Karatas A

SURVEY OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AS PERCEIVED BY
THE US CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
By
ASLIHAN KARATA
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2009
1
2009 Aslhan Karata
To my family
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank people who helped me complete the work contained in this thesis.
The help of my supervisor Dr. Ralph Ellis was of great value. I would like to thank Dr. Raymond
Issa for his technical advice, encouragement and insightful comments throughout my work. I
thank Dr. Zohar Herbsman for serving as my thesis committee member and helpful advices.
I would like to express my special thanks to my parents Dr. Necmiye Karata and Dr.
kr Karata, my sister Berfin Karata and my beloved aunt Dr. Gnseli Grr. Their
understanding and faith in me and my capabilities, their love, encouragement, and eternal
support have motivated me all the time. Their support was the biggest motivation for the
completion of my degree. Also, I would like to thank my dear friends, Diner Konur and Sezgin
Ayabakan, without them it would be hard for me to accomplish this work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................ 7
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 8
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 10
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 12

Supply Chain Management ........................................................................................................ 12
Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry......................................................... 13
METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 19
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19
Questionnaire Design .................................................................................................................. 19
Sample Design ............................................................................................................................. 22
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 23

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 23
Analysis of Responses ................................................................................................................ 24
Functions Affecting the Contractors Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to
Suppliers ........................................................................................................................... 24
Factors Affecting Contractors Organization when Considering Developing Supply
Chain Collaboration ......................................................................................................... 25
Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply
Chain Relationship with a Supplier ................................................................................ 29
Factors Affecting the Development of a Successful Supply Chain Relationship
between Contractors and Clients..................................................................................... 31
Factors which are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its
Clients/Suppliers .............................................................................................................. 33
Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors ......................... 34
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 42
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 45
APPENDIX
A
SURVEY FORM......................................................................................................................... 46
Informed Consent Form .............................................................................................................. 46
Questionnaire Form..................................................................................................................... 47
CRONBACHS ALPHA TEST RESULTS .............................................................................. 51

Factors Affecting Contractors Organization when Considering Developing SC
Collaboration ........................................................................................................................... 51
Factors Necessary for Contractors when Developing Successful SC Relationship with a
Supplier .................................................................................................................................... 54
Factors Affecting the Development of a Successful Supply Chain Relationship between
Contractors and Clients ........................................................................................................... 57
Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors ................................ 60
ANOVA RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 63

Functions Affecting the Contractors Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to
Suppliers................................................................................................................................... 63
Factors for Developing SC Collaboration ................................................................................. 64
Companies value partnership with their suppliers/clients ........................................................ 67
Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply
Chain Relationship with a Supplier ........................................................................................ 67
Contractors and Clients ........................................................................................................... 71
Factors which are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its
Clients/Suppliers...................................................................................................................... 75
Relationship between contractor and the majority of their suppliers/clients........................... 76
Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors ................................ 77
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 80

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 83
LIST OF TABLES
page
Table
3-1
Distribution of company groups ............................................................................................ 22
4-1
Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers .................................. 25
4-2
Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients ...................... 26
4-3
Factors developing supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers......................... 27
4-4
Companies in terms of their revenue with regards to value of partnership with clients
and suppliers ........................................................................................................................... 29
4-5
Developing SC relationship with a supplier ......................................................................... 30
4-6
Developing a SC relationship with client ............................................................................. 32
4-7
Factor effecting the communication with suppliers and clients .......................................... 34
4-8
Barriers to supply chain integration for contractors............................................................. 35
LIST OF FIGURES
page
Figure
2-1
Sample of SC organization .................................................................................................... 17
2-2
Manufacturing companys SC (Spekman et al, 1998) ......................................................... 17
2-3
Supply chain data acquisition process in construction (adapted from Spekman et al.
(1998) An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective on
partnerships) ......................................................................................................................... 18
4-1
Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers .................................. 36
4-2
Factors developing a supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers...................... 36
4-3
Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients ...................... 37
4-4
Partnership agreements with suppliers and clients............................................................... 37
4-5
Average duration for partnership agreements with clients and suppliers ........................... 37
4-6
Results indicate how the contractors value partnership with clients and suppliers ........... 37
4-7
Developing a SC relationship with a supplier ...................................................................... 38
4-8
Developing a SC relationship with client ............................................................................. 39
4-9
Factors affecting the communication with the suppliers and clients .................................. 40
4-10
Barriers to supply chain integration for contractor .............................................................. 41
B-1
Matrix plot of factors affecting contractors organization when considering

developing a SC collaboration............................................................................................... 53
B-2
Matrix plot of factors which are necessary for contractors when developing a
successful SC relationship with a supplier ........................................................................... 56
B-3
Matrix plot of factors affecting the development of a successful SC relationship

between contractors and client .............................................................................................. 59
B-4
Matrix plot of factors which are barriers to supply chain integration for contractor ......... 62
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
SURVEY OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AS
PERCEIVED BY THE US CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
By
Aslhan Karata
May 2009
Chair: Ralph Ellis
Major: Civil Engineering
Supply chain management (SCM) has become a fundamental element in the construction
industry to improve the efficiency and productivity in recent decades. The construction sector
players including contractors, suppliers and clients have major roles in establishing and
developing SCM and collaboration. In this study, the relationship between contractors, their
suppliers and clients has been investigated to reveal the degree of importance of SCM from the
point of view of contractors. The individual opinions of the contractors have also been analyzed
to obtain personal data on the subject. This study details the results of a questionnaire survey of
supply chain management applied to US construction industry contractors randomly selected
among US construction industry contractors. From the results obtained, some solutions can be
proposed for the effective use of SCM for optimum construction performance as well as
emphasizing some crucial points avoiding optimum efficiency and productivity in the
construction business.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This study presents the understanding and analyzing of Supply Chain Management (SCM)
in the US construction industry regarding the relationship between major contractor companies
and their suppliers and clients with a view to come up with certain implications for optimum
construction performance. It is conventional wisdom to accept that the construction sector is
composed of a large number of players with numerous project supply chains and various markets
(OBrien et al., 2002). Contractor companies, their suppliers and clients are major players of this
sector. In this study, partnering relationships among these players are investigated, since a
companys partners in the supply chain may well determine the companys success (Chopra and
Meindel, 2007).
The questionnaire form was designed to display the degree of knowledge of contractor
companies about SCM. The partnership agreements between the parties were inspected to see
whether they are really aware of importance of such mutual relationships or they are ignored by
contractors. As stated by Saada et al. (2002) partnering in construction revolved around three key
principles: agreeing mutual objectives; making decisions openly and resolving problems in a way
that was jointly agreed at the beginning of the project; and aiming to achieve measurable
improvements in performance through incentives. There are some vital factors to meet these key
principles on the part of the contractors, suppliers and clients.
Firstly, contractors should analyze their partners demand logically during the project
which is essential for a successful collaboration between a contractor and its partners leading to a
well-established and developed SCM. In order to achieve the high levels of collaboration
required to synchronize the supply chain, companies must balance the needs of customers with
those of suppliers and partners (Martella, 2000).
10
Communication among the concerned parties is very important to improve collaboration.

As pointed out by Elliman and Orange (2000), one of the major problems of the construction
industry is its fragmented and adversarial nature which is a key factor contributing to poor
communication between all parties working on a construction project.
The quality of communication and sharing information among the contractor companies,
their suppliers and clients, determine the degree of achievement of the key principles. In addition
to balancing the needs of customers and suppliers, businesses must maintain equilibrium
between open communication and responsible information exchange (Martella, 2000).
Supply chain management is currently in its developing stage for construction industry.
Since the innovations on supply chain management in construction are still in the embryonic
stage, many barriers still need to be overcome (Cox and Townsend, 1998). The obstacles
preventing the optimum efficiency and productivity in the construction business were sought and
some implications were derived for the US construction industry to optimize the construction
performance.
This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 presents SCM with a brief description and
SCM in construction industry with an explanation of the importance of roles of contractors,
suppliers and clients from the view of SCM philosophy. Chapter 3 provides the methodology of
the research. The strategy used when designing a questionnaire form in terms of understanding
and the attitudes of main contractors concerning the perception of SCM in US construction
industry with special emphasis on their relationship to their suppliers and clients, was explained.
Chapter 4 presents the survey results which were analyzed by using ANOVA, Cronbachs Alpha
Test and graphical bar tools. Chapter 5 includes the conclusion part of this study. Chapter 6
consists of some recommendations to further this research in the future.
11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Supply Chain Management
The whole chain from producing a raw material to selling the product to the firm i.e. a
retail merchant is ascribed as a supply chain. Several companies take part in an organization for
creating a product and transmitting it to the end user. Chopra and Meindl (2007) described the
supply chain as consisting of the parties who are involved in satisfying the customer demands.
The members of supply chain are not limited to the manufacturers and suppliers. Warehouses,
retailers, transporters and customers are all players of supply chain. The sample of La Londe and
Masters (1994) defined the supply chain more clearly as one firm producing a raw material and
selling it to the second firm which then uses raw material and turns it to a component. The third
firm buys this component from the second firm and assembles the component into a product sold
to the fourth firm which might be a wholesale distributor. This firm distributes the product to the
retail merchants who finally sell this product to the end users (customers). The set of firms which
pass these materials forward can be referred to as a supply chain. The schematic expression of
this chain is shown in Figure 2-1.
Mentzer et al. (2001) listed several activities which should be established by firms to
behave consistently with the SCM philosophy. In this research, the focused activities are;
integrated behavior, mutually sharing information, cooperation and partners building and
maintaining long-term relationships. Integrated behavior and cooperation with clients and
suppliers are highly recommended to meet mutual expectations in the long-term (Mentzer et al.,
2001). Partners building and maintaining long-term relationships are required for increasing the
effectiveness of SCM (Mentzer et al., 2001). Lee (2004) suggested that collaborative
relationships should be developed with suppliers and customers so that companies work together
12
to design or redesign processes, components and products as well as preparing backup plans.
Thomas and Griffin (1996) explained that Supply Chain Management (SCM) is the
management of material and information flow both in and between facilities, such as vendors,
manufacturing and assembly plants and distribution centers. An illustration of supply chain is
indicated in Figure 2-2.
It is very important to take into consideration the responsiveness of the supply chain while
designing the supply chain which is basically enabled by sustained information flow (Chopra and
Meindl, 2007). In addition, information flow has a direct impact on the scheduling, inventory
control and delivery plans which are fundamental elements for the coordination of members in a
supply chain (Lee et al., 1997). The supply chain strategy of many companies depends on getting
quicker response rate at consumer flow, since it has tremendous effect to optimize the companys
performance. So, a supply chain management strategy should be developed to attain the ultimate
goals of the company; providing a competitive advantage. In this paper, the existence of effective
collaboration within and beyond the boundaries of a company which is essential to convert
competitive advantage into profitability was sought.
Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry
Major steps are taken to improve the efficiency and productivity of construction industry
for the last decades. Although performance of construction industry with regards to the budget,
quality of service, quality of materials and time of delivery are as well-developed as the other
industries, it is believed that there is still room for the improvements of supply chain
management tools for the Construction Industry.
SCM plays a major role to improve the efficiency and productivity of companies. The
actors of construction industry (contractors, suppliers and customers) should interact and
compromise to enable the essential adjustments (Dubois and Gadde, 2000). Since, contractors,
13
suppliers and customers are very significant elements for the implementation of SCM,
collaboration between those sector players is very essential. Total management of the supply
chain enhances the competitive edge of all players therein (Berry et al., 1994). Contractors
have a key role to establish and develop the supply chain management. Their role includes the
activities and tasks leading to preparation of the production on site involving construction clients
and design team (Akintoye et al., 2000). Sustainable cash flow and data flow among both the
upstream and downstream of chain are provided by contractors (Figure 2-3).
The relationship between a customer and a contractor and the relationship between a
supplier and a contractor develop long term financial performance which increases profitability
and competitiveness (Dubois and Gadde, 2000). Partnership with suppliers and customers are
several advantages such as long-term association, encouraging mutual planning and problem
solving efforts (Maloni and Benton, 1997). Matthews et al. (2000) mentioned that adoption of
partnering into the construction industries of the USA can also reduce the common construction
industry problems such as lacking trust, respect and honesty between professionals. On the other
hand, if the one partner can not meet the mutual expectations partnership agreement will become
a disaster. Additionally, loss of partnership control and neglecting potential short comings
because of high expectations from the partnership can destroy mutual collaboration between the
players.
There are some features of the construction industry differing from the other industries
which might prevent the proper application of SCM in construction industry. Vrijhoef and
Ridder (2007) pointed out that the difference of SCM in construction industry from the other
industries occurs at the end-customer stage, since clients are involved in the chain both at the
start and at the end for construction projects. This nature of construction industry evolves
14
significant problems such as lack of communication, lack of knowledge sharing infrastructure,

