Gosling, J; Hewlett, B and Naim, M (2011) A framework for categorising engineer-to-order construction projects. In: Egbu, C and Lou, E C W (eds.) Proceedings of 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
Using the decoupling point concept, supply chains can be classified to cover a variety of different structures, ranging from very repetitive make-to-stock supply chains to very customized engineer-to-order (ETO) industries. The purpose of this research is to add more clarity to the ETO category by addressing engineering sub-categories and their implications. A collaborative form of inquiry as the means for producing knowledge is adopted. This includes academics and practitioners co-operating throughout the research process. A single ETO category is found to be too broad, and eight sub-categories are proposed, which are used to highlight the need for appropriate procurement routes. By introducing a richer understanding of the ETO marketplace, the paper opens the way to effective procurement strategies depending on the sub-categories that construction organisations choose to engage with. It adds to the overall body of knowledge suggesting a one-size-fits-all approach to strategy is not suitable.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | civil engineering; procurement; risk; supply chain |
| Index terms: | construction organization, procurement strategy, practitioner, decoupling, strategy, construction project, body of knowledge, engineer-to-order |
| Subjects: | manufacturing engineering, practitioner, organization, knowledge management, production management, contractual arrangements, management, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Procurement, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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