Managing global engineering networks part I: Theoretical foundations and the unique nature of engineering

Abstract

Network concepts have been widely reported in the current literature on international engineering operations. But a systematic view of the unique nature of engineering is missing and its implications for the design and operations of global engineering networks are poorly understood. This paper seeks to address these knowledge gaps by exploring how leading global companies cope most effectively with the unique nature of engineering in their network operations. A theory building approach based on the case study methods was adopted reflecting the contemporary nature of this study and the complexity of the research object. The first part of this paper establishes a theoretical foundation for global engineering networks through an analysis of the intrinsic requirements of engineering operations, mapping the influence of the external business environments, and reviewing the relevant engineering network theories and practices. A preliminary framework has been developed to bring together the key issues and provide a foundation for more detailed enquiries/

Global engineering services: Shedding light on network capabilities

“…We consider global engineering services (GES) as the application of engineering knowledge (including engineering technologies, skills and expertise) possessed by an engineering services firm in effective problem‐solving for the benefit of customers in a global context. These services are typically knowledge‐intensive, asset‐light, and customer/project‐focused (Malhotra and Morris, 2009; Zhang et al., 2014).…”

“…From an evolutionary perspective, GES share a common ground with the latest type of services operations‐ information services, since many engineering services firms “have expanded their service offering by providing information that assists customers with decision making” (Heineke and Davis, 2007: p367). Such expansion has resulted in workforces dispersed across geographic, organisational and disciplinary boundaries; and thus driving the evolving organisation structure from the traditional partnership management towards network forms of organisations (Greenwood et al., 2002; Malhotra and Morris, 2009: Zhang et al., 2014). GES have to cope with new challenges in organising and coordinating these increasingly dispersed, complex, diverse, dynamic service networks (Heineke and Davis, 2007).…”

“…Strategic management theories recognise the concept of organisational or operational capabilities as a helpful way of synergising resources and activities to achieve competitive advantage (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Grant, 1991; Teece et al., 1997; Barney, 1999; Winter, 2003) – a theme re‐enforced in the operations strategy literature (Hayes and Wheelwright, 1984; Slack and Lewis, 2002; Peng et al., 2008). Extending these concepts to give them a clear focus on the distinctive environment of PSOM will enrich our understanding (Lewis and Brown, 2012; Zhang et al., 2014), and address the concern that traditional theories generally failed to address directly the fundamental requirements of PSOM based on relationships, customer interactions, participation and value co‐creation (Roth and Menor, 2003; Lovelock and Gummensson, 2004; Heineke and Davis, 2007; Karpen et al., 2012).…”

“…The first two capability areas confirm the underlying rationale of capability building in the resource‐based view (Grant, 1991; Barney, 1999; Mills and Platts, 2003) by combining resources and coordination . The third area reflects the key advantage of network organisations in collective learning (Powell, 1990; Foss, 1999), and at the same time addresses the need for effective knowledge management in complex network operations (Dyer and Noveoka, 2000; Karlsson and Skëld, 2007; Zhang et al., 2014).…”

“…One could argue that GES firms are at the forefront of this organisational transformation. They are pioneering new forms of network based organisations as a result of the nature of the knowledge they deploy, the degree of jurisdictional control they exercise, and the global client relationships they seek (Malhotra and Morris, 2009; Zhang et al., 2014). From a knowledge perspective , GES firms tend to adopt lateral team structures and reciprocal processes since they have a technical or syncretic knowledge base supported by multiple disciplines rather than a normative knowledge base.…”