which are obstacles the improvement of SCM in construction. Latham (1994) reported that the
fragmented and adversarial nature of the construction industry have directly negative effects
on communication between all parties on a construction project. Chinowsky et al. (2007)
indicated that knowledge sharing infrastructure is one of the primary barriers preventing the
successful implementation of organizations. If an infrastructure can not be established for
sharing the information, exchanging knowledge will only be restricted among individuals. The
quality of communication and sharing information among the contractor companies, their
suppliers and clients, determine the degree of achievement of the key principles. Vrijhoef et al.
(2003) pointed out that insufficient management of supply chain triggers natural problems of
construction industry; a large quantity of waste and problems. The old-fashioned management of
supply chain leads to waste problem because of independent control of each stage of the chain.
Only focusing on the optimization of local aims instead of concerning the whole chain (Chopra
and Meindl, 2007) and poor communication between the players on a project cause the lack of
coordination between the parties (Latham, 1994). This unimproved coordination causes
unreliable environment, consisting of negative symptoms as not only waste and rework but also
low efficiency level, high unpredictability, low profits (Vrijhoef and Ridder, 2007) which might
thwart the developing and sustaining of SCM coordination in construction industry. Partnering is
one of the solutions to prevent those circumstances. With this in mind, contractors partnership
agreements with their clients and suppliers were investigated in this study.
In this study, a questionnaire form was designed for contractor companies to display
managements understanding of the concept and its effectiveness for practical application in
construction industry (Mentzer et al., 2001). The relationship between contractors, their suppliers
15
and clients was examined for emphasizing the necessity of SCM application from the point of
view of contractors. The approaches of contractors, who were assumed as the most vital players
of the enabling the flow of organization in construction industry, to the SCM concept was
investigated, since there is a relationship between improving SCM strategy on construction
projects and understanding the inherent behavior of firms in markets and the structural
characteristics of those markets (OBrien et al., 2002). Moreover, since the nature of construction
industry prevents the proper implementation of supply chain, barriers existing during enhancing
the industry were asked to figure out the common problems of the constructors.
16
I. Firm
Produce raw mat
II. Firm
Sell/distribute raw material
Produce a component
III. Firm
Assemble com. into a
product
IV. Firm
Sell/distribute components
Sell/distribute the product
Distribute the product
Sell/distribute the product to a retail merchant
V. Firm
Distribute the product
Sell/distribute the product to customer
Figure 2-1. Sample of SC organization
Figure 2-2. Manufacturing companys SC (Spekman et al, 1998)
17
Figure 2-3. Supply chain data acquisition process in construction (adapted from Spekman et al.
(1998) An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective on
partnerships)
18
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study investigated the understanding and the attitudes of main contractors concerning
the perception of Supply Chain Management in US construction industry with special emphasis
on their relationship to their suppliers and clients. Various studies, literature and research articles
on SCM and its application in construction industry were analyzed. A questionnaire form was
designed to identify and discuss the views and opinions of the contractors about the application
of SCM in construction sector, with the inspiration from previous studies on supply chain
collaboration and management in the UK construction industry (Akintoye et al., 2000) and
manufacturing and supply chain management in China (Pyke et al., 2000).
Questionnaire Design
Survey questionnaire is a measurement tool to find out the opinions of a specific group
about a certain subject. Since the needs for accurate and prompt flow of information has become
very critical, surveys are used to gather information from a sample of individuals (Scheuren
2008). Questionnaire provides a major source of knowledge. In this study, a three-page
questionnaire with an informed consent letter was sent to US contractors randomly selected
among the US contractors. Questionnaire forms were sent via e-mail, since researchers have
pointed out numerous benefits of e-mail over postal mail surveys, especially in terms of speed
and cost efficiency (Sheehan, 2006).
The questionnaire study was designed by the implications of two studies carried out by
Akintoye et al. (2000) A survey of supply chain collaboration and management in the UK
construction industry and Pyke et al. (2000) Manufacturing and supply chain management in
China. US contractors approach to the concept of supply chain management in construction
19
industry was sought to define. Relationship with their suppliers and clients were inspected to
identify the importance of supply chain strategy for these companies. This mutual relationship is
the fundamental element of SCM
The degree and quality of the relationship between the members of supply chain in
construction sector, including contractors, suppliers and clients, is one of the main factors to
determine the level of achievement of SCM. Thats why the questionnaire form was majorly
based on the relationship among these players to measure the success of supply chain strategy of
contractor firms. The questionnaire form was created based on the 5-point Likert scale; 5 refers
to very important or very strong or strongly agree or high extent and 1 refers to
unimportant or very weak or strongly disagree or low extent.
The insights for mapping supply chain structure have three primary attributes: members of
supply chain, structural dimensions, types of process links; indicating the structure of different
supply chains and the interconnection between a number of focal organizations supply chains
and the resultant networks of supply (Obrien et al., 2002). The questionnaire form is based on
the first attributes: members of supply chain; contractors, suppliers and clients.
The questionnaire survey was divided into four subgroups, each including different
numbers of questions. The first question was about the nature of companies participating in this
study. In Section A and Section B, contractors relationships with their suppliers and clients were
asked. Contractors were also asked about their collaboration with their suppliers/clients. Section
C sought the degree of importance of functions of suppliers and clients to the contractors supply
chain strategy to the achievement of their company goals and objectives. Section D contains nine
questions to explore supply chain strategy of contractor companies. Supply chain strategy
20
contains substrategies including production planning, inventory, lead time, purchasing and
transportation. These all elements must be consistent with supply chains level of responsiveness.
Firstly, contractors were asked about the extent to which inventory, transportation, lead
time, purchasing and production planning affect their efficiency of supply chain in relation to
their supplies. Secondly, they were asked to state the importance of such factors as improved
customer service, overall supply chain reduction, increased profitability etc. when considering
developing supply chain collaboration. In the third and the fourth questions, contractors were
asked to point out variables such as reliable delivery time, accurate order fulfillment, level of
complaints returns etc. to develop a successful supply chain relationship with suppliers and
clients. Questions five, six and seven involved questions about the degree of the importance of
communication between contractors, suppliers and clients, because communication plays a vital
role in establishing and developing collaboration. Question eight, contractors were asked the
degree of relationship to their clients and suppliers stating from very weak to very strong. Since
the innovations on supply chain management in construction are still in the embryonic stage,
many barriers still need to be overcome (Cox and Townsend, 1998). It is believed that supply chain
management is still in developing process for construction industry. This question sought the
obstacles to prevent the improvement of supply chain collaboration in construction industry. Last
part, question 10, was left for comments from contractor companies about supply chain
management in construction.
In conclusion, the questionnaire form was designed for contractor companies to display
managements understanding of the concept and its effectiveness for practical application in
construction industry (Mentzer et al., 2001).
21
Sample Design
This study details the results of a questionnaire survey of supply chain management
applied to US construction industry contractors randomly selected among US construction
industry contractors by value of project. The questionnaire forms sent to the contractors via email using online survey software program. Each e-mail text included consent form explaining
the reason of my survey study. If the receiver accepted to participate in this survey, start survey
link was followed (Appendix-A). Overall, 23 responds were received after a one-month deadline
period for response. Data were sorted and ranked according to the mean values to be dealt with.
In order to check the null hypothesis to see whether there were any differences among the views
of the contractor groups classified in terms of companies total revenue in the year 2007,
ANOVA method was used (Appendix-B). Group numbers, total revenue of companies, number
of companies in each group and their distribution percentage within the group were depicted in
Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Distribution of company groups
Group
Total Revenue, in 2007 ($ M)
Frequency
Percentage
Group 1
Less than 100
21.74%
Group 2
100-500
12
52.17%
Group 3
More than 500
26.09%
Total
23
100%
Each set of questions was analyzed with its contribution to clarify the contractors opinions
about SCM concept. Cronbachs Alpha approach was applied to check the reliability of a set of
questions where necessary. The Cronbachs Alpha test indicated that 5-point Likert scale test
analyzing the factors was reliable (Appendix-C).
22
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Introduction
Survey results were analyzed using Minitab statistical package and Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) method. Data were sorted and ranked according to the mean values to be dealt with.
In order to check the null hypothesis to see whether there were any differences among the views
of the contractor groups classified in terms of companies total revenue in the year 2007,
ANOVA method was used. Group numbers, total revenue of companies, number of companies in
each group and their distribution percentage within the group were depicted in Table 3-1.
Answers for each question were analyzed with respect to the null hypothesis to see whether
all company groups have the same mean value. Null hypothesis was tested as Ho and alternative
hypothesis was tested as Ha:
Ho = There is no significant evidence of a difference in the mean of responses among the three
groups with respect to their approach to supply chain management concept (1=2= 3)
Ha = At least one of the three types of companies differs from the others with respect to
knowledge about supply chain management concept
Test statistic:
F = MST/ MSE
MST= Mean Square for Treatments
MSE= Mean Square for Error
Rejection region:
F > F (crit.) (k-1, n-k)
F critical = Probability of rejecting the null hypothesis
k = sample size
n = number of groups
k -1 and n - k were defined as degree of freedom (df)
P-value = Probability value (if P < 0.05, there is a high difference of views within groups in
relation to that factor)
23
Each set of questions was analyzed with its contribution to clarify the contractors opinions
about SCM concept. Cronbachs Alpha approach was applied to check the reliability of a set of
questions designed to test 5-point Likert scale. Since summated scales are an assembly of
interrelated items designed to measure underlying constructs, it is very important to know
whether the same set of items would elicit the same responses if the same questions are recast
and re-administered to the same respondents (Reynaldo and Santos, 1999). Considering 0.7 as
an acceptable reliability coefficient for Cronbachs Alpha approach, the higher the score, the
more reliable the generated scale will be. It should also be noted that when small sample sizes
exist, the normality condition and the equal variance condition become more critical. This
situation might present a problem because there were not enough observations from the
individual group of companies to test validly whether the normality or equal variance condition
was satisfied.
Our study aimed to present the understanding and analyzing of SCM in the US
construction industry regarding the relationship between major contractor companies and their
suppliers and clients with a view to come up with certain implications for optimum construction
performance. Detailed analyses and explanation of each set of questions are shown in the section
Analysis of Responses.
Analysis of Responses
Functions Affecting the Contractors Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to Suppliers
Inventory, Transportation, Lead Time, Purchasing Planning and Production
Planning are major functions affecting the efficiency of supply chain relation. In this part,
contractors were asked to scale the functions which were expected to influence their relationship
with their suppliers. Figure-2 indicates the results of this question.
24
Since scheduling is one of the most significant factors for construction projects, 73.9 % of
contractors put Lead Time function on Important-Very Important scale. The results of
Purchasing (65.2%), Production Planning (47.8 %) and Inventory (34.8%) functions were as
expected. However, Transportation (39.1%) function was disregarded by the contractors.
According to ANOVA results (Table 4-1), there was an inverse proportion between total revenue
of companies and effect of transportation function in relation to suppliers (even if the differences
between variances are not significantly different). Higher-income causes less concern about
transportation. Even if this result was reasonable with regards to the ratio of transportation cost
on the companies budget, increasing fuel-oil prices recently should be taken into consideration,
since it triggers transportation cost dramatically which increases the total cost of project. This
function is expected to have a major role for the construction industry in the near future. There is
no rejected null hypothesis for this case, since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.=3.49.
Table 4-1. Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers
Average
Total
Inventory
Transportation
Lead Time
Purchasing
Production Planning
2.98
3.31
3.95
3.82
3.71
Total Revenue ($ Millions)

