| Global infrastructure projects that involve collaboration between participants from multiple countries experience significant amounts of conflicts, delays and cost overruns as compared to intra-national projects. Institutional differences---differences in taken-for-granted rules, work practices, norms and beliefs that lead to regular patterns of behavior in societies---are the reason for these problems. On global projects, participants from different countries interact and institutionalized practices come into conflict, leading to delays and cost overruns before the conflicts are resolved.; Since very little literature exists on institutional conflicts on global projects, I conducted detailed case studies of four international infrastructure projects---two in Taiwan and two in India---to understand this phenomenon and help improve the performance of global projects. The Indian projects formed my primary data source. On all these projects, international contractors worked with local clients, laborers and subcontractors. I observed the following types of recurring institutional conflicts: (1) Conflicts due to differing perceptions in safety and quality standards; (2) Conflicts regarding the degree of conformance of work to the contract specifications; (3) Conflicts regarding administration of the works; (4) Conflicts regarding client-contractor relationships.; Safety and quality conflicts were present in both India and Taiwan since the local laborers were not used to following the higher standards that the international contractors expected. On the Indian projects, the Indian civil servants' fears of being caught by the local anti-corruption unit led to extremely bureaucratic and rule-following behavior. This led to conflict types 2,3 and 4 above, with contractors who were keen on advancing the works.; Several freelance professionals hailing mainly from the UK, worked on these projects. Since they were not influenced by local forces such as anti-corruption agencies, the freelancers who worked with the clients acted as mediators in resolving the conflicts that arose. They used four strategies---circumventing existing processes, escalating issues to a higher level, providing suggestions, and changing the forum for discussion---to resolve conflicts.; My research provides practitioners with strategic insights on how to manage global projects better. I also extend theoretical knowledge on institutional theory and provide insights into how institutional conflicts are resolved in project settings. |
