You are on page 1of 83

SURVEY OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AS PERCEIVED BY

THE US CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

By
ASLIHAN KARATAŞ

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 Aslıhan Karataş

2

To my family

3

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 Karataş and Dr.
Şükrü Karataş, my sister Berfin Karataş and my beloved aunt Dr. Günseli Görür. 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, Dinçer Konur and Sezgin
Ayabakan, without them it would be hard for me to accomplish this work.

4

............................................................................................................. 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION............. 19 Introduction .................. 12 Supply Chain Management .TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................. 23 Analysis of Responses ............................................ 24 Functions Affecting the Contractors’ Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to Suppliers ..................................................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Factors which are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its Clients/Suppliers .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Factors Affecting the Development of a Successful Supply Chain Relationship between Contractors and Clients....................................... 10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................. 23 Introduction ................................................................................ 45 5 .............................. 24 Factors Affecting Contractors’ Organization when Considering Developing Supply Chain Collaboration ................................................................................ 19 Questionnaire Design ................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................... 42 6 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 19 Sample Design ................................................................ 33 Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors ..... 12 Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry...................... 25 Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply Chain Relationship with a Supplier ......................................................

.................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 B CRONBACH’S ALPHA TEST RESULTS .................................................... 51 Factors Affecting Contractors’ Organization when Considering Developing SC Collaboration ............... 67 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 ......................... 46 Informed Consent Form ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Questionnaire Form.......................................................... 77 LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................... 71 Factors which are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its Clients/Suppliers................ 60 C ANOVA RESULTS ................................................................................................. 54 Factors Affecting the Development of a Successful Supply Chain Relationship between Contractors and Clients ........ 76 Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors ................................................... 51 Factors Necessary for Contractors when Developing Successful SC Relationship with a Supplier .............................................................................................................................................................................................................APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM............................... 67 Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply Chain Relationship with a Supplier ................................................ 75 Relationship between contractor and the majority of their suppliers/clients........................ 64 Companies value partnership with their suppliers/clients ................................ 83 6 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................................... 63 Factors for Developing SC Collaboration ................................................................ 63 Functions Affecting the Contractors’ Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to Suppliers......................................................................................

......................... 29 4-5 Developing SC relationship with a supplier ....................................................................LIST OF TABLES page Table 3-1 Distribution of company groups ............. 34 4-8 Barriers to supply chain integration for contractors................................................................................................................ 27 4-4 Companies in terms of their revenue with regards to value of partnership with clients and suppliers ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 7 ............................... 25 4-2 Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients ............... 30 4-6 Developing a SC relationship with client ....... 26 4-3 Factors developing supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers.......... 32 4-7 Factor effecting the communication with suppliers and clients .................................................................................................... 22 4-1 Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers ..............

........................ 37 4-7 Developing a SC relationship with a supplier ..................... 1998) ............. 62 8 .. 53 B-2 Matrix plot of factors which are necessary for contractors when developing a successful SC relationship with a supplier .................................................................. 36 4-2 Factors developing a supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers................................................................................... 41 B-1 Matrix plot of factors affecting contractors’ organization when considering developing a SC collaboration........................................................................... 38 4-8 Developing a SC relationship with client .................... 17 2-2 Manufacturing company’s SC (Spekman et al....................................................... 18 4-1 Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers ................................................... (1998) “An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective on partnerships”) ........... 40 4-10 Barriers to supply chain integration for contractor ................................................................................................................................. 56 B-3 Matrix plot of factors affecting the development of a successful SC relationship between contractors and client .......... 37 4-4 Partnership agreements with suppliers and clients........................................ 36 4-3 Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients ....... 59 B-4 Matrix plot of factors which are barriers to supply chain integration for contractor ...................................................................LIST OF FIGURES page Figure 2-1 Sample of SC organization ................................................................................................................................. 37 4-5 Average duration for partnership agreements with clients and suppliers ................................... 17 2-3 Supply chain data acquisition process in construction (adapted from Spekman et al............. 39 4-9 Factors affecting the communication with the suppliers and clients ............................................................................... 37 4-6 Results indicate how the contractors value partnership with clients and suppliers ..............................................

the relationship between contractors. From the results obtained. The individual opinions of the contractors have also been analyzed to obtain personal data on the subject. suppliers and clients have major roles in establishing and developing SCM and collaboration. In this study. 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. The construction sector players including contractors. 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. their suppliers and clients has been investigated to reveal the degree of importance of SCM from the point of view of contractors.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 Aslıhan Karataş 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. 9 .

In order to achieve the high levels of collaboration required to synchronize the supply chain. 10 . The questionnaire form was designed to display the degree of knowledge of contractor companies about SCM. 2000). Contractor companies. (2002) partnering in construction revolved around three key principles: agreeing mutual objectives. There are some vital factors to meet these key principles on the part of the contractors. making decisions openly and resolving problems in a way that was jointly agreed at the beginning of the project. Firstly. suppliers and clients.. and aiming to achieve measurable improvements in performance through incentives. since a company’s partners in the supply chain may well determine the company’s success (Chopra and Meindel. 2002). 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.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. 2007). partnering relationships among these players are investigated. As stated by Saada et al. 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 (O’Brien et al. In this study. their suppliers and clients are major players of this sector. companies must balance the needs of customers with those of suppliers and partners (Martella. 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.