Less than
100More than
100
500
500
3.20
3.60
3.60
3.80
3.80
3.25
3.50
4.42
4.00
3.33
2.50
2.83
3.83
3.67
4.00
1.17
1.68
2.63
0.39
1.15
P-value
0.33
0.21
0.10
0.68
0.34
Factors Affecting Contractors Organization when Considering Developing Supply Chain

Collaboration
Contractors should analyze their partners demand logically during the project which is
essential for a successful collaboration between a contractor and its partners leading to a wellestablished and developed SCM organization. Improved customer service, overall supply chain
reduction, increased profitability, reducing bureaucracy/paper, increased market competitiveness
25
cost reductions within the organization, benefits to client, benefits to supplier and improved
quality assurance were listed as the most significant factors for an organization when considering
developing a supply chain collaboration. The Cronbachs Alpha test indicates that 5-point Likert
scale test analyzing the factors was reliable (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.8 > 0.7).
Among these factors, the results of responses to Improved quality assurance (78.3 %),
Benefits to the client (81.8 %), Improved customer service (87.0 %), Increased
profitability (69.6 %), Cost reductions within the organization (69.6 %), Reducing
bureaucracy/paper (43.5 %) and Increased market competitiveness (73.9 %) were as
expected. On the other hand, the responses to Benefits to supplier (34.8 %) and Overall
supply chain reduction (39.1 %) were lower than expected. Figure-3 indicates the distribution of
responses.
There was a major difference between responses to benefits to clients and benefits to
supplier. In addition to this, the result of a question revealing the relationship between the
contractor firms and the majority of their suppliers/clients is indicated in Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-3 highlighted that all contractors relationship with their clients are strong/very
strong (100 %). On the other hand, 65.2 % of them had strong relationship with their suppliers.
Also there were no significant differences among the group members (Group 1, Group 2 and
Group 3) (Table 4-2). There is no rejected null hypothesis for this case, since all F values are
smaller than Fcrit. = 3.49.
Table 4-2. Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients
Average

100-500
P-value
Total
Less than 100
Suppliers
3.73
3.60
3.75
3.83
0.18
0.83
Clients
4.31
4.00
4.42
4.50
1.25
0.31
26
More than 500
Most contractors almost neglected the contribution of suppliers to the SCM organization,
although they were aware of the clients importance for supply chain collaboration. Since,
contractors, suppliers and customers are very significant elements for the implementation of
SCM tools, collaboration among them is very essential. There should be a centralized supply
chain among those players. Only trying to optimize the local aims causes lack of coordination
and hurts the efficiency of supply chain (Chopra & Meindl 2007). Total management of the
supply chain enhances the competitive edge of all players therein (Berry et at, 1994).
Companies must balance the needs of customers with those of suppliers and partners to achieve
the high levels of collaboration required to synchronize the supply chain.
Table 4-3. Factors developing supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers
Average
F
Less than 100- More than
Total
100
500
500
Improved customer service
4.19
4.40
4.17
4.00
0.49
Overall supply chain reduction
3.92
4.00
3.75
4.00
0.08
Increased profitability
3.88
3.80
4.00
3.83
0.70
Reducing bureaucracy/paper
4.23
4.20
4.33
4.17
0.01
Increased market competitiveness
3.41
3.40
3.50
3.33
0.29
Cost reductions within your
organization
3.93
4.20
3.92
3.67
0.12
Benefits to the client
3.36
3.40
3.33
3.33
0.09
Benefits to your supplier
3.27
2.80
3.33
3.67
1.23
Improved quality assurance
4.06
4.00
4.17
4.00
0.14
3.27
2.80
3.33
3.67
1.23
4.06
4.00
4.17
4.00
0.14
P-value
0.62
0.93
0.51
0.99
0.75
0.88
0.91
0.31
0.87
0.31
0.87
Keeping in mind the significant differences between the responses to benefits to clients
and benefits to suppliers, the value of partnership with client and suppliers were inspected. The
existence of partnership agreement of contractors with clients and suppliers were sought to
clarify if they were intended to establish standards for consistent environment (Figure 4-4).
27
Even if there was no significant difference between percentage rates of existing partnership
agreements with clients and suppliers, the duration of these agreements had to be investigated
(Figure 4-5).
In Figure 4-5, it can be seen that there was a great difference between the average duration
of partnership agreements with suppliers (12.6 year) and clients (29.6 year). The controversial
situation between the existence of partnership agreement and its average duration can be
explained that the contractors have started to be aware of the importance of suppliers for their
companies in the last decade. Furthermore, when contractors were asked how they value their
partnership with suppliers and clients, 76.2 % of contractors responded that their partnership
with clients were on the important-very important scale and 60.9 % of them value partnering
with suppliers important-very important (Figure 4-6).
On the contrary to low response rate to benefits to supplier factors, high response rate to
partnering with suppliers pointed out that contractors are intended to make mutual agreements
with the suppliers. It was observed that Group 1 had higher averages (4.2 on the Likert scale) to
value of partnership with suppliers (Table 4-4). This result could be analyzed that this type of
companies are ready for mutual collaboration with suppliers to increase their budget. However,
when it comes to the Group 2 and Group 3, averages of between benefits to supplier and value
of partnership were no differences. With the comparison of Table 4-3 and Table 4-4, these
should be highlighted; Benefits to supplier: Group 3 (3.6), Group 2 (3.4); Value of partnership
with supplier: Group 3 (3.6), Group 2 (3.3)).
28
Table 4-4. Companies in terms of their revenue with regards to value of partnership with clients
and suppliers
Average
P-value
Total
Less than 100
100-500
More than 500
Suppliers
3.76
4.20
3.42
3.67
0.75
0.49
Clients
4.13
3.80
4.08
4.50
0.55
0.58
At the warm-up phase of companies, partnering with supplier helps to increase the profit.
When the company grows, the importance of supplier is disregarded. The advantages of
partnership with suppliers and customers are always taken into consideration, since it has
tremendous effect on long-term association, encouraging mutual planning and problem solving
efforts (Maloni and Benton, 1997). The adoption of partnering into the construction industries of
the USA can also reduce the common construction industry problems such as lacking trust,
respect and honesty between professionals (Matthews et al., 2000).
Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply Chain
Relationship with a Supplier
To improve coordination among players, contractors relationships with suppliers are very
necessary. Mutual relationship with supplier leads to reliable environment, with higher efficiency
level and higher profits. At this part, contractors were asked to scale the given factors when
developing a successful supply chain relationship with a supplier. Factors were listed as; reliable
delivery time, accurate order fulfillment, level of complaints/returns, delivery at specified
time, flexibility, fast order cycle time, handling of complaints, added value, quality of
materials, quality of service, trust and simplifying the whole construction process. The
results are shown at Figure 4-7. The Cronbachs Alpha test indicates that 5-point Likert scale test
analyzing the factors was reliable (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.9 > 0.7).
Since scheduling process is one of the most important elements for the construction
projects, reliable delivery time and delivery at specified time were asked to reveal
29
effectiveness of those factors for contractors when developing a supply chain relation with
suppliers. Even if the responses to figure out the importance of reliable delivery date (95.7 %)
were as expected, the degree of importance of delivery at specified time factor has changed
according to the size of companies. ANOVA results were helped to make these comparisons
(Table 4-5).
Table 4-5. Developing SC relationship with a supplier
Average
Total
100
500
500
Reliable delivery date
4.55
4.40
4.58
4.67
Accurate order fulfillment
4.37
4.20
4.25
4.67
Level of complaints/ returns
3.83
3.40
3.75
4.33
Delivery at specified time
4.27
3.80
4.17
4.83
Flexibility
3.81
4.00
3.58
3.83
Fast order cycle time
3.91
3.80
3.92
4.00
Handling of complaints
3.89
4.00
3.50
4.17
Added value
3.89
3.60
3.75
4.33
Quality of materials
4.32
4.20
4.25
4.50
Quality of service
4.28
4.00
4.33
4.50
Trust
4.32
4.20
4.58
4.17
Simplifying the whole
4.19
4.00
4.25
4.33
construction process
P-value
0.27
0.99
3.72
3.37
0.88
0.09
1.76
1.69
0.30
0.86
0.74
0.77
0.39
0.04
0.05
0.43
0.91
0.20
0.21
0.74
0.44
0.49
0.28
0.76
There was a controversial relationship between the size of the company and their
sensitiveness to delivery at specified time. The range of averages was between 3.8 and 4.8,
increased dramatically from Group 1 to Group 3. Larger companies were more concerned
delivery at specified time than smaller ones, since liquidated damages provisions in
construction contracts are not very restricted for companies with lower income. Higher budget
increases the responsibilities should be taken during the project, so companies belong to Group 3
should be more precise for the project completion time.
Companies had high interest to Trust factor (86.4 %) as expected. Wong and Cheung
(2004) pinpointed that successful partnering depends on trust, an element that is difficult to be
30
implied on the construction industry, because of its fragmented and contentious structure. This
nature inhibits the engagement of construction partners. So, it is necessary to understand
importance of trust for successful partnering.
Responses to Level of complaints/returns factor had significant differences within the
group of companies which were classified as their annual revenue (F=3.72 > F crit.=3.49, Ho is
rejected). The averages of responses of Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 were individually, 3.4, 3.7
and 4.3. It was a good indication that the responsibilities of bigger companies encouraged them
to align their organizations with respect to the complaints.
The results from rest of factors listed for developing a successful relationship with a
supplier had no significant differences within the group of companies. There is no rejected null
hypothesis except for Level of complaints/returns for this case, since F values are smaller than
Fcrit.=3.49.
Contractors and Clients
It was analyzed that contractors were aware of importance of clients for developing a
successful supply chain relationship. This question was asked to reveal the degree of importance
of which factors were more important for them. Factors were listed as reliability of supply, top
management support, trust, mutual interest, integrated information systems, more frequent
meetings, joint business planning, simplifying the whole business construction process,
manpower development, closer links between demand/supply, free flow of information, creating
standardization of processes and simplifying the bidding process. The Cronbachs Alpha test
indicates that 5-point Likert scale test analyzing the factors was reliable (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.9
> 0.7). The results of factors are shown at Figure 4-8.
31
Table 4-6. Developing a SC relationship with client

