Search

During negotiations in the initial stage of multinational megaprojects, technical issues are underemphasized compared to diplomatic or political perspectives despite varying relevant standards of participating countries. If the organization structures are established soundly while overcoming heterogeneous aspects of involved countries, decision making among countries satisfying both could be made timely and properly. With the aim of positive multilateral relationships and negotiations concerning engineering factors collectively, a framework is presented for identifying the roles and responsibilities of multinational joint clients with a hierarchical organization structure composed of a decision maker, senior responsible owner, project sponsor, and project manager. US forces relocation program in the Republic of Korea, a $1.4 billion megaproject, was analyzed where political and cultural aspects were attempted to melt down in a hierarchical organization. Results from interviewing high-level decision makers from both countries show that upper-level participants focus on political issues, while lower-level practitioners aim to achieve satisfactory technical quality. The involvement of engineers in earlier negotiation stages with upper-level counterparts is essential in establishing realistic goals. The uniqueness of the framework compared to previous factor-driven perspectives between different joint-client structures are as follows: Identical hierarchy of level from the countries supports defining roles with integrated scope management, and neutral consultative body for arbitrating conflict between countries and in-house departments within a country is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) of Taiwan and Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) of Korea are among the most acknowledged public research institutes in East Asia. This paper applies the evolutionary perspective for a comparative case study, emphasizing the path dependence with the innovation system context. Also, this paper elucidates the factors that configured the dynamics of ITRI and KIST in populating spin-offs and advancing biotechnology, respectively. It sheds new light on what particular organizational structures and routines would posit functionality in propagating certain activities and outcomes. The case of ITRI implies a strong mechanistic push in its organization to expedite its research activities and spin-offs. Meanwhile, KIST is endowed with patient capital and instituted service seniority in its career ladder, thus enabling it to develop science-based technologies and to evolve into a university-like institute. The structures and routines of the two PRIs are profound and productive in advancing their respective desired research agendas. However, their instituted routines might limit their pursuit of other kinds of growth ventures. This paper shows a depiction of organizational career ladders and spin-off mechanisms, which provides a useful guide for a government aspiring to construct similar structures and routines for certain outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1983, Korean construction contractors captured over 11% of the overseas market and twenty-five of them were listed in the top 250 international contractors. However, they have struggled against the inefficiency of their organizations, accelerating competition, and the rapid changes in the managerial environment. Although the various features of the environment had required variety in strategy and organization structure, the managers of construction firms have not kept pace with the requirement, but have shown an inability to predict what kind of influence the changes will have on their organizations and what kind of response is proper to the environmental changes they confront. These problems are mainly caused by a lack of understanding of the suitability of their organization's structure and managerial environment. The present research shows that: the functional structure is the archetype of the Korean construction organizations; direction and delegation are the mainstream in corporate management; the critical factors for corporate management are accelerating competition, inconsistent government policy and the pressure of rising costs; and most of the contractors, except the top 5% large-sized firms, have little capability to respond to a new environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]