Naim, M and Barlow, J (2003) An innovative supply chain strategy for customized housing. Construction Management and Economics, 21(6), pp. 593-602. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
There has recently been considerable interest in construction research in paradigms developed for the manufacturing sector. Using lean thinking and agile production as examples of innovative organizational and business process design, this paper explores their commonalities and differences. In this way, it is possible to judge which paradigm is the most appropriate for given market conditions. By presenting action research outputs from a project on the UK house-building industry, the paper indicates the potential application of both lean and agile construction from a supply chain perspective. The paper concludes that house-building supply chains have to be engineered according to whether the market objectives are low cost, flexibility or a combination of the two.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | customization; house building; lean and agile; process innovation; supply chain |
| Index terms: | customization, low cost, building industry, paradigm, action research, strategy, market condition, process design, housing |
| Subjects: | bidding, construction manufacturing, design methods, economic and policy analysis, construction type, data collection methods, industry analysis, education and knowledge transfer, management |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Procurement |
| 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