Average Total Revenue ($ Millions)
Total
100
500
500
Reliability of supply
Top management support
Trust
Mutual interest
Manpower development
Closer links between demand/
supply
Free flow of information
Integrated information systems
(e.g. EDI)
More frequent meetings
Joint business planning
Simplifying the whole construction
process
Creating standardization of
processes
Simplifying the bidding process
P-value
4.00
3.94
4.13
3.80
3.44
4.00
3.40
3.80
3.40
3.40
3.67
4.08
4.25
3.83
3.42
4.33
4.33
4.33
4.17
3.50
1.83
1.65
0.74
1.17
0.02
0.19
0.22
0.49
0.33
0.98
3.61
3.98
3.40
3.60
3.58
3.83
3.83
4.50
0.41
2.09
0.67
0.15
3.44
2.68
3.14
3.40
2.80
3.00
3.08
2.42
2.75
3.83
2.83
3.67
2.07
0.56
2.48
0.15
0.58
0.11
3.14
3.00
2.75
3.66
0.24
0.79
3.57
3.63
3.20
3.40
3.67
3.67
3.83
3.83
0.72
0.41
0.50
0.67
The quality of communication and sharing information among the contractor companies,
their suppliers and clients, determine the degree of achievement of the key principles. So, it was
sought that where more frequent meetings were essential to develop a supply chain collaboration
with clients. Responses to more frequent meetings were lower than predicted (13.6 %). Lacking
of communication between the partners inhibits the improvement of supply chain collaboration.
Contractors might interpret more frequent meeting factor as face-to-face meetings which
causes time consuming. New developments on technology provide many advantages for
communication. Instead of old-fashioned information management which relies on time
consuming - manual processes, multiple handoffs, and error-prone data reentry, implementation
of recent technological improvements i.e. XML, E-commerce on the construction industry enable
convenient environment for free flow of information (68.2%). Additionally, especially
companies in Group 3 which have more complicated supply chain organization value free flow
32
information more than the others to avoid cross-company processes (Table 4-6). Information
flow has a direct impact on the scheduling, inventory control and delivery plans which are
fundamental elements for the coordination of members in a supply chain (Lee et al., 1997).
Integrated information systems (36.4 %) had lower response rate than expected.
Implementation of information technology (IT) to the company reduces the levels of supply
chain and simplifying the processes. All players should be consisted in the echelon to increase
the overall effectiveness. Without integration of information systems, the same information is
entered repeatedly into different systems, the same forms are filled out and passed around
multiple times, the same checks and certifications are done over and over. This cumbersome
structure causes jumping of activities and data between companies, inconsistencies, errors, and
misunderstandings routinely arise, leading to even more wasted work. Even if implementation of
IT is a troublesome and expensive strategy which might discourage companies, its long-term
benefits to the companies are very important.
Besides of those factors explained and discussed in detail, the response rates to the others
were as predicted and there were no significant differences within the group of companies. There
is no rejected null hypothesis for this case, since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.=3.49.
Factors which are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its Clients/Suppliers
It was pointed out that improved communication with clients and suppliers are very
essential. So, the next question is; at which consulting stages contractors are concerned
communicating with their suppliers and clients; being consulted in deciding which new products
to develop or being consulted in deciding the production schedule. It was also sought that
whether there was any difference between communication preferences with clients and supplier
at these stages. The percentage rates of responses were as predicted. Contractors prefer being
consulted by suppliers (69.6 %) than clients (65.2 %) when deciding the production schedule. On
33
the other hand, contractors prefer being consulted by clients (87.0 %) than suppliers (82.6 %) in
deciding which new products to develop (Figure 4-9). There were unexpected ANOVA results
i.e. averages of results which might be caused by low number of participants (Table 4-7), since
there was an irregular distribution among the mean values of company groups. But, there is no
rejected null hypothesis for this case, since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.=3.49.
Table 4-7. Factor effecting the communication with suppliers and clients
Average
Less than
More than
Clients
Total
100
100-500
500
Being consulted in deciding
the production schedule
4.27
3.80
4.50
4.50
P-value
1.44
0.26

which new products to develop
0.30
3.49
3.97
4.00
Average

Less than
More than
100
100-500
500
Total
3.58
4.33
P-value
Supplier
Being consulted in deciding the
production schedule
4.09
3.60
4.33
4.33
1.59
0.23

which new products to develop
3.78
3.60
3.58
4.17
1.15
0.34
Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors

Since the nature of construction industry thwarts the proper implementation of supply
chain and inhibits developing of SCM organization in construction industry, barriers existing
during enhancing the industry were asked to figure out the common problems of the
constructors. Determination of common problems might provide taking precautions on the whole
sector, because only focusing on local aims instead of concerning the whole chain causes the
lack of coordination between the parties (Latham, 1994). Factors which might be potential
barriers were listed as; late and incorrect payments, bidding process, retention, unrealistic
34
program times, traditional contracts do not endanger good working relationships, estimators are
too demanding on small organizations, companies do not understand other business within
supply chain, some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons (Figure 4-10).
Cronbach's Alpha proofs that 5-point Likert scale of factors are reliable (0.8 > 0.7).
The biggest barrier preventing the developing of SCM integration was bidding process
(65.2 %). Late and incorrect payment (60.9 %), traditional contracts (52.2 %), unrealistic
program times (52.2 %) followed the biggest barrier. Misunderstanding of SC concept (17.4
%), executing of some partnering relationships for the wrong reasons (17.4 %), excessive
demanding of estimators on small organizations (26.1 %) and retention (34.8 %) factors did
not exceed the mean value (3.00). Hence, those factors were not considered as the vital ones.
ANOVA test showed significant difference at bidding process factor (F=3.59 > Fcrit.=3.49)
(Table 4-8). It was observed that Group 1 and Group 3 were concerned bidding process as barrier
more than Group 2. But this might be biased, because of irregular distribution of companies for
each group. There is no rejected null hypothesis except for bidding process in this case, since
all F values are smaller than Fcrit.=3.49.
Table 4-8. Barriers to supply chain integration for contractors
Average Total Revenue ($ Millions)
Less
100More
Total
than 100
500
than 500
Late and incorrect payments
3.63
3.80
3.58
3.50
Bidding process
3.87
4.20
3.25
4.17
Retention
3.12
3.20
3.00
3.17
Unrealistic program times
3.62
4.20
3.33
3.33
Traditional contracts don engender
good working relationships
3.43
3.20
3.25
3.83
Estimators are too demanding on
small organizations
2.69
2.40
3.00
2.67
Companies do not understand other
business within supply chain
2.96
2.80
3.08
3.00
Some partnering relationships are
executed for the wrong reasons
2.95
2.60
3.08
3.17
35
P-value
0.11
3.59
0.08
1.44
0.89
0.05
0.93
0.26
0.50
0.61
0.52
0.60
0.24
0.79
0.81
0.46
Lead Time
73.90%
Pruchasing
65.20%
Production Planning
47.80%
Transportation
39.10%
Inventory
34.80%
Figure 4-1. Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers
87.0%
81.8%
78.3%
73.9%
Cost reductions within your organization
69.6%
69.6%
43.5%
39.1%
34.8%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
Figure 4-2. Factors developing a supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers
36
100.0%
Clients
100.0%
Suppliers
65.2%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Figure 4-3. Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients
Client
52.2%
Supplier
43.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Figure 4-4. Partnership agreements with suppliers and clients

30.0
29.6 yr
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
12.6 yr
5.0
0.0
Supplier
Client
Figure 4-5. Average duration for partnership agreements with clients and suppliers
clients
76.2%
suppliers
0.0%
60.9%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Figure 4-6. Results indicate how the contractors value partnership with clients and suppliers
37
95.7%
Quality of service
91.3%
Accurate order fulfilment
91.3%
87.0%
Trust
86.4%
Simplifying the whole construction process
82.6%
82.6%
69.6%
69.6%
38
Added value
65.2%
Flexibility
65.2%
0.0%
Figure 4-7. Developing a SC relationship with a supplier
56.5%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Trust
81.8%
72.7%
72.7%
68.2%
Mutual interest
68.2%
59.1%
Creating standardisation of processes
54.5%
Closer links between demand/ supply
54.5%
39
50.0%
50.0%
Integrated information systems (e.g. EDI)
36.4%