Communication among the concerned parties is very important to improve collaboration. This thesis is organized as follows. Since the innovations on supply chain management in construction are still in the embryonic stage. Chapter 6 consists of some recommendations to further this research in the future. was explained. many barriers still need to be overcome (Cox and Townsend. Cronbach’s Alpha Test and graphical bar tools. their suppliers and clients. 2000). Chapter 5 includes the conclusion part of this study. 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. 11 . As pointed out by Elliman and Orange (2000). determine the degree of achievement of the key principles. 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. The quality of communication and sharing information among the contractor companies. Supply chain management is currently in its developing stage for construction industry. In addition to balancing the needs of customers and suppliers. Chapter 4 presents the survey results which were analyzed by using ANOVA. 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. suppliers and clients from the view of SCM philosophy. Chapter 2 presents SCM with a brief description and SCM in construction industry with an explanation of the importance of roles of contractors. businesses must maintain equilibrium between open communication and responsible information exchange (Martella. 1998). Chapter 3 provides the methodology of the research.

e.. Lee (2004) suggested that “collaborative relationships should be developed with suppliers and customers so that companies work together 12 . 2001). cooperation and partners’ building and maintaining long-term relationships. 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. The set of firms which pass these materials forward can be referred to as a supply chain.. This firm distributes the product to the retail merchants who finally sell this product to the end users (customers). 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. Mentzer et al. integrated behavior. In this research. Partners’ building and maintaining long-term relationships are required for increasing the effectiveness of SCM (Mentzer et al.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Supply Chain Management The whole chain from producing a raw material to selling the product to the firm i. retailers. Chopra and Meindl (2007) described the supply chain as consisting of the parties who are involved in satisfying the customer demands. transporters and customers are all players of supply chain. The schematic expression of this chain is shown in Figure 2-1. Several companies take part in an organization for creating a product and transmitting it to the end user. a retail merchant is ascribed as a supply chain. the focused activities are. 2001). The members of supply chain are not limited to the manufacturers and suppliers. Integrated behavior and cooperation with clients and suppliers are highly recommended to meet mutual expectations in the long-term (Mentzer et al. Warehouses. mutually sharing information. (2001) listed several activities which should be established by firms to behave consistently with the SCM philosophy.

to design or redesign processes. So. quality of service.. manufacturing and assembly plants and distribution centers’. In addition. 2007). information flow has a direct impact on the scheduling. suppliers and customers) should interact and compromise to enable the essential adjustments (Dubois and Gadde. 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. 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. such as vendors. a supply chain management strategy should be developed to attain the ultimate goals of the company. The actors of construction industry (contractors. components and products as well as preparing backup plans. Since. 1997). quality of materials and time of delivery are as well-developed as the other industries. An illustration of supply chain is indicated in Figure 2-2. SCM plays a major role to improve the efficiency and productivity of companies.” Thomas and Griffin (1996) explained that ‘Supply Chain Management (SCM) is the management of material and information flow both in and between facilities. contractors. 2000). the existence of effective collaboration within and beyond the boundaries of a company which is essential to convert competitive advantage into profitability was sought. since it has tremendous effect to optimize the company’s performance. it is believed that there is still room for the improvements of supply chain management tools for the Construction Industry. 13 . providing a competitive advantage. The supply chain strategy of many companies depends on getting quicker response rate at consumer flow. inventory control and delivery plans which are fundamental elements for the coordination of members in a supply chain (Lee et al. In this paper.

Partnership with suppliers and customers are several advantages such as long-term association. Matthews et al. 1997). (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.. On the other hand. 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).suppliers and customers are very significant elements for the implementation of SCM. Sustainable cash flow and data flow among both the upstream and downstream of chain are provided by contractors (Figure 2-3). Vrijhoef and Ridder (2007) pointed out that the difference of SCM in construction industry from the other industries occurs at the end-customer stage. 1994). Additionally. respect and honesty between professionals. collaboration between those sector players is very essential. if the one partner can not meet the mutual expectations partnership agreement will become a disaster. since clients are involved in the chain both at the start and at the end for construction projects. loss of partnership control and neglecting potential short comings because of high expectations from the partnership can destroy mutual collaboration between the players. “Total management of the supply chain enhances the competitive edge of all ‘players’ therein” (Berry et al. This nature of construction industry evolves 14 . Contractors have a key role to establish and develop the supply chain management. 2000). encouraging mutual planning and problem solving efforts (Maloni and Benton. There are some features of the construction industry differing from the other industries which might prevent the proper application of SCM in construction industry. 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..

lack of knowledge sharing infrastructure. If an infrastructure can not be established for sharing the information. high unpredictability. (2003) pointed out that insufficient management of supply chain triggers natural problems of construction industry. a large quantity of waste and problems. 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. low profits (Vrijhoef and Ridder. The quality of communication and sharing information among the contractor companies. exchanging knowledge will only be restricted among individuals. The relationship between contractors. 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. their suppliers and clients.significant problems such as lack of communication. consisting of negative symptoms as not only waste and rework but also low efficiency level.. Partnering is one of the solutions to prevent those circumstances. which are obstacles the improvement of SCM in construction. Vrijhoef et al. In this study. 2007) which might thwart the developing and sustaining of SCM coordination in construction industry. a questionnaire form was designed for contractor companies to display management’s understanding of the concept and its effectiveness for practical application in construction industry (Mentzer et al. determine the degree of achievement of the key principles. their suppliers 15 . The old-fashioned management of supply chain leads to waste problem because of independent control of each stage of the chain. 1994). (2007) indicated that knowledge sharing infrastructure is one of the primary barriers preventing the successful implementation of organizations. This unimproved coordination causes unreliable environment. contractors’ partnership agreements with their clients and suppliers were investigated in this study. With this in mind. 2001).

since the nature of construction industry prevents the proper implementation of supply chain. 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 (O’Brien et al.and clients was examined for emphasizing the necessity of SCM application from the point of view of contractors. who were assumed as the most vital players of the enabling the flow of organization in construction industry. barriers existing during enhancing the industry were asked to figure out the common problems of the constructors. 16 . Moreover. 2002). to the SCM concept was investigated. The approaches of contractors..

Manufacturing company’s SC (Spekman et al. Firm Produce raw mat ↓ II.I. 1998) 17 . into a product ↓ IV. Firm Sell/distribute raw material Produce a component ↓ III. 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. Firm Assemble com. Sample of SC organization Figure 2-2.

Supply chain data acquisition process in construction (adapted from Spekman et al.Figure 2-3. (1998) “An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective on partnerships”) 18 .

