Bell, L C and Stukhart, G (1987) Costs and benefits of materials management systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(2), pp. 222-234. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Construction professionals are recognizing the need to focus on the materials management process as a proactive, identifiable entity that has a significant impact on the cost of construction. In recent years construction contractors have developed integrated, or “total concept,” materials management systems (MMS) that combine and integrate the takeoff, vendor evaluation, purchasing, expediting, warehousing, and distribution functions. These materials management systems produce tangible benefits in the areas of improved labor productivity, reduced bulk materials surplus, reduced materials management manpower, and cash flow savings. The cost of developing and implementing these systems can be substantial, but the benefits outweigh the costs, particularly when the system is used by the crafts for scheduling their work around bulk material availability.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | savings, purchasing, labour productivity, construction professional, scheduling, cash flow, distribution function, materials management, construction contractor |
| Subjects: | procurement strategy, probability and distributions, professional development, management, financial management, economic analysis, operations research, operations management, practitioner |
| Topics: | Time Control, Site Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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