31.8%
13.6%
0.0%
10.0%
Figure 4-8. Developing a SC relationship with client
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0% 100.0%
Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop
Being consulted in deciding the production schedule
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Clients
87.0%
65.2%
Suppliers
82.6%
69.6%
Figure 4-9. Factors affecting the communication with the suppliers and clients
40
Bidding process
65.2%
60.9%
Traditional contracts do not engender good working

relationships
52.2%
52.2%
Retention
Estimators are too demanding on small organizations
34.8%
26.1%
41
Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong

reasons
17.4%
Companies do not understand other business within

supply chain
17.4%
0.0%
Figure 4-10. Barriers to supply chain integration for contractor
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
SCM has a key role to improve the efficiency and productivity of companies. Companies
involve in an organization for creating a product and transmitting it to the end user. Even if
major steps are taken to improve the efficiency and productivity of construction industry for the
last decades and alignments on performance of construction industry in terms of the budget,
quality of service, quality of materials and time of delivery, there is still room for the
improvements of supply chain management tools for the construction industry.
Among the activities for companies to adapt to the SCM philosophy, integrated behavior,
mutually sharing information, cooperation, partners building and maintaining long-term
relationships were based on for this research (Mentzer et al. 2001). Well-established partnership
between the players can meet implementation of these activities properly. Partnering in
construction revolved around three key principles: agreeing mutual objectives; making decisions
openly and resolving problems in a way that is jointly agreed at the beginning of the project; and
aiming to achieve measurable improvements in performance through incentives (Saada et al.
2002). Hence, contractors binding role at the upstream and downstream of the chain has been
based on in this research to analyze the current situation of SCM in construction industry.
It was revealed that contractors strategy majorly depends on the clients. They almost
disregard the contribution of suppliers to SCM organization, whereas they were cognizant of the
clients importance for supply chain collaboration. However, comparing the average duration of
partnership agreement with suppliers and clients indicated that the contractors have started to
realize the importance of suppliers for proper application of SC. Mutual relationship also with
supplier leads to reliable environment, with higher efficiency level and higher profits and also
provides several advantages such as long-term association, encouraging mutual planning and
42
problem solving efforts (Maloni and Benton, 1997). It should be regarded that companies must
balance the needs of customers with those of suppliers and partners to achieve the high levels of
collaboration required to synchronize the supply chain.
Comparing three different types of contractors which were classified as Group 1, Group 2
and Group 3 (Table 3-1), there are some differences between their approaches to the factors
enabling successful environment for supply chain. It was observed that higher budget of a
company increases the responsibilities should be taken during the project. So, these companies
have become more sensitive on the specified time completion of the project, this may result
because of liquated damages provision in construction contracts. Additionally, especially
companies in Group 3 which have more complicated supply chain organization value free flow
information more than the others to avoid cross-company processes (Table 4-6). Information
flow has a direct impact on the scheduling, inventory control and delivery plans which are
fundamental elements for the coordination of members in a supply chain. Each player of
construction industry should concern adapting to their individual strategy to the whole supply
chain organization instead of optimizing their own aims which brings to the lack of coordination
between the players.
Since the nature of construction industry (its fragmented and adversarial structure)
prevents the suitable implementation of supply chain and inhibits developing of SCM
organization in construction industry, barriers existing during enhancing the industry were asked
to figure out the common problems of the constructors. Bidding process , Late and incorrect
payment , traditional contracts , unrealistic program times were ranked as the biggest
barriers. These are all caused by traditional management method which causes cumbersome
structure and stimulate the unreliable environment for the construction industry. Determination
43
of common problems might provide taking precautions on the whole sector and diminish the
obstacles for implementation of optimal supply chain performance.
44
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study consists of a survey of supply chain management as perceived by the US
construction industry with a special emphasis on the relationship between contractors, suppliers
and clients. Even if contractors pivotal role is depended on for this study, it can be extended by
involving more sector players, i.e. owners, building product manufacturers in the future research.
The analysis in this thesis is based on the 23 responses from the US contractors. More data
may help to get more accurate results and give more precise information about this subject. That
amount of responses might cause some biased results, and this situation will be prevented by
obtaining more data from the companies. More contractors should be motivated to participate in
the survey study.
In conclusion, participation of different kinds of construction sectors players and also
conducting the survey on more companies will be helpful to enrich the data result and get more
specific and proper information about the SCM in construction industry.
45
APPENDIX A
SURVEY FORM
Informed Consent Form
Dear Participant,
I am a graduate student in the Civil and Coastal Engineering Department at the University of
Florida. As part of my course work I am conducting a survey, the purpose of which is to identify
and discuss the views of US contractors on supply chain collaboration and management. I
am asking you to participate in the survey because of your close connection with these issues, as
a participant in the construction industry. Participants will be asked to fill out a survey lasting no
longer than 20 minutes. You will not have to answer any question(s) you do not wish to answer.
Your survey will be conducted in your workplace, after you have read this informed consent.
Only I will have access to the survey that you fill out. The statistical data collected from your
survey and others will be documented in my thesis. Although, your identity (if you choose to
reveal it) will be kept confidential to the extent provided by the law and your identity will not be
revealed in the final manuscript.
There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in
this survey.
If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (352) 346 6021 or
my faculty supervisor, Dr. Ralph D. Ellis, at (352) 392-9537. Questions or concerns about your
rights as a research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box
112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; Ph: (352) 392 0433.
By filling out the provided survey, you give me the permission to report your responses
anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my
course work.
Sincerely,
Aslihan Karatas
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the research study
and I have received a copy of this description.
Please you use the following link:
I agree, Start Survey
46
Questionnaire Form
This survey has been designed to find out the views of main contractors on supply chain management. Please take a few
minutes from your busy schedule and participate in the survey. Upon completion, please send an e-mail it to us at:
aslihan1@ufl.edu
1.
What was your companys revenue in the year 2007, in US dollars? (PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE)
$1 to $49.9 Million
$300 to $499.9 Million

$500 Million to $1 Billion

$1 Billion +
Section A
1. Do you have any partnership agreements with any of your suppliers?
If yes, how long has it been in existence?
(yes / no )
_________
2. Do these partnerships include any contractual agreements?
( yes / no )
3. How do you value partnership with your suppliers? (Please circle your choice)
Unimportant____
Less Important_____
Normal____
Important____
Very important_____
Section B.
1. Do you have any partnership agreements with any of your clients?
If yes, how long has it been in existence?
( yes / no )
_________
2. Are these partnerships contractual agreements?
( yes / no )
3. How do you value partnership with your clients? (Please circle your choice)
Unimportant____
Less Important_____
Normal____
Important____
Very important_____
Section C. (please mark your choice)

How important is supply chain management concepts with clients and suppliers to the achievement of your company goals and
objectives?
Unimportant____
Less importance____
Normal____
Important____
Very Important_____
Section D. (please circle chosen response)

1. To what extent do you consider that the following functions affect your efficiency of supply chain organization?
Low Extent
1
Inventory
Transportation
Lead Time
Purchasing
Production Planning
47
High Extent
5
2. How important are the following factors to your organization when considering developing a supply chain collaboration?
Unimportant
1
Reducing bureaucracy/ paperwork
Cost reductions within your organisation
Very important
2
3. How important are the following factors when developing a successful supply chain relationship with a supplier?
Unimportant
1
Accurate order fulfilment
Flexibility
Added value
Quality of service
Trust
Very important
2
4. To what extent do the following factors affect the development of a successful supply chain relationship between your
organization and clients?
Low Extent
High Extent
1
Trust
Mutual interest
48
Question 4. Continued
Creating standardisation of processes
5. How much do you agree with the following factors when sharing information with your clients or suppliers?
Strongly Disagree
1
Competitive advantage is sought by sharing information

with our suppliers or customers
Competitive advantage is sought by production planning

or inventory decisions for your suppliers or clients
Competitive advantage is sought by performing some of

your suppliers or customers work for them
Proportion of overall production process subcontracted to outside firms
Strongly Agree
3
6. How important are the following factors when you communicate with your clients?
Strongly Disagree
1
Strongly Agree
3
7. How much do you agree with the following factors when communicating with your suppliers?
Strongly Disagree
1
49
Strongly Agree
3
8. How is the relationship between your firm and the majority of your (Please circle your choice)
Very Weak
Suppliers?
Clients?
Weak
Normal
Strong
Very strong
9. To what extent do you believe the following factors are a barrier to supply chain integration for contractors?
Low Extent
1
Bidding process
Retention
Traditional contracts do not engender good working relationships
Companies do not understand other business within supply chain
Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons
High Extent
2
10. Please add any personal comments on the subject of supply chain management within the construction industry and how it
can be improved in the future.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
50
APPENDIX B
CRONBACHS ALPHA TEST RESULTS
Factors Affecting Contractors Organization when Considering Developing SC
Collaboration
Item Analysis of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9
Where C1: Improved customer service
C2: Overall supply chain reduction
C3: Increased profitability
C4: Reducing bureaucracy/paper
C5: Increased market competitiveness
C6: Cost reductions within your organization
C7: Benefits to the client
C8: Benefits to your supplier
C9: Improved quality assurance
Raw Data (5-point Likert Scale)
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
5
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
4
2
2
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
5
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
3
5
2
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
5
3
5
2
5
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
C6
3
4
3
5
4
2
4
3
5
4
3
4
5
5
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
4
4
C7
3
4
5
5
4
5
4
3
5
5
3
5
5
5
3
4
5
4
5
5
3
4
4
51
C8
3
2
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
5
3
2
5
5
3
3
3
2
4
2
3
3
4
C9
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
5
5
3
4
5
5
3
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
Correlation Matrix
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C2 0.519
C3 0.510 0.505
C4 0.048 0.336 0.259
C5 0.325 0.164 0.552 0.207
C6 0.276 0.309 0.426 0.466 0.548
C7 0.773 0.425 0.346 0.248 0.206 0.498
C8 0.285 0.172 0.175 0.420 0.254 0.267 0.313
C9 0.539 0.377 0.438 0.372 0.267 0.671 0.802 0.495
Cell Contents: Pearson correlation
Item and Total Statistics
Total
Variable Count Mean StDev
C1
23 4.174 0.650
C2
23 3.435 0.843
C3
23 3.913 0.733
C4
23 3.348 0.885
C5
23 3.870 0.757
C6
23 3.913 0.848
C7
23 4.261 0.810
C8
23 3.304 0.926
C9
23 4.087 0.733
Total
23 34.304 4.800
Cronbach's Alpha = 0.8419
52
Matrix Plot of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9
C2
4.5
3.5
2.5
C3
5
4
3
C4
4.5
3.5
2.5
C5
4.5
3.5
2.5
3.5
2.5
C7
5
4
3
C8
4.5
3.5
2.5
5
C9
53
C6
4.5
4
3
4
C1
2.5
3.5 4.5
C2
4
C3
2.5
3.5 4.5
C4
2.5
3.5
C5
4.5
2.5
3.5
C6
4.5
4
C7
2.5
3.5 4.5
C8
Figure B-1. Matrix plot of factors affecting contractors organization when considering developing a SC collaboration
Factors Necessary for Contractors when Developing Successful SC Relationship with a