2006). Questionnaire forms were sent via e-mail. 2000) and manufacturing and supply chain management in China (Pyke et al. 2000).. US contractors’ approach to the concept of supply chain management in construction 19 . Questionnaire provides a major source of knowledge. Various studies. a three-page questionnaire with an informed consent letter was sent to US contractors randomly selected among the US contractors. In this study. (2000) ‘Manufacturing and supply chain management in China’. with the inspiration from previous studies on supply chain collaboration and management in the UK construction industry (Akintoye et al. especially in terms of speed and cost efficiency (Sheehan.. Since the needs for accurate and prompt flow of information has become very critical. literature and research articles on SCM and its application in construction industry were analyzed. surveys are used to gather information from a sample of individuals (Scheuren 2008). Questionnaire Design Survey questionnaire is a measurement tool to find out the opinions of a specific group about a certain subject. since researchers have pointed out numerous benefits of e-mail over postal mail surveys.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. A questionnaire form was designed to identify and discuss the views and opinions of the contractors about the application of SCM in construction sector. 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.

The questionnaire survey was divided into four subgroups. suppliers and clients.. Section D contains nine questions to explore supply chain strategy of contractor companies. indicating the structure of different supply chains and the interconnection between a number of focal organizations’ supply chains and the resultant networks of supply (O’brien et al. That’s why the questionnaire form was majorly based on the relationship among these players to measure the success of supply chain strategy of contractor firms. contractor’s relationships with their suppliers and clients were asked. 2002). types of process links.industry was sought to define. In Section A and Section B. contractors. ‘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”. each including different numbers of questions. The first question was about the nature of companies participating in this study. Relationship with their suppliers and clients were inspected to identify the importance of supply chain strategy for these companies. 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. structural dimensions. 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. Contractors were also asked about their collaboration with their suppliers/clients. Supply chain strategy 20 . The insights for mapping supply chain structure have three primary attributes: members of supply chain. is one of the main factors to determine the level of achievement of SCM. including contractors. The questionnaire form is based on the first attributes: members of supply chain. suppliers and clients. The questionnaire form was created based on the 5-point Likert scale.

transportation. contractors were asked about the extent to which inventory. 1998). inventory. contractors were asked to point out variables such as reliable delivery time. question 10. Questions five. In conclusion. Question eight. they were asked to state the importance of such factors as improved customer service. many barriers still need to be overcome (Cox and Townsend. level of complaints returns etc. when considering developing supply chain collaboration. increased profitability etc. 2001). Firstly. purchasing and transportation. overall supply chain reduction. lead time. was left for comments from contractor companies about supply chain management in construction. This question sought the obstacles to prevent the improvement of supply chain collaboration in construction industry. six and seven involved questions about the degree of the importance of communication between contractors. These all elements must be consistent with supply chain’s level of responsiveness.contains substrategies including production planning. accurate order fulfillment. contractors were asked the degree of relationship to their clients and suppliers stating from very weak to very strong. It is believed that supply chain management is still in developing process for construction industry. because communication plays a vital role in establishing and developing collaboration. Last part. to develop a successful supply chain relationship with suppliers and clients. In the third and the fourth questions.. purchasing and production planning affect their efficiency of supply chain in relation to their supplies. suppliers and clients. Since the innovations on supply chain management in construction are still in the embryonic stage. 21 . the questionnaire form was designed for contractor companies to display management’s understanding of the concept and its effectiveness for practical application in construction industry (Mentzer et al. lead time. Secondly.

Cronbach’s Alpha approach was applied to check the reliability of a set of questions where necessary. Distribution of company groups Group Total Revenue. in 2007 ($ M) Frequency Percentage Group 1 Less than 100 5 21. Data were sorted and ranked according to the mean values to be dealt with. 22 . Overall. 23 responds were received after a one-month deadline period for response. If the receiver accepted to participate in this survey. ‘start survey’ link was followed (Appendix-A). number of companies in each group and their distribution percentage within the group were depicted in Table 3-1. Table 3-1.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 Cronbach’s Alpha test indicated that 5-point Likert scale test analyzing the factors was reliable (Appendix-C).17% Group 3 More than 500 6 26.74% Group 2 100-500 12 52. 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.09% Total 23 100% Each set of questions was analyzed with its contribution to clarify the contractors’ opinions about SCM concept. ANOVA method was used (Appendix-B). total revenue of companies. Group numbers. 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.

) (k-1.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction Survey results were analyzed using Minitab statistical package and Analysis of variance (ANOVA) method. Answers for each question were analyzed with respect to the null hypothesis to see whether all company groups have the same mean value. n-k) F critical = Probability of rejecting the null hypothesis k = sample size n = number of groups k -1 and n . there is a high difference of views within groups in relation to that factor) 23 . Data were sorted and ranked according to the mean values to be dealt with. ANOVA method was used. Group numbers. 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.k were defined as degree of freedom (df) P-value = Probability value (if P < 0. number of companies in each group and their distribution percentage within the group were depicted in Table 3-1. total revenue of companies.05. 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 (µ1=µ2= µ3) 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.

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. 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. ‘Lead Time’. ‘Purchasing Planning’ and ‘Production Planning’ are major functions affecting the efficiency of supply chain relation. In this part. Cronbach’s Alpha approach was applied to check the reliability of a set of questions designed to test 5-point Likert scale.” Analysis of Responses Functions Affecting the Contractors’ Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to Suppliers ‘Inventory’. the normality condition and the equal variance condition become more critical.Each set of questions was analyzed with its contribution to clarify the contractors’ opinions about SCM concept. ‘Transportation’. 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.7’ as an acceptable reliability coefficient for Cronbach’s Alpha approach. It should also be noted that when small sample sizes exist. contractors were asked to scale the functions which were expected to influence their relationship with their suppliers. 24 . Detailed analyses and explanation of each set of questions are shown in the section “Analysis of Responses. the more reliable the generated scale will be. the higher the score. Figure-2 indicates the results of this question. 1999). “Since summated scales are an assembly of interrelated items designed to measure underlying constructs. Considering ‘0.

