Cox, A and Ireland, P (2002) Managing construction supply chains: The common sense approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 9(5-6), pp. 409-418. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
This paper will provide an introduction to the argument that there is considerable evidence of poor thinking within the construction industry. The failure to understand the circumstances that are facing industry players will prevent clients, contractors and suppliers from achieving their own objectives. The current problems are further compounded by the advice espoused by the government-sponsored industry reports advocating generic approaches. In response to these problems the paper will provide practitioners with a theoretical framework for understanding: the structure of the industry and its constituent supply chains; the attributes of buyer and supplier power; the appropriateness of certain relationships according to the firm's power position within the construction supply chain; and, the circumstances where the recent industry initiatives and an integrated supply chain approach may be implemented with success.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction industry; effective supply chain management; integrated supply; lean supply; power regimes |
| Index terms: | construction industry, construction supply chain, practitioner, evidence |
| Subjects: | construction logistics, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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