Thunberg, M; Rudberg, M and Gustavsson, T K (2014) Identifying and positioning construction supply chain planning problems. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
The construction industry struggles with an ineffective supply chain. A literature review, in combination with an empirical study aims at identifying and positioning perceived supply chain planning problems. The empirical part is a series of semi-structured interviews with construction site managers, purchase coordinators, and a project leader. Most site managers are responsible for mid-sized turnkey contracts, which enable comparison. Findings show that most of the supply chain planning problems relate to lack of coordination between actors, and that many of the problems discovered on-site originate from the supply process or the design process. Through proactive coordination of the actors in the supply chain planning process and the actors in the construction process, the problems on-site causing Òfire-fightingÓ-activities could be reduced.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | coordination; planning problems; productivity; supply chain management; supply chain planning |
| Index terms: | productivity, construction site, literature review, manager, interview, supply chain planning, design process, construction industry, coordination, construction process, empirical study, site manager, construction supply chain |
| Subjects: | research methods, supply chain planning, management, building construction, industry analysis, data collection methods, practitioner, design methods, construction logistics, work location, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Site Management, Organizational Design, Supply Chain Management, Design Practice |
| 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