Broft, Rafaella; Badi, Sulafa M and Pryke, Stephen David (2016) Towards supply chain maturity in construction. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(2), pp. 187-204. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose - Several studies have underlined the potential of supply chain management (SCM) in meeting the formidable challenges associated with fragmentation, adversarial relationships and insufficient customer focus in the delivery of construction projects. However, properly documented examples of successfully implemented SCM initiatives, particularly at the lower tiers of the supply chain, are scarce. The purpose of this paper is to extend the existing debates by adopting an alternative approach focusing specifically on the internal SCM organisation of both main contractor and subcontractor organisations, and their direct inter-relationships. Design/methodology/approach - This study sets out to explore the enablers and barriers to the implementation of SCM at the lower tiers of the construction supply chain, particularly the problematic collaboration between main contractors and subcontractors. SC maturity levels are formulated according to relevant SCM concepts and based on Holti et al.'s (2000) seven principles of SCM organisation, and transformed into a conceptual model. An explorative study is conducted based on interviews from eight large main contractor and subcontractor organisations in the Dutch construction industry. Findings - Discouragingly, across the organisations, more barriers than enablers to SCM are identified. Organisations are found to be particularly struggling to compete through superior value, manage costs collaboratively, and develop continuous improvement within their supply chains. The findings also underline the low SC maturity of main contractors and their inability to play the essential role of supply chain managers. Practical implications - The study underlines the need for a greater degree of main contractor leadership and improved internal organisation of both types of firms in order to achieve greater collaboration at the lower tiers of the construction supply chain. Originality/value - The study contributes to the subject of SCM in construction in two respects. First, the findings should prove valuable to both policy-makers and industry practitioners interested in the delivery of performance improvement in construction. Second, the developed SC maturity model can form the conceptual basis for the development of an applicable improvement framework towards successful SCM implementation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | procurement; collaboration; supply chain management; construction supply chain; contractor-subcontractor relationship; extended integration; supply chain maturity |
| Index terms: | collaboration, construction project, methodology, performance improvement, construction supply chain, supply chain maturity, practitioner, construction industry, implementation, subcontractor, interview, main contractor, manager, maturity model, maturity level, extended integration, continuous improvement, fragmentation, contractor-subcontractor relationship |
| Subjects: | research methods, supply chain development, management, performance measurement, contract management, evaluation, production management, systems and processes, industry analysis, business, data collection methods, practitioner, construction logistics, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Project Management, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Supply Chain Management, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Contract Administration, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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