain competitiveness in the global market. In an attempt to better diagnose the health of TT ventures and ultimately improve rates of TT, this paper promotes benchmarking as a tool for measuring baseline and future performance across a wide range of TT perspectives. Utilizing the results from a questionnaire survey of 162 industry professionals from Thailand, a TT performance measurement framework, consisting of eight diverse perspectives was formulated through exploratory factor analysis. These perspectives represent the enablers and outcomes of the TT process, namely: (1) technology characteristics; (2) government influence; (3) relationship building; (4) transferor characteristics; (5) transferee characteristics; (6) economic advancement; (7) knowledge advancement; and (8) project performance. The framework was utilized to provide a baseline benchmark index of TT performance in Thailand. A benchmark score of 70% was determined, implying that up to 2005, construction TT ventures in Thailand have been operating moderately to highly effectively/successfully. Moreover, the TT performance of individual transferor nationalities operating in Thailand was compared. The study provides some evidence that Japanese construction firms are not only the leading exporter of construction services to Thailand but also perform slightly higher across TT performance perspectives influenced by the transferor.

Reflecting on 10 years of focus on innovation, organisational learning and knowledge management literature in a construction project management context

“…KM is also a popular and growing research theme in Australia with several authors writing in this journal over the period, including contributions from Professor Peter Love (Edwards et al , 2005) from Curtin University and Assistant Professor Rodney Stewart (Stewart and Waroonkun, 2007; Waroonkun and Stewart, 2008; Panuwatwanich et al , 2009; Suprun and Stewart, 2015) from Griffith University being contributors to this journal together with many others from Australian Universities.…”

Facilitating Technology Transfer in Offsite Construction Between India and the UK: Drivers and Challenges

“…The study showed that most firms operating worldwide are not using integrated global strategies effectively. Stewart and Waroonkun (2007) presented a TT performance measurement framework with eight different perspectives. Waroonkun and Stewart (2008) presented a model for international TT with the four factors including, government influence, transferee characteristics, transferor characteristics and relationship building.…”

Exploration of an agenda for transparency in the construction industry

“…A similar type of benchmark is developed in Hong Kong that identifies best practice measures of construction time performance for use by clients, consultants and contractors in the construction industry (Chan and Chan, 2004). Stewart and Waroonkun (2007) and Lau et al (2005) present academic studies on benchmark tools for the construction sector. Transparency International describes initiatives in several other countries that aim at improving the transparency in the construction sector (www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2006/construction#readings).…”

“…Transparency International describes initiatives in several other countries that aim at improving the transparency in the construction sector. See the website: http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2006/construction#readings 4 For academic studies on benchmark tools for the construction sector, see for example Stewart and Waroonkun (2007) and Lau et al (2005). 5 In this respect we would note that the interests, on an aggregate level, of project developers, constructors and advising engineering companies are fairly similar and can therefore all be accommodated within the category of "executing parties".…”