Hall, M A (2001) 'Root' cause analysis: A tool for closer supply chain integration in construction. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
Perhaps more than most industries, successful construction in the UK relies on effectively bringing together a diverse range of suppliers in what is often referred to as a 'temporary-multi organization'. Relationships and integration between the organizations within this diverse and complex supply chain are difficult to form and maintain. Frequently, relationships degenerate and become acrimonious, with companies attempting to protect their own position to the detriment of the construction project. This paper outlines the root cause analysis tool and shows, using real-life case studies, how it can be used not only to identify and resolve problems but, at the same time engender better relationships and understanding between suppliers of services and products for a construction project.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | root cause analysis; supply chain; quality cycles |
| Index terms: | integration, case study, supply chain integration, root cause analysis, construction project |
| Subjects: | supply chain integration, organizational analysis, risk assessment, data collection methods, production management |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Organizational Design, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here