Bildsten, L (2016) Purchasing in construction companies. PhD thesis, Lund University, Sweden.
Abstract
A significant part of the cost of a construction project, up to 90%, consists of purchased goods and services. Suppliers thereby have a large impact on the quality, price and time of projects. Purchasing management is therefore important for the outcome of a project. The aim of research covered by this thesis is to describe and analyse purchasing management and its interrelation with the supplier relationships and the production process. The research design was twofold: theory building and case studies. In the latter, the initial phase was inductive through studies of industrialized building, changing to abductive and, thereafter, deductive when tentative theories were tested within construction companies. The findings were that maintaining supplier relationships and, at the same time, retaining competition with several suppliers are desirable. The construction industry has been portrayed by some researchers as price-driven with respect to the choice of suppliers. The research reveals that the choice of suppliers is based to a large extent on long-term relationships, where the trustworthiness of suppliers plays an important part. Through long-term relationships, the project team can rely on the experiences acquired from previous purchases to overcome problems of coordination, communication and integration. It is important for construction companies to recognize that the project team possesses significant knowledge about the nature of services and products delivered by different subcontractors and suppliers. Decisions that are not made in collaboration with those involved in production can lead to lower quality, higher cost and later project delivery than might otherwise be the case. A combination of skills purchasing and construction seems appropriate for project managers. The theoretical contributions of the research consist of: (1) a framework on waste and coordination; (2) a framework comparing value-driven and market-driven purchasing; (3) a portfolio matrix considering the aspects of intensity and time perspective in purchaser-supplier relationships; (4) a framework to serve as a guide to describe and analyse the purchasing process in the companies that were examined; and (5) a portfolio matrix to portray purchasing in construction companies based on the findings.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction project; project team; skills; collaboration; communication; industrialized building; integration; production process; purchasing; project manager; subcontractor; supplier; competition; coordination; market; trust; case studies |
| Index terms: | purchaser, research design, purchasing, case study, project manager, coordination, project team, project delivery, industrialized building, construction industry, theory building, production process, construction company, subcontractor, competition, collaboration, construction project, integration |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, procurement strategy, organizational analysis, sociology, management, data science, project delivery, profession, data collection methods, research design and methodology, market analysis, building construction, production management, manufacturing engineering, practitioner, organization |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Project Management, Procurement, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Organizational Design |
| 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