Arup Group Limited: putting trust in the trust
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research methodology The data set used to write this case was collected from 83 public sources, including company communications, company journals and reports and the company website, along with newspaper articles, industry reports, scientific articles and case studies. The data set was used to analyse both the industry and firm in which Arup operated to draw conclusions about the firm’s strategy and competitive advantage, specifically, as it relates to trust and knowledge management. Case overview/synopsis Alan Belfield, an employee of Arup Group Limited for 29 years, and the company’s chairman since 2019, had witnessed significant growth since he first joined the firm. Operating globally, Arup had a proud past; since 1946, the company had served 6,931 clients across 143 countries, leading to its important contribution to many world-renowned landmarks within the built environment. From 2018 to 2020, revenue at the global multiservice engineering company had grown almost £250m [1] to £1.809bn. Over the past few years and as 2021 came to an end, the global engineering services industry had experienced a flood of mergers and acquisitions, as the industry grew towards maturity and clients looked for full-service solutions. Arup’s strategy had proven successful in the past, evidenced by its capacity to grow revenues and partake in the design of well-known structures and buildings. However, with the trend towards consolidation, as Arup headed into 2022, how could the firm retain its position as one of the global leaders in the industry over time? Complexity academic level The case can be used in business courses on global strategic management at the bachelor and master levels, as it applies key strategic management concepts within a global context. The case focuses primarily on the transnational corporation (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 2002) and how it creates value through strategy and structure. Instructors who wish to integrate the human resource management aspect into the course are provided with optional material, including an additional reading, along with an assignment question and associated analysis and teaching guidance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».