33 0. since it triggers transportation cost dramatically which increases the total cost of project.60 3. Even if this result was reasonable with regards to the ratio of transportation cost on the companies’ budget.80 3.60 3.33 2.8%) functions were as expected.17 1.98 3.50 4. Table 4-1. ‘Production Planning’ (47. overall supply chain reduction.63 0.15 P-value 0.8 %) and ‘Inventory’ (34. since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.31 3. However.=3. The results of ‘Purchasing’ (65. Improved customer service.49. This function is expected to have a major role for the construction industry in the near future. Higher-income causes less concern about transportation. 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). increased profitability. According to ANOVA results (Table 4-1).71 Total Revenue ($ Millions) Less than 100More than 100 500 500 3.50 2.1%) function was disregarded by the contractors.68 0.68 2.95 3. ‘Transportation’ (39.9 % of contractors put ‘Lead Time’ function on Important-Very Important scale.83 3. increased market competitiveness 25 .10 0.00 F 1.25 3. 73.2%). Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers Average Total Inventory Transportation Lead Time Purchasing Production Planning 2.34 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.39 1.42 4.00 3.82 3.80 3. reducing bureaucracy/paper.20 3. increasing fuel-oil prices recently should be taken into consideration.21 0.83 3. There is no rejected null hypothesis for this case.67 4.Since scheduling is one of the most significant factors for construction projects.

benefits to supplier and improved quality assurance were listed as the most significant factors for an organization when considering developing a supply chain collaboration. Figure 4-3 highlighted that all contractors’ relationship with their clients are strong/very strong (100 %).83 Clients 4. the results of responses to “Improved quality assurance” (78.2 % of them had strong relationship with their suppliers.3 %). “Increased profitability” (69. On the other hand.31 4. Table 4-2.6 %). Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) 100-500 F P-value Total Less than 100 Suppliers 3. since all F values are smaller than Fcrit. 65. the result of a question revealing the relationship between the contractor firms and the majority of their suppliers/clients is indicated in Figure 4-3.9 %) were as expected. “Benefits to the client” (81.49. “Reducing bureaucracy/paper” (43. Among these factors.73 3. There was a major difference between responses to ‘benefits to clients’ and ‘benefits to supplier’. Also there were no significant differences among the group members (Group 1.7). There is no rejected null hypothesis for this case.6 %). benefits to client. Figure-3 indicates the distribution of responses. In addition to this. “Cost reductions within the organization” (69. Group 2 and Group 3) (Table 4-2). On the other hand.00 4.42 4.83 0.cost reductions within the organization.1 %) were lower than expected. = 3.31 26 More than 500 .50 1.5 %) and “Increased market competitiveness” (73.0 %).25 0.60 3.75 3.18 0. the responses to “Benefits to supplier” (34.8 %) and “Overall supply chain reduction” (39. The Cronbach’s Alpha test indicates that 5-point Likert scale test analyzing the factors was reliable (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.8 > 0.8 %). “Improved customer service” (87.

41 3.20 3.17 4.14 Benefits to your supplier 3.33 0.29 Cost reductions within your organization 3.92 3.75 0.27 2.17 4.87 0. Table 4-3.80 3.80 4. 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).19 4.14 P-value 0.06 4.40 4.00 4. There should be a centralized supply chain among those players.80 3.92 4.00 0.75 4. Factors developing supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F Less than 100. 27 . although they were aware of the clients’ importance for supply chain collaboration.33 3.49 Overall supply chain reduction 3.67 0.93 4. 1994).88 3.27 2.62 0.83 0.70 Reducing bureaucracy/paper 4. contractors.51 0.00 0. Since.36 3. the value of partnership with client and suppliers were inspected. 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.00 3.40 3.00 4.00 3.50 3. Only trying to optimize the local aims causes lack of coordination and hurts the efficiency of supply chain (Chopra & Meindl 2007).01 Increased market competitiveness 3.33 4.87 Keeping in mind the significant differences between the responses to ‘benefits to clients’ and ‘benefits to suppliers’.00 0.09 Benefits to your supplier 3.31 0.12 Benefits to the client 3.40 3.17 0.33 3.67 1.33 3. ‘Total management of the supply chain enhances the competitive edge of all “players” therein’ (Berry et at.93 0.33 0. suppliers and customers are very significant elements for the implementation of SCM tools.23 Improved quality assurance 4.20 4.99 0.31 0.00 0.06 4.23 Improved quality assurance 4.08 Increased profitability 3.Most contractors almost neglected the contribution of suppliers to the SCM organization.88 0. collaboration among them is very essential.67 1.17 4.23 4.91 0.More than Total 100 500 500 Improved customer service 4.

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

Total Revenue ($ Millions)

F

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 Cronbach’s 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 Revenue ($ Millions)
Less than 100- More than
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

F

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.
Factors Affecting the Development of a Successful Supply Chain Relationship between
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 Cronbach’s 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

17 3.50 0. multiple handoffs.66 0.14 3.83 4.56 2.00 3.40 3.11 3.07 0.33 4.09 0.19 0. and error-prone data reentry.22 0.57 3.98 3. determine the degree of achievement of the key principles.44 2.40 3.80 3.20 3.40 3.67 4.83 3.80 3.83 1.83 3. especially companies in Group 3 which have more complicated supply chain organization value free flow 32 .15 3.40 2. Contractors might interpret ‘more frequent meeting’ factor as face-to-face meetings which causes time consuming. EDI) More frequent meetings Joint business planning Simplifying the whole construction process Creating standardization of processes Simplifying the bidding process F P-value 4.83 0.74 1.41 0.00 3.75 3.60 3.40 3.00 2.Table 4-6.68 3.44 4.83 3.48 0.42 4.80 3.40 3. Lacking of communication between the partners inhibits the improvement of supply chain collaboration.42 2.33 4.manual processes.14 3.24 0.e.75 3.67 3.13 3.65 0.25 3. E-commerce on the construction industry enable convenient environment for free flow of information (68.50 1.50 0. New developments on technology provide many advantages for communication.61 3.83 2.98 3. Responses to more frequent meetings were lower than predicted (13.49 0.02 0.More than 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.00 3.33 0.72 0.67 The quality of communication and sharing information among the contractor companies.79 3.67 3. implementation of recent technological improvements i.17 0. Developing a SC relationship with client Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) Less than 100.2%).67 2.94 4.g.58 3.15 0. So.08 2.83 3. it was sought that where more frequent meetings were essential to develop a supply chain collaboration with clients.67 0.58 0.33 4. Instead of old-fashioned information management which relies on time consuming .6 %).41 2.63 3. XML. their suppliers and clients. Additionally.08 4.