Supplier
Item Analysis of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12
Where C1 : Reliable delivery date
C2 : Accurate order fulfillment
C3 : Level of complaints/ returns
C4 : Delivery at specified time
C5 : Flexibility
C6 : Fast order cycle time
C7 : Handling of complaints
C8 : Added value
C9 : Quality of materials
C10: Quality of service
C11: Trust
C12: Simplifying the whole construction process
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
5
5
4
5
3
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
3
5
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
3
3
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
C6
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
4
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
3
5
3
4
4
4
C7
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
5
3
5
3
4
5
5
3
4
5
4
4
3
3
3
4
54
C8
3
3
5
5
4
4
3
4
4
5
3
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
C9
3
4
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
3
5
4
5
3
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
C10
3
4
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
C11
3
3
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
4
5
5
3
4
4
C12
3
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
5
3
5
4
4
4
4
Correlation Matrix
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
C2 0.771
C3 0.386 0.582
C4 0.575 0.739 0.562
C5 0.422 0.350 0.108 0.153
C6 0.539 0.546 0.158 0.373 0.649
C7 0.371 0.507 0.627 0.403 0.433 0.278
C8 0.376 0.375 0.506 0.382 0.118 0.061 0.630
C9 0.553 0.656 0.519 0.531 0.191 0.230 0.449 0.505
C10 0.612 0.615 0.464 0.493 0.327 0.352 0.317 0.370 0.903
C11 0.681 0.616 0.408 0.282 0.408 0.458 0.508 0.397 0.683 0.756
C12 0.647 0.788 0.368 0.468 0.529 0.711 0.395 0.216 0.569 0.630
C11
C12 0.714
Total
C1
23 4.565 0.590
C2
23 4.348 0.647
C3
23 3.826 0.650
C4
23 4.261 0.752
C5
23 3.739 0.619
C6
23 3.913 0.733
C7
23 3.783 0.795
C8
23 3.870 0.757
C9
23 4.304 0.703
C10
23 4.304 0.635
C11
23 4.391 0.783
C12
23 4.217 0.736
Total
23 49.522 6.037
55
Matrix Plot of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12
C2
5
4
C3
3
5
4
C4
3
5
4
C5
3
5
4
C6
3
5
4
C7
3
5
4
56
C8
3
5
4
C9
3
5
4
C10
3
5
4
C11
3
5
4
C12
3
5
4
3
3
4
C1
5 3
4
C2
5 3
4
C3
5 3
4
C4
5 3
4
C5
5 3
4
C6
5 3
4
C7
5 3
4
C8
5 3
4
C9
5 3
4
C10
5 3
4
C11
Figure B-2. Matrix plot of factors which are necessary for contractors when developing a successful SC relationship with a supplier

Item Analysis of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13
Where C1 : Reliability of supply
C2 : Top management support
C3 : Trust
C4 : Mutual interest
C5 : Manpower development
C6 : Closer links between demand/ supply
C7 : Free flow of information
C8 : Integrated information systems (e.g. EDI)
C9 : More frequent meetings
C10: Joint business planning
C11: Simplifying the whole construction process
C12: Creating standardization of processes
C13: Simplifying the bidding process
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
5
3
3
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
4
5
2
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
2
2
4
3
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
C6
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
3
5
3
4
3
2
4
3
3
4
4
C7
3
5
4
5
4
3
3
5
5
5
3
5
4
5
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
57
C8
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
4
4
5
3
4
3
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
4
C9
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
4
2
2
2
3
C10
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
4
2
4
3
5
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
C11
3
4
3
5
4
3
4
3
5
5
4
5
3
5
3
3
3
3
5
4
3
4
4
C12
3
3
4
5
4
2
4
3
4
5
4
5
4
5
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
4
3
C13
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
5
5
4
5
4
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
Correlation Matrix
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C2 0.411
C3 0.506 0.646
C4 0.420 0.723 0.469
C5 0.505 0.417 0.365 0.565
C6 0.492 0.642 0.490 0.587 0.751
C7 0.595 0.609 0.579 0.649 0.617
C8 0.616 0.454 0.498 0.590 0.662
C9 0.224 -0.056 0.103 0.088 0.237
C10 0.571 0.515 0.388 0.507 0.464
C11 0.420 0.482 0.679 0.477 0.629
C12 0.432 0.564 0.431 0.577 0.478
C13 0.424 0.583 0.633 0.676 0.450
C7
0.536
0.609
0.031
0.423
0.587
0.552
0.590
C10 C11 C12

C11 0.445
C12 0.604 0.760
C13 0.424 0.816 0.781
Total
C1
23 3.913 0.733
C2
23 4.000 0.905
C3
23 4.174 0.778
C4
23 3.826 0.834
C5
23 3.435 0.843
C6
23 3.609 0.783
C7
23 3.957 0.825
C8
23 3.348 0.775
C9
23 2.609 0.891
C10
23 3.043 0.878
C11
23 3.826 0.834
C12
23 3.609 0.891
C13
23 3.652 0.775
Total
23 47.000 7.862
58
C8
0.736
0.347
0.693
0.649
0.594
0.615
C9
0.338
0.645
0.660
0.535
0.664
0.371
0.210
0.027
-0.009
C2
Matrix Plot of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13
4.5
3.5
2.5
4
3
4.5
3.5
2.5
4.5
3.5
2.5
C7
3.0
C11
C10
3
4.5
3.5
2.5
4.5
1.5
4.5
3.5
2.5
5
4
C12
C13
59
C8
4.5
3.5
2.5
5
C9
C6
C5
C4
C3
4.5
3.5
2.5
5
4
3
4
C1
5 2.5 3.5 4.5

C2
4
C3
2.5 3.5 4.5
2.5 3.5 4.5
2.5 3.5 4.5
C4
C5
C6
4
C7
5 2.5 3.5 4.5

C8
1.5
3.0
C9
4.5 2.5 3.5 4.5

C10
4
C11
2.5 3.5 4.5

C12
Figure B-3. Matrix plot of factors affecting the development of a successful SC relationship between contractors and client

Item Analysis of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8
Where C1: Late and incorrect payments
C2: Bidding process
C3: Retention
C4: Unrealistic program times
C5: Traditional contracts do not engender good working relationships
C6: Estimators are too demanding on small organizations
C7: Companies do not understand other business within supply chain
C8: Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
2
3
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
5
1
3
4
5
4
3
3
2
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
5
5
4
3
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
5
5
2
5
1
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
C6
4
4
1
2
4
3
2
1
1
3
4
2
4
5
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
C7
4
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
5
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
C8
4
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
5
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
* NOTE * 23 cases used, 1 cases contain missing values
60
Correlation Matrix
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15

0.297
0.641 0.390
0.594 0.505 0.478
0.054 0.268 0.381 0.435
0.275 -0.066 0.575 0.285 0.555
0.417 0.199 0.682 0.240 0.349 0.765
0.221 -0.000 0.631 0.055 0.416 0.607 0.772

Total
Variable Count Mean
C9
23
3.609
C10
23
3.696
C11
23
3.087
C12
23
3.652
C13
23
3.391
C14
23
2.783
C15
23
3.000
C16
23
3.000
Total
23
26.217
StDev
1.033
0.926
1.083
1.027
1.234
1.126
0.739
0.798
5.460
61
Matrix Plot of C9, C10, C11, C12, C13, C14, C15, C16
C10
4.5
3.5
2.5
C11
5
3
1
C12
4.5
3.5
2.5
C13
5
3
3
1
C15
4.5
3.5
2.5
5
C16
62
C14
1
5
3
1
1
3
C9
2.5
3.5
C10
4.5
3
C11
2.5
3.5
C12
4.5
3
C13
3
C14
Figure B-4. Matrix plot of factors which are barriers to supply chain integration for contractor
2.5
3.5
C15
4.5
APPENDIX C
ANOVA RESULTS
Functions Affecting the Contractors Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to Suppliers
Table C-1. Functions affecting the contractors efficiency of SC in relation to suppliers
Inventory
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
16
3.2
1.2
Group 2
12
39
3.25
0.75
Group 3
15
2.5
1.5
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
SS
df
MS
P-value
F crit
1.17106
0.33041
3.49283
P-value
F crit
2.40652
1.20326
20.55
20
1.0275
22.9565
22
Transportation
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
18
3.6
1.3
Group 2
12
42
3.5
0.45455
Group 3
17
2.83333
0.56667
MS
F
1.67575
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
2.18406
1.09203
Within Groups
13.0333
20
0.65167
Total
15.2174
22
0.2124
3.49283
Lead Time
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
18
3.6
0.3
Group 2
12
53
4.41667
0.44697
Group 3
23
3.83333
0.96667
MS
P-value
F crit
2.62656
0.09708
3.49283
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
SS
df
2.87609
1.43804
10.95
20
0.5475
13.8261
22
63
Table C-1. Continued

Purchasing
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
19
3.8
0.7
Group 2
12
48
0.54545
Group 3
22
3.66667
0.66667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.39178
0.68093
3.49283
P-value
F crit
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
0.47536
0.23768
Within Groups
12.1333
20
0.60667
Total
12.6087
22
Production Planning
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
19
3.8
0.7
Group 2
12
40
3.33333
0.9697
Group 3
24
0.8
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
MS
Between Groups
2.01159
1.0058
Within Groups
17.4667
20
0.87333
Total
19.4783
22
1.15168
0.3362
3.49283
Factors for Developing SC Collaboration

Table C-2. Factors for developing a supply chain collaboration
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Sum
Average
Variance
5
12
22
50
4.4
4.166667
0.3
0.333333
24
0.8
SS
0.437681
df
2
MS
P-value
F crit
0.218841
0.493625
0.617652844
3.492828
64

Within Groups
Total
9.304348
22

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
17
42
3.4
3.5
0.8
0.454545
Column 3
20
3.333333
1.466667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.05942
0.776667
0.076507
0.926616378
3.492828
Sum
Average
Variance
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.118841
15.53333
2
20
Total
15.65217
22
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Column 1
21
4.2
0.7
Column 2
12
47
3.916667
0.44697
Column 3
22
3.666667
0.666667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.702341
0.507238372
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
SS
0.776087
0.388043
11.05
20
0.5525
11.82609
22
Within Groups
Total
df
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
17
40
3.4
3.333333
1.3
0.606061
Column 3
20
3.333333
1.066667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.008696
0.86
0.010111
0.98994478
3.492828
Sum
Average
Variance
19
3.8
0.7
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.017391
17.2
2
20
Total
17.21739
22
Cost reductions within your organization

SUMMARY
Groups
Column 1
Count
5
65
Table C-2 Continued.

