Min, J U (2004) Supply chain visualization through web services integration. PhD thesis, Stanford University, USA.
Abstract
This research addresses real-time information sharing between project participants by leveraging Web Services and software agent technology. Such an approach provides better information transparency in projects and leads to improved resource utilization. In construction, the expediting process is the process of making sure that all the materials and equipment arrive on a job site in time to allow an orderly progression of construction work. However, the complexity of a construction supply chain makes it intractable in practice to handle this process efficiently. Automated information retrieval from each member of a supply chain can be helpful, but gathering and organizing information from heterogeneous sources is not trivial because of the temporary nature of construction supply chains. In addition, even with the information retrieved, there is still a problem of information overload. In this research, I present a prototype system that automates interactive information exchange in an expediting process using Web Services and computer agent technology. Web Services technology, which is relying upon existing and emerging standards, can be used for building and integrating distributed applications within and across corporate boundaries. Furthermore, computer agents can reorganize information and give early warnings so that project managers can get reliable and timely information from subcontractors and suppliers to facilitate efficient decision-making and agile supply chains. This research contains two main contributions. The first is a methodology to integrate Web Services and software agents so that a virtual construction supply chain can be flexibly and dynamically configured. Using this framework, a prototype system “SCVisualizer” has been developed to automate the expediting process and to facilitate real-time information sharing in construction. The second contribution is a formalized risk assessment method that describes uncertain and subjective judgment using option theory. This method is further extended to the quantification of supply chain related risks in the expediting process which is affected by the real-time information sharing.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Bjornsson, H |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | complexity; construction supply chain; equipment; standards; information retrieval; risk assessment; project manager; subcontractor; supplier; quantification |
| Index terms: | project manager, judgment, quantification, resource utilization, construction work, construction supply chain, risk assessment, information retrieval, option, real-time information, transparency, early warning, information exchange, prototype, methodology, decision-making, integration, complexity, boundaries, subcontractor, agent, visualization |
| Subjects: | site logistics, data science, property law, operations management, modelling and simulation, dispute resolution, practitioner, construction logistics, profession, systems engineering, measurement and scaling, decision analysis, organizational analysis, data management, professional development, financial risk, research methods, design practice |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Legal Issues, Risk Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Site Management, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Information Management, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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