On 33 . the same forms are filled out and passed around multiple times. at which consulting stages contractors are concerned communicating with their suppliers and clients.. So.6 %) than clients (65. ‘being consulted in deciding which new products to develop’ or ‘being consulted in deciding the production schedule’. Without integration of information systems. the response rates to the others were as predicted and there were no significant differences within the group of companies. Contractors prefer being consulted by suppliers (69. Even if implementation of IT is a troublesome and expensive strategy which might discourage companies. 1997). leading to even more wasted work. and misunderstandings routinely arise.4 %) had lower response rate than expected.2 %) when deciding the production schedule.=3. Information flow has a direct impact on the scheduling. its long-term benefits to the companies are very important. The percentage rates of responses were as predicted. 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. Besides of those factors explained and discussed in detail. since all F values are smaller than Fcrit. Implementation of information technology (IT) to the company reduces the levels of supply chain and simplifying the processes. errors. inconsistencies.information more than the others to avoid cross-company processes (Table 4-6). All players should be consisted in the echelon to increase the overall effectiveness.49. inventory control and delivery plans which are fundamental elements for the coordination of members in a supply chain (Lee et al. This cumbersome structure causes jumping of activities and data between companies. It was also sought that whether there was any difference between communication preferences with clients and supplier at these stages. the next question is. There is no rejected null hypothesis for this case. Integrated information systems (36. the same checks and certifications are done over and over. the same information is entered repeatedly into different systems.

50 4.49. late and incorrect payments. since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.58 4.50 F P-value 1.78 3.59 0.17 1.00 Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) Less than More than 100 100-500 500 Total 3.97 4. contractors prefer being consulted by clients (87. there is no rejected null hypothesis for this case.60 3.26 Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop 0. unrealistic 34 . Factor effecting the communication with suppliers and clients Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) Less than More than Clients Total 100 100-500 500 Being consulted in deciding the production schedule 4.33 4. But. retention.e.27 3. barriers existing during enhancing the industry were asked to figure out the common problems of the constructors. because only focusing on local aims instead of concerning the whole chain causes the lack of coordination between the parties (Latham.15 0. Table 4-7.30 3.=3.44 0.the other hand.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. 1994).09 3.60 4.58 4. Factors which might be potential barriers were listed as.6 %) in deciding which new products to develop (Figure 4-9).33 F P-value Supplier Being consulted in deciding the production schedule 4. Determination of common problems might provide taking precautions on the whole sector. 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.0 %) than suppliers (82. bidding process.33 1.49 3.23 Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop 3. There were unexpected ANOVA results i.80 4.

program times.9 %). ‘executing of some partnering relationships for the wrong reasons’ (17.69 2.89 0.20 3.49) (Table 4-8).8 > 0.95 2.00 2.20 3.33 Traditional contracts don’ engender good working relationships 3. traditional contracts do not endanger good working relationships.2 %).50 Bidding process 3.1 %) and ‘retention’ (34.67 Companies do not understand other business within supply chain 2.59 0. ‘unrealistic ‘program times’ (52.46 .49.17 Unrealistic program times 3. Barriers to supply chain integration for contractors Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) Less 100More Total than 100 500 than 500 Late and incorrect payments 3. ‘Late and incorrect payment’ (60.20 3. The biggest barrier preventing the developing of SCM integration was ‘bidding process’ (65. But this might be biased.93 0.80 3.61 0.12 3.60 3.00 Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons 2.=3.59 > Fcrit. ‘excessive demanding of estimators on small organizations’ (26.00 3.50 0.7). companies do not understand other business within supply chain.05 0.24 0. ‘traditional contracts’ (52. those factors were not considered as the vital ones.79 0.40 3. ANOVA test showed significant difference at ‘bidding process’ factor (F=3. because of irregular distribution of companies for each group.96 2. ‘Misunderstanding of SC concept’ (17.08 1.81 0. Cronbach's Alpha proofs that 5-point Likert scale of factors are reliable (0.20 3.83 Estimators are too demanding on small organizations 2.2 %) followed the biggest barrier.58 3.08 3.4 %).26 0.4 %). It was observed that Group 1 and Group 3 were concerned bidding process as barrier more than Group 2.63 3.00).43 3.60 0.33 3.62 4.44 0.08 3. some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons (Figure 4-10). estimators are too demanding on small organizations.2 %).87 4. Hence.17 Retention 3.52 0.11 3.80 3. Table 4-8.25 4.17 35 F P-value 0. There is no rejected null hypothesis except for ‘bidding process’ in this case. since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.8 %) factors did not exceed the mean value (3.25 3.=3.

1% Benefits to your supplier 34.0% 20.10% Inventory 34.5% Overall supply chain reduction 39.80% Figure 4-1.9% Cost reductions within your organization 69.0% 60.3% Increased market competitiveness 73.0% Benefits to the client 81. Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers Improved customer service 87.90% Pruchasing 65.8% 0.0% 80.6% Increased profitability 69.6% Reducing bureaucracy/paper 43.8% Improved quality assurance 78.0% .0% 40. Factors developing a supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers 36 100.20% Production Planning 47.Lead Time 73.0% Figure 4-2.80% Transportation 39.