Column 2
12
48
0.909091
Column 3
23
3.833333
0.566667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.123297
0.884668174
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
0.192754
0.096377
Within Groups
15.63333
20
0.781667
Total
15.82609
22

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
21
52
4.2
4.333333
0.7
0.606061
Column 3
25
4.166667
0.966667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
MS
P-value
F crit
0.067391
0.715
0.094254
0.910453768
3.492828
Sum
Average
Variance
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.134783
14.3
2
20
Total
14.43478
22
Benefits to the supplier

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
14
40
2.8
3.333333
0.7
0.606061
Column 3
22
3.666667
1.466667
MS
P-value
F crit
1.034783
0.84
1.231884
0.312949226
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
2.069565
16.8
2
20
Total
18.86957
22

SUMMARY
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
Groups
Count
5
12
20
50
4
4.166667
0.5
0.515152
Column 3
24
0.8
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.15942
11.66667
2
20
Total
11.82609
22
MS
P-value
F crit
0.07971
0.583333
0.136646
0.873086386
3.492828
66
Companies value partnership with their suppliers/clients

Table C-3. Detailed results for companies value partnership with their suppliers/clients
Suppliers
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
Group 2
5
12
21
41
4.2
3.416667
0.7
2.265152
Group 3
22
3.666667
0.266667
MS
P-value
F crit
1.083696
1.4525
0.74609
0.486962
3.492828
Average
Variance
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
2.167391
29.05
2
20
Total
31.21739
22
Clients
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Group 1
Group 2
5
12
19
49
3.8
4.083333
0.7
1.719697
Group 3
27
4.5
0.7
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
SS
df
1.392029
25.21667
2
20
26.6087
22
MS
P-value
F crit
0.696014
1.260833
0.552027
0.584307
3.492828
Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply Chain
Relationship with a Supplier
Table C-4. Detailed results for factors which are necessary for contractors when developing a
successful supply chain relationship with a supplier
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
22
55
4.4
4.583333
0.3
0.44697
Column 3
28
4.666667
0.266667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.101087
0.3725
0.271374
0.765093
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
SS
0.202174
7.45
df
2
20
67

Total
7.652174
22
Accurate order fulfillment

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
21
4.2
0.7
Column 2
12
51
4.25
0.386364
Column 3
28
4.666667
0.266667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.834058
8.383333
2
20
Total
9.217391
22
MS
0.417029
0.419167
0.9949
P-value
F crit
0.387335
3.492828

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
17
45
3.4
3.75
0.3
0.386364
Column 3
26
4.333333
0.266667
MS
P-value
F crit
1.260507
0.339167
3.716483
0.04242
3.492828
Sum
Average
Variance
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
2.521014
6.783333
2
20
Total
9.304348
22

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
19
50
3.8
4.166667
0.2
0.69697
Column 3
29
4.833333
0.166667
MS
P-value
F crit
1.567391
0.465
3.370734
0.054758
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
3.134783
9.3
2
20
Total
12.43478
22
Flexibility
SUMMARY
Groups
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
Count
5
12
Sum
20
43
4
3.583333
0.5
0.44697
Column 3
23
3.833333
0.166667
68

ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.684783
7.75
2
20
Total
8.434783
22
MS
P-value
F crit
0.342391
0.3875
0.88359
0.428823
3.492828
Average
Variance

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
19
47
3.8
3.916667
0.7
0.810606
Column 3
24
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.10942
11.71667
2
20
Total
11.82609
22
MS
P-value
F crit
0.05471
0.585833
0.093389
0.911234
3.492828
SUMMARY
Groups
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
Count
5
12
20
42
4
3.5
0.5
0.454545
Column 3
25
4.166667
0.966667
MS
P-value
F crit
1.039855
0.591667
1.757502
0.198084
3.492828
Sum
Average
Variance
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
2.07971
11.83333
2
20
Total
13.91304
22
Added value
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
18
45
3.6
3.75
0.8
0.386364
Column 3
26
4.333333
0.666667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
SS
df
1.825362
10.78333
2
20
12.6087
22
MS
P-value
F crit
0.912681
0.539167
1.692763
0.209329
3.492828
69

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
21
51
4.2
4.25
0.7
0.568182
Column 3
27
4.5
0.3
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
MS
P-value
F crit
0.319565
SS
df
2
0.159783
0.302905
0.741998
3.492828
10.55
20
0.5275
10.86957
22
Quality of service
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
20
52
4
4.333333
0.5
0.424242
Column 3
27
4.5
0.3
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.702899
8.166667
2
20
Total
8.869565
22
MS
P-value
F crit
0.351449
0.408333
0.860692
0.43795
3.492828
Average
Variance
Trust
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
21
55
4.2
4.583333
0.7
0.44697
Column 3
25
4.166667
0.966667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.46413
0.6275
0.73965
0.48989
3.492828
Sum
Average
Variance
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.928261
12.55
2
20
Total
13.47826
22

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
20
51
4
4.25
1
0.568182
Column 3
26
4.333333
0.266667
70

ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.32971
11.58333
2
20
Total
11.91304
22
MS
P-value
F crit
0.164855
0.579167
0.284642
0.755281
3.492828

Table C-5. Detail results for factors affecting the development of a successful SC relationship
between contractors and clients
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
20
44
4
0.5
3.666667 0.424242
Column 3
26
4.333333 0.666667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
SS
MS
1.826087
10
20
11.82609
22
Within Groups
Total
df
0.913043 1.826087
P-value
F crit
0.186891
3.492828
P-value
F crit
0.21705
3.492828
0.5

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
17
49
3.4
1.3
4.083333 0.628788
Column 3
26
4.333333 0.666667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
Between Groups
Within Groups
2.55
15.45
2
20
18
22
Total
df
MS
1.275 1.650485
0.7725
Trust
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
19
51
Column 3
26
Average
3.8
4.25
Variance
0.7
0.568182
4.333333 0.666667
71

ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.921014
12.38333
2
20
Total
13.30435
22
MS
0.460507 0.743753
0.619167
P-value
F crit
0.488022
3.492828
P-value
F crit
0.330413
3.492828
P-value
F crit
0.977545
3.492828
Mutual interest
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
1.3
0.515152
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
17
46
3.4
3.833333
Column 3
25
4.166667 0.566667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
1.604348
13.7
2
20
Total
15.30435
22
MS
0.802174 1.171057
0.685
SUMMARY
Groups
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
Count
5
12
Sum
17
41
3.4
3.416667
1.3
0.44697
Column 3
21
3.5
1.1
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.035507
15.61667
2
20
Total
15.65217
22
MS
0.017754 0.022737
0.780833

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
1.3
0.44697
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
17
43
3.4
3.583333
Column 3
23
3.833333 0.566667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.528261
12.95
2
20
Total
13.47826
22
MS
0.26413 0.407923
0.6475
72
P-value
F crit
0.670439
3.492828

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
18
46
Column 3
27
Average
Variance
3.6
0.8
3.833333 0.515152
4.5
0.7
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
MS
Between Groups
2.589855
Within Groups
12.36667
20
Total
14.95652
22
1.294928 2.094222
P-value
F crit
0.149355
3.492828
P-value
F crit
0.152294
3.492828
P-value
F crit
0.579426
3.492828
0.618333

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
17
37
3.4
0.3
3.083333 0.265152
Column 3
23
3.833333 1.366667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
2.267391
10.95
2
20
Total
13.21739
22
MS
1.133696 2.070677
0.5475

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
14
29
2.8
0.2
2.416667 0.810606
Column 3
17
2.833333 1.366667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.928261
16.55
2
20
Total
17.47826
22
MS
0.46413 0.560883
0.8275

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
15
33
Column 3
22
Average
3
2.75
Variance
0.5
0.568182
3.666667 1.066667
73

ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
3.373188
13.58333
2
20
Total
16.95652
22
MS
1.686594 2.483329
0.679167
P-value
F crit
0.108817
3.492828
P-value
F crit
0.791159
3.492828
P-value
F crit
0.497615
3.492828
P-value
F crit
0.670779
3.492828

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
18
47
3.6
0.8
3.916667 0.628788
Column 3
23
3.833333 0.966667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.354348
14.95
2
20
Total
15.30435
22
MS
0.177174 0.237022
0.7475
Creating standardization of processes

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
16
44
3.2
1.2
3.666667 0.606061
Column 3
23
3.833333 0.966667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Simplifying the bidding
process
SUMMARY
Groups
df
1.178261
16.3
17.47826
Count
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
5
12
6
MS
2
20
22
0.58913 0.722859
0.815
Sum
Average
17
44
23
Variance
3.4
0.8
3.666667 0.424242
3.833333 0.966667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
SS
0.517391
12.7
13.21739
df
2
20
22
MS
0.258696 0.407395
0.635
74
Factors which are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its Clients/Suppliers
Table C-6. Detailed results for factors necessary when a contractor communicates with its
clients/suppliers
Being consulted by clients in deciding the production schedule
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
Group 2
5
12
19
54
3.8
4.5
1.7
0.272727
Group 3
27
4.5
0.7
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
1.917391
13.3
2
20
Total
15.21739
22
MS
P-value
F crit
0.958696
0.665
1.441648
0.260084
3.492828
Being consulted by clients in deciding which new products to develop

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
Group 2
5
12
20
43
4
3.583333
1.5
0.810606
Group 3
26
4.333333
0.666667
MS
P-value
F crit
1.179348
0.9125
1.292436
0.296568
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
SS
df
2.358696
18.25
2
20
20.6087
22
Being consulted by suppliers in deciding the production schedule

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
Group 2
5
12
18
52
3.6
4.333333
1.3
0.424242
Group 3
26
4.333333
0.666667
MS
P-value
F crit
1.052174
0.66
1.594203
0.22782
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
2.104348
13.2
2
20
Total
15.30435
22
75

