Going it alone for gold

The pull of the global construction market, from Eastern Europe to Dubai and the Far East, offers a veritable pot of gold at the end of the rainbow given the immense scale of the work being carried out in far-flung regions. But allied to that is the age-old dilemma of how to actually achieve a world presence – does one acquire, set up on your own or strike a deal with a local partner?

G&T plumped for the global alliance option, described at the time as a “unique profit-sharing venture” which saw the creation of a new holding company shared between the three parties. From all accounts there was plenty of activity and talk in the subsequent years after the deal was made in 1997, but it appears this began to wane following the departure of the deal’s main proponent, former senior partner Roger Fidgen. The original talk of creating joint offices and sharing technology does not appear to have materialised.

As rivals have pointed out, staff are more likely to focus on bread and butter work for their main employer than bother with a perceived third party venture, especially when it could threaten existing client relationships or regional ties. G&T’s alliance was also surely not helped by the massively complicated structure of the two other names involved, with different brands or combinations of the names covering different regional areas.

It is a pity that such an ambitious venture has hit the buffers but it underlines the difficulty firms face when balancing the challenge of continuing to succeed on these shores with seeking advantage abroad. The lesson appears to be the need for a clear strategy and formal arrangements put in place before striking out abroad.