0% 60.0 29.0% 60.Clients 100. Partnership agreements with suppliers and clients 30.0% Figure 4-6. Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients Client 52.0% 60.6 yr 5.0% 100.0 20.9% 20. Average duration for partnership agreements with clients and suppliers clients 76.0% 40. Results indicate how the contractors value partnership with clients and suppliers 37 .0% Suppliers 65.0% 100.2% suppliers 0.0 10.0 0.0% 40.0% 100.0% Figure 4-4.0% 80.0 12.0% 60.0% 40.2% 0.0 Supplier Client Figure 4-5.6 yr 25.0% Figure 4-3.0% 80.0% 20.5% 0.2% Supplier 43.0% 80.0% 20.0 15.

0% 80.6% 38 Added value 65.7% Quality of service 91.2% Flexibility 65.5% 20.6% Level of complaints/ returns 69.3% Quality of materials 87.4% Simplifying the whole construction process 82.0% 100.Reliable delivery date 95.6% Delivery at specified time 82.6% Fast order cycle time 69.0% Figure 4-7.2% Handling of complaints 0.0% .0% Trust 86.0% 40.0% 60. Developing a SC relationship with a supplier 56.3% Accurate order fulfilment 91.

Trust 81.g.8% Top management support 72.5% Closer links between demand/ supply 54.7% Reliability of supply 72.7% Free flow of information 68.0% Figure 4-8.2% Simplifying the whole construction process 59.0% 40.0% . EDI) 36.0% 10.6% 0.0% 60.0% 50.0% 70.0% 30.0% Integrated information systems (e.2% Mutual interest 68.0% 100.0% Manpower development 50.0% 80.1% Creating standardisation of processes 54.0% 90.8% 13.5% 39 Simplifying the bidding process 50.4% Joint business planning More frequent meetings 31. Developing a SC relationship with client 20.

Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop Being consulted in deciding the production schedule 0.0% Being consulted in deciding the production schedule Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop Clients 87.0% 40.6% 69.6% Figure 4-9.2% Suppliers 82.0% 65.0% 60.0% 20.0% 100. Factors affecting the communication with the suppliers and clients 40 .0% 80.

2% Retention Estimators are too demanding on small organizations 34.0% .0% 40.0% 100.0% Figure 4-10.4% Companies do not understand other business within supply chain 17.Bidding process 65.1% 41 Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons 17.4% 0.2% Unrealistic program times 52.8% 26.2% Late and incorrect payments 60.9% Traditional contracts do not engender good working relationships 52. Barriers to supply chain integration for contractor 20.0% 60.0% 80.

Well-established partnership between the players can meet implementation of these activities properly. with higher efficiency level and higher profits and also provides several advantages such as long-term association. They almost disregard the contribution of suppliers to SCM organization. It was revealed that contractors’ strategy majorly depends on the clients. Partnering in construction revolved around three key principles: agreeing mutual objectives. Among the activities for companies to adapt to the SCM philosophy. whereas they were cognizant of the clients’ importance for supply chain collaboration. there is still room for the improvements of supply chain management tools for the construction industry. 2001). integrated behavior. encouraging mutual planning and 42 . Companies involve in an organization for creating a product and transmitting it to the end user. making decisions openly and resolving problems in a way that is jointly agreed at the beginning of the project. mutually sharing information. quality of service. 2002). Mutual relationship also with supplier leads to reliable environment. partners’ building and maintaining long-term relationships were based on for this research (Mentzer et al.CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION SCM has a key role to improve the efficiency and productivity of companies. and aiming to achieve measurable improvements in performance through incentives (Saada et al. quality of materials and time of delivery. 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. 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. 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. cooperation.

So. These are all caused by traditional management method which causes cumbersome structure and stimulate the unreliable environment for the construction industry. ‘traditional contracts’ . there are some differences between their approaches to the factors enabling successful environment for supply chain. ‘unrealistic program times’ were ranked as the biggest barriers. 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. Additionally. ‘Late and incorrect payment’ .problem solving efforts (Maloni and Benton. Information flow has a direct impact on the scheduling. 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. Comparing three different types of contractors which were classified as Group 1. 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. ‘Bidding process’ . Determination 43 . these companies have become more sensitive on the specified time completion of the project. 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). barriers existing during enhancing the industry were asked to figure out the common problems of the constructors. 1997). this may result because of liquated damages provision in construction contracts. It was observed that higher budget of a company increases the responsibilities should be taken during the project. inventory control and delivery plans which are fundamental elements for the coordination of members in a supply chain. Group 2 and Group 3 (Table 3-1).

of common problems might provide taking precautions on the whole sector and diminish the obstacles for implementation of optimal supply chain performance. 44 .

The analysis in this thesis is based on the 23 responses from the US contractors. More contractors should be motivated to participate in the survey study. i. More data may help to get more accurate results and give more precise information about this subject. building product manufacturers in the future research. That amount of responses might cause some biased results. suppliers and clients. and this situation will be prevented by obtaining more data from the companies. In conclusion.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. 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 . owners.e. Even if contractors’ pivotal role is depended on for this study. it can be extended by involving more sector players.

Ph: (352) 392 – 0433. as a participant in the construction industry. As part of my course work I am conducting a survey. Participants will be asked to fill out a survey lasting no longer than 20 minutes. Ellis. Please you use the following link: I agree. Aslihan Karatas I have read the procedure described above. Dr. 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. Although. University of Florida. 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. By filling out the provided survey. compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this survey.APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM Informed Consent Form Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry Dear Participant. If you have any questions about this research protocol. 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. The statistical data collected from your survey and others will be documented in my thesis. I voluntarily agree to participate in the research study and I have received a copy of this description. at (352) 392-9537. I am a graduate student in the Civil and Coastal Engineering Department at the University of Florida. Ralph D. after you have read this informed consent. Sincerely. Gainesville. Start Survey 46 . You will not have to answer any question(s) you do not wish to answer. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office. please contact me at (352) 346 – 6021 or my faculty supervisor. FL 32611. Your survey will be conducted in your workplace. Box 112250. Only I will have access to the survey that you fill out.