Being consulted by suppliers in deciding which new products to develop
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
Group 2
5
12
18
43
3.6
3.583333
0.8
0.628788
Group 3
25
4.166667
0.566667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
MS
P-value
F crit
1.484783
SS
df
2
0.742391
1.14655
0.33775
3.492828
12.95
20
0.6475
14.43478
22
Relationship between contractor and the majority of their suppliers/clients

Table C-7. Detailed result for relationship between contractor and the majority of their
suppliers/clients
Suppliers
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Group 1
Group 2
5
12
18
45
3.6
3.75
0.8
0.386364
Group 3
23
3.833333
0.166667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.075725
0.414167
0.182836
0.834281
3.492828
Average
Variance
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.151449
8.283333
2
20
Total
8.434783
22
Clients
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Group 1
Group 2
5
12
20
53
4
4.416667
0.5
0.265152
Group 3
27
4.5
0.3
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.800725
6.416667
2
20
Total
7.217391
22
MS
P-value
F crit
0.400362
0.320833
1.247883
0.308526
3.492828
76

Table C-8. Detailed results for factors which are barriers to supply chain integration for
contractors
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
19
43
3.8
3.583333
0.7
0.628788
Column 3
21
3.5
2.7
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
MS
P-value
F crit
0.130797
1.160833
0.112675
0.894004
3.492828
Sum
Average
Variance
Between Groups
Within Groups
0.261594
23.21667
2
20
Total
23.47826
22
Bidding process
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
21
39
4.2
3.25
0.2
0.75
Column 3
25
4.166667
0.966667
MS
P-value
F crit
2.493116
0.694167
3.591524
0.046486
3.492828
Sum
Average
Variance
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
4.986232
13.88333
2
20
Total
18.86957
22
Retention
SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
16
36
3.2
3
0.7
0.545455
Column 3
19
3.166667
3.366667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.075196
0.927822
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
0.192754
0.096377
Within Groups
25.63333
20
1.281667
Total
25.82609
22
77

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
21
40
4.2
3.333333
0.7
0.787879
Column 3
23
3.833333
1.766667
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
MS
P-value
F crit
2.917391
SS
df
2
1.458696
1.437139
0.261112
3.492828
20.3
20
1.015
23.21739
22
Traditional contracts do not engender good working relationships

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
16
39
3.2
3.25
2.2
1.477273
Column 3
23
3.833333
1.366667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.797464
1.594167
0.500239
0.613774
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
1.594928
31.88333
2
20
Total
33.47826
22

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
12
36
2.4
3
0.8
0.909091
Column 3
16
2.666667
2.666667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.689855
1.326667
0.519991
0.602346
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
SS
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
1.37971
26.53333
2
20
Total
27.91304
22
Companies do not understand other business within supply chain

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
Column 2
5
12
14
37
2.8
3.083333
0.7
0.265152
Column 3
18
1.2
78

ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
SS
df
0.283333
11.71667
2
20
12
22
Total
MS
P-value
F crit
0.141667
0.585833
0.241821
0.78746
3.492828
Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons

SUMMARY
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Column 1
13
2.6
0.8
Column 2
12
37
3.083333
0.44697
Column 3
19
3.166667
0.966667
MS
P-value
F crit
0.810811
0.458582
3.492828
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
SS
df
1.05
0.525
12.95
20
0.6475
14
22
79
LIST OF REFERENCES
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G., and Fitzgerald, E. (2000). A Survey of Supply Chain Collaboration
and Management in the UK Construction Industry. Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 6(3-4), 159-168.
Berry, D., Towill, D.R., and Wadsley, N. (1994). Supply Chain Management in the Electronics
Products Industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
24(10), 20-32.
Chinowsky, P., Molenaar, K., and Realph, A. (2007). Learning Organizations in
Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(1), 27-34.
Chopra, S., and Meindl, P. (2007). Supply Chain Management: strategy, planning, and
operation, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, NJ.
Cox, A., and Townsend, M. (1998). Strategic Procurement in Construction, Thomas Telford,
London.
Dainty, A. R. J, Millett, S.J., and Briscoe, G.H. 2001. New Perspectives on Construction Supply
Chain Integration. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 6(4), 163-173.
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L. (2000). Supply Strategy and Network Effects-Purchasing Behavior in
the Construction Industry. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 6(3-4),
207-215.
Elliman, T., and Orange, G. (2000). Electronic Commerce to Support Construction Design and
Supply-Chain Management: A Research Note. International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, 30(3/4), 345-360.
Fisher, M.L. (1997). What is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product? Harvard Business
Review, 75(2), 105-116.
La Londe, B. J., and Masters, J. M. (1994). Emerging Logistics Strategies. International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24(7), 35-47.
Lee, H. (2004), The Triple-A Supply Chain, Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 102-157.
Lee, H., Padmanabhan, V., and Whang, S. (2004), Information Distortion in a Supply Chain:
The Bullwhip Effect. Management Science, 50(12), 1875-1886.
Maloni, M.J. and Benton, W.C. (1997). Supply Chain Partnerships: Opportunities for
Operations Research. European Journal of Operational Research, 101(3), 419-429.
80
Martella, B. (2000). Enabling Supply Chain Automation Through Information

Synchronization. Achieving Supply Chain Excellence Through Technology (ASCET), 7(1), 109113.
Matthews, J., Pellew, L., Phua, F., and Rowlinson, S. (2000). Quality Relationships: Partnering
in the Construction Supply Chain. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
17(4-5), 493-510.
Mentzer, J. T, DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S, Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D. and Zacharia, Z. G.
(2001). Defining Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2), 1-25.
OBrien, W. J., London, K. and Vrijhoef, R. (2002). Construction Supply Chain Modeling: A
Research Review and Interdisciplinary Research Agenda. Proceedings, 10th Annual Conf. Intl.
Group for Lean Construction, IGLC-10, Gramado, Brazil.
Pyke, D., Robb, D., and Farley, J. (2000). Manufacturing and Supply Chain Management in
China: A Survey of State-, Collective-, and Privately-Owned Enterprises. European
Management Journal, 18(6), 577-589.
Rernaldo, J., and Santos, A. (1999). Cronbach's Alpha: A Tool for Assessing the Reliability of
Scales. Journal of Extension [On-line], 37(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999April/
tt3.html
Saada, M., Jones, M., and James, P. 2002. A Review of the Progress Towards the Adoption of
Supply Chain Management (SCM) Relationships in Construction. European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 8(3), 173-183.
Scheuren, F. (2008). What is a Survey? < http://www.whatisasurvey.info > (Oct. 23, 2008)
Sheehan, K. B. (2006). E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 6(2), 0-0.
Simatupang, T.M., Wright, A.C. and Sridharan, R. (2002). The Knowledge of Coordination for
Supply Chain. Integration Business Process Management Journal, 8(3) 289-308.
Spekman, R. E., Kamauff Jr., J. W., and Myhr, N. (1998). An Empirical Investigation into
Supply Chain Management: A Perspective on Partnerships. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 28(8), 630-650.
Thomas, D. J., and Griffin, P. M. (1996). Coordinated Supply Chain Management. European
Journal of Operational Research, 94(1), 1-15.
Vrijhoef, R., Koskela, L., and Howell, G. (2003). Understanding Construction Supply Chains:
A Multiple Theoretical Approach to Inter-Organizational Relationships. Proceedings, 11th
Annual Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, IGLC-11, Singapore.
81
Vrijhoef, R., Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2001). Understanding Construction Supply Chains:
An Alternative Interpretation. Proceedings, 9th Annual Conf. Intl. Group for Lean
Construction, IGLC-9, Blacksburg, USA.
Vrijhoef, R., and Ridder, H. (2007). A Systems Approach for Developing a Model of
Construction Supply Chain Integration. Proceedings, 4th Nordic Conference On Construction
Economics And Organization, Development Processes In Construction Management, Sweden, 617.
Wong, P. S., and Cheung, S. (2004). Trust in Construction Partnering: Views From Parties of
the Partnering Dance. International Journal of Project Management, 22(6), 437-446.
82
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Aslhan Karata was born in Gaziantep, Turkey. She obtained her Bachelor of Science
degree in civil engineering from Bogazici University in the spring of 2007. In August 2007, she
entered the Civil and Coastal Engineering Master of Science program and specialized in
construction engineering and management in the University of Florida under the supervision of
Dr. Ralph Ellis. She worked as a graduate research assistant of Dr. Ralph Ellis from fall 2007 to
fall 2008. Then, she worked as a graduate teaching assistant of Dr. Zohar Herbsman for fall 2008
and spring 2009. She received her MSc from the University of Florida in the spring of 2009.
83

Karatas A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Karatas A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SURVEY OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AS PERCEIVED BY

THE US CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

2009 Aslhan Karata

LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 12

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 23

CRONBACHS ALPHA TEST RESULTS .............................................................................. 51

ANOVA RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 63

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 80

Distribution of company groups ............................................................................................ 22

Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers .................................. 25

Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients ...................... 26

Factors developing supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers......................... 27

Developing SC relationship with a supplier ......................................................................... 30

Developing a SC relationship with client ............................................................................. 32

Factor effecting the communication with suppliers and clients .......................................... 34

Barriers to supply chain integration for contractors............................................................. 35

Sample of SC organization .................................................................................................... 17

Manufacturing companys SC (Spekman et al, 1998) ......................................................... 17

Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers .................................. 36

Factors developing a supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers...................... 36

Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients ...................... 37

Partnership agreements with suppliers and clients............................................................... 37

Developing a SC relationship with a supplier ...................................................................... 38

Developing a SC relationship with client ............................................................................. 39

Barriers to supply chain integration for contractor .............................................................. 41

Matrix plot of factors affecting contractors organization when considering

Matrix plot of factors affecting the development of a successful SC relationship

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

Communication among the concerned parties is very important to improve collaboration.

significant problems such as lack of communication, lack of knowledge sharing infrastructure,

Sell/distribute raw material

Sell/distribute the product

Distribute the product

Sell/distribute the product to a retail merchant

Sell/distribute the product to customer

Figure 2-1. Sample of SC organization

Figure 2-2. Manufacturing companys SC (Spekman et al, 1998)

Total Revenue, in 2007 ($ M)

Less than 100

More than 500

Total Revenue ($ Millions)

Factors Affecting Contractors Organization when Considering Developing Supply Chain

Total Revenue ($ Millions)

Less than 100

More than 500

Total Revenue ($ Millions)

Less than 100

More than 500

Table 4-6. Developing a SC relationship with client

Being consulted in deciding

Total Revenue ($ Millions)

Being consulted in deciding

Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors

Figure 4-1. Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers

Improved customer service

Benefits to the client

Improved quality assurance

Increased market competitiveness

Cost reductions within your organization

Overall supply chain reduction

Benefits to your supplier

Figure 4-4. Partnership agreements with suppliers and clients