Osunsanmi, T O; Aigbavboa, C O; Thwala, W D D and Molusiwa, R (2022) Modelling construction 4.0 as a vaccine for ensuring construction supply chain resilience amid COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 20(1), pp. 132-158. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic came with a lot of stress, uncertainty and disruption for managing the construction supply chain (CSC). The disruption in return caused weak resilience of CSC activities. Unfortunately, the existing models for managing CSC focus on preparedness and recovery while neglecting the visibility perspective of resilience CSC. Towards creating a resilience CSC, this study modelled construction 4.0 as the vaccine for supply chain resilience in the construction industry. Design/methodology/approach: A survey questionnaire was used to collect data randomly from construction stakeholders. The questionnaire was analysed with a structural equation model analysis using SmartPLS while conducting tests such as path coefficient analysis, discriminant analysis and importance-performance analysis. Findings: This study discovered that construction 4.0 is a significant tool and vaccine for ensuring visibility, recovery and adaptation within the supply chain. Construction 4.0 will function as a vaccine for ensuring resilience because of its capacity to optimise CSC management by introducing an evidence-based management approach and less dependent on implicit knowledge. Towards reaping the full potential of construction 4.0, it should be adopted as a moderating variable. Research limitations/implications: The research is limited by the use of a single methodology (quantitative) without including a qualitative method to understand better and explore the impact of construction 4.0 on CSC resilience. The qualitative part can be carried out by conducting interviews targeted at construction stakeholders. Practical implications: In spite of the limitations, the findings of this study contributed to building a more responsive and resilient CSC during the pandemic period. Furthermore, this study also presented the crucial construction 4.0 technology capable of ensuring resilience within the CSC. Originality/value: This paper presents a model for applying construction 4.0 as a vaccine for ensuring CSC resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic period. This study contributed to ensuring that decisions made within the CSC adopt an evidence-based approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; construction project management; quality/supply chain management |
| Index terms: | recovery, construction 4.0, discriminant analysis, pandemic, adaptation, performance analysis, structural equation model, construction project management, construction supply chain, construction industry, modelling, COVID-19, interview, survey, qualitative method, methodology, evidence-based management, supply chain resilience, evidence, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | digital engineering, research design and methodology, user focus, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, supply chain resilience, construction logistics, operations management, analytical methods, data analysis and analytics, research methods, health risk and incident analysis, management, project management theory and practice, statistical analysis, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Supply Chain Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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