Do you have any partnership agreements with any of your suppliers? If yes. how long has it been in existence? ( yes / no ) _________ 2.edu 1. in US dollars? (PLEASE CHECK ONLY ONE)  $1 to $49.9 Million  $500 Million to $1 Billion  $1 Billion + Section A 1. (please circle chosen response) 1.9 Million  $100 to $299.9 Million  $50 to $99. How do you value partnership with your clients? (Please circle your choice) Unimportant____ Less Important_____ Normal____ Important____ Very important_____ Section C. How do you value partnership with your suppliers? (Please circle your choice) Unimportant____ Less Important_____ Normal____ Important____ Very important_____ Section B. Upon completion.9 Million  $300 to $499. What was your company’s revenue in the year 2007.Questionnaire Form Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry This survey has been designed to find out the views of main contractors on supply chain management. Do these partnerships include any contractual agreements? ( yes / no ) 3. 1. please send an e-mail it to us at: aslihan1@ufl. Are these partnerships contractual agreements? ( yes / no ) 3. 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 2 3 4 High Extent 5 . (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. Do you have any partnership agreements with any of your clients? If yes. Please take a few minutes from your busy schedule and participate in the survey. how long has it been in existence? (yes / no ) _________ 2.

How important are the following factors to your organization when considering developing a supply chain collaboration? Unimportant 1 • Improved customer service • Overall supply chain reduction • Increased profitability • Reducing bureaucracy/ paperwork • Increased market competitiveness • Cost reductions within your organisation • Benefits to the client • Benefits to your supplier • Improved quality assurance Very important 2 3 4 5 3.2. How important are the following factors when developing a successful supply chain relationship with a supplier? Unimportant 1 • Reliable delivery date • Accurate order fulfilment • 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 • Simplifying the whole construction process Very important 2 3 4 5 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 • Reliability of supply • Top management support • Trust • Mutual interest • Manpower development • Closer links between demand/ supply 48 2 3 4 5 .

How much do you agree with the following factors when communicating with your suppliers? Strongly Disagree 1 • Being consulted in deciding the production schedule • Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop 49 2 Strongly Agree 3 4 5 .g. 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 2 Strongly Agree 3 4 5 6.Question 4. Continued • Free flow of information • Integrated information systems (e. EDI) • More frequent meetings • Joint business planning • Simplifying the whole construction process • Creating standardisation of processes • Simplifying the bidding process 5. How important are the following factors when you communicate with your clients? Strongly Disagree 1 • Being consulted in deciding the production schedule • Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop 2 Strongly Agree 3 4 5 7.

To what extent do you believe the following factors are a barrier to supply chain integration for contractors? Low Extent 1 • Late and incorrect payments • Bidding process • Retention • Unrealistic program times • Traditional contracts do not engender 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 High Extent 2 3 4 5 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 .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.

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 . C6. C7. C5. C3. C8. C4. C2.APPENDIX B CRONBACH’S ALPHA TEST RESULTS Factors Affecting Contractors’ Organization when Considering Developing SC Collaboration Item Analysis of C1.

172 0.843 C3 23 3.313 C9 0.773 0.304 4.372 0.164 0.466 0.348 0.548 C7 0.870 0.671 0.325 0.259 C5 0.267 0.539 0.254 0.248 0.733 Total 23 34.519 C3 0.087 0.926 C9 23 4.650 C2 23 3.435 0.309 0.757 C6 23 3.420 0.800 Cronbach's Alpha = 0.276 0.261 0.802 0.438 0.510 0.206 0.913 0.733 C4 23 3.810 C8 23 3.913 0.285 0.8419 52 .425 0.552 0.885 C5 23 3.336 0.505 C4 0.175 0.377 0.426 0.267 0.498 C8 0.495 Cell Contents: Pearson correlation Item and Total Statistics Total Variable Count Mean StDev C1 23 4.Correlation Matrix C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C2 0.048 0.346 0.207 C6 0.174 0.848 C7 23 4.304 0.

5 2.5 3.5 3.5 5 C9 53 C6 4. C9 C2 4. C7.5 3.Matrix Plot of C1.5 C4 2. Matrix plot of factors affecting contractors’ organization when considering developing a SC collaboration .5 2.5 3.5 4. C3.5 3. C4. C5. C2.5 C8 Figure B-1.5 3.5 3 4 C7 5 2.5 4.5 C3 5 4 3 C4 4.5 C6 4.5 2. C8.5 2.5 C2 3 4 C3 5 2. C6.5 2.5 3.5 C5 4.5 2.5 C7 5 4 3 C8 4.5 3.5 C5 4.5 4 3 3 4 C1 5 2.5 3.5 4.5 3.

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 Raw Data (5-point Likert Scale) 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 . C11. C5.Factors Necessary for Contractors when Developing Successful SC Relationship with a Supplier Item Analysis of C1. C4. C3. C7. C2. C9. C8. C6. C10.

370 0.Correlation Matrix C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C2 0.647 C3 23 3.217 0.382 0.826 0.304 0.371 0.681 0.397 0.569 0.612 0.553 0.061 0.118 0.531 0.539 0.683 0.739 0.870 0.733 C7 23 3.153 C6 0.493 0.582 C4 0.508 0.468 0.037 Cronbach's Alpha = 0.656 0.327 0.616 0.714 Cell Contents: Pearson correlation Item and Total Statistics Total Variable Count Mean StDev C1 23 4.630 C11 C12 0.756 C12 0.375 0.395 0.575 0.783 0.739 0.752 C5 23 3.590 C2 23 4.635 C11 23 4.522 6.529 0.507 0.795 C8 23 3.216 0.108 0.736 Total 23 49.615 0.278 C8 0.350 0.282 0.230 0.348 0.650 C4 23 4.422 0.627 0.506 0.711 0.505 C10 0.391 0.352 0.519 0.403 0.903 C11 0.783 C12 23 4.788 0.464 0.703 C10 23 4.373 0.433 0.158 0.630 C9 0.619 C6 23 3.757 C9 23 4.458 0.565 0.647 0.546 0.191 0.304 0.386 0.376 0.368 0.562 C5 0.649 C7 0.913 0.449 0.771 C3 0.408 0.9133 55 .408 0.317 0.261 0.

C9. C10. C3. C7. 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 5 Figure B-2.Matrix Plot of C1. C11. C2. Matrix plot of factors which are necessary for contractors when developing a successful SC relationship with a supplier . C8. C5. C4. C6.

g. C5. 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. C12. C6. C11. C4. C7. C3. C9. C2.Factors Affecting the Development of a Successful Supply Chain Relationship between Contractors and Clients Item Analysis of C1. 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 Raw Data (5-point Likert Scale) 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 . C10. C8.

645 0.424 0.723 0.417 0.862 Cronbach's Alpha = 0.000 7.450 C7 0.371 0.431 0.826 0.778 C4 23 3.642 0.506 0.590 0.587 0.505 0.583 0.646 C4 0.609 0.649 0.662 C9 0.609 0.733 C2 23 4.609 0.338 0.237 C10 0.423 0.615 C9 0.435 0.454 0.609 0.783 C7 23 3.878 C11 23 3.536 0.609 0.552 0.464 C11 0.633 0.629 C12 0.088 0.825 C8 23 3.660 0.843 C6 23 3.103 0.736 0.579 0.751 C7 0.Correlation Matrix C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C2 0.000 0.478 C13 0.781 Cell Contents: Pearson correlation Item and Total Statistics Total Variable Count Mean StDev C1 23 3.604 0.027 -0.9271 58 C8 0.616 0.913 0.210 0.775 Total 23 47.676 0.760 C13 0.347 0.595 0.388 0.420 0.905 C3 23 4.891 C10 23 3.424 0.834 C5 23 3.577 0.816 0.664 0.348 0.043 0.224 -0.031 0.515 0.891 C13 23 3.445 C12 0.411 C3 0.420 0.590 C10 C11 C12 C11 0.492 0.617 C8 0.056 0.009 .365 0.652 0.594 0.587 0.498 0.477 0.775 C9 23 2.535 0.507 0.174 0.826 0.432 0.957 0.649 0.565 C6 0.490 0.834 C12 23 3.571 0.469 C5 0.564 0.482 0.679 0.693 0.

5 4 3 4.5 3. C13 4. C10.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 2.0 C9 4. C6.5 C7 3.5 C10 3 4 C11 5 2.5 3.5 4. C8.5 3.C2 Matrix Plot of C1.5 3.5 3.5 2.5 5 4 C12 3 C13 59 4 C8 4.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 5 C9 C6 C5 C4 C3 5 4.5 2. Matrix plot of factors affecting the development of a successful SC relationship between contractors and client .5 2.5 3.5 C2 3 4 C3 5 2.5 5 4 3 3 4 C1 5 2.5 3.5 2. C2. C3.5 4.5 2.5 2.5 C12 Figure B-3. C11.5 3.5 3.5 1. C5. C9.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 C11 C10 3 4.5 C8 1. C12.5 2.5 3. C7.5 C4 C5 C6 3 4 C7 5 2.5 4.5 3.5 2.5 2. C4.5 4.

Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors Item Analysis of C1. C3. C7. 1 cases contain missing values 60 . 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 Raw Data (5-point Likert Scale) 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. C6. C2. C4. C5.

054 0.349 0.000 C16 23 3.391 C14 23 2.765 0.926 1.240 0.033 0.066 0.555 0.416 0.652 C13 23 3.417 0.772 Cell Contents: Pearson correlation Item and Total Statistics Total Variable Count Mean C9 23 3.285 0.199 0.126 0.641 0.609 C10 23 3.783 C15 23 3.8 61 .505 0.055 0.607 0.381 0.217 StDev 1.027 1.390 0.460 Cronbach's Alpha = 0.631 0.000 0.682 0.268 0.798 5.478 0.087 C12 23 3.221 -0.000 Total 23 26.594 0.297 0.435 0.575 0.696 C11 23 3.275 -0.739 0.083 1.Correlation Matrix C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 0.234 1.

Matrix Plot of C9. C12.5 5 C16 62 C14 1 5 3 1 1 3 C9 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 C10 4.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 C13 5 3 3 1 C15 4. C13. C11.5 C15 4.5 3.5 C12 4. C14. Matrix plot of factors which are barriers to supply chain integration for contractor 5 2. C10. C16 C10 4.5 3.5 3.5 C11 5 3 1 C12 4. C15.5 3.5 .5 1 3 C13 5 1 3 C14 Figure B-4.5 1 3 C11 5 2.

09203 Within Groups 13.67575 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups 2.49283 Lead Time SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 18 3.87609 2 1.95 20 0.2 Group 2 12 39 3.41667 0.96667 MS F P-value F crit 2.5 0.8261 22 63 . Functions affecting the contractors’ efficiency of SC in relation to suppliers Inventory SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 16 3.5 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS df MS F P-value F crit 1.18406 2 1.45455 Group 3 6 17 2.83333 0.5 1.20326 20.6 0.5475 13.9565 22 Transportation SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 18 3.43804 10.75 Group 3 6 15 2.40652 2 1.55 20 1.2174 22 0.44697 Group 3 6 23 3.56667 MS F 1.83333 0.0275 22.3 Group 2 12 42 3.3 Group 2 12 53 4.APPENDIX C ANOVA RESULTS Functions Affecting the Contractors’ Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to Suppliers Table C-1.0333 20 0.2 1.49283 P-value F crit 2.25 0.65167 Total 15.17106 0.6 1.33041 3.62656 0.09708 3.49283 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS df 2.2124 3.

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 4.66667 MS F P-value F crit 0.39178 0.0058 Within Groups 17.492828 64 .4 4.218841 0.8 0.8 0.617652844 3.7 Group 2 12 48 4 0.66667 0.49283 Factors for Developing SC Collaboration Table C-2.Table C-1.4667 20 0.23768 Within Groups 12.333333 6 24 4 0.68093 3.166667 0.15168 0.8 SS 0.60667 Total 12.6087 22 Production Planning SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 19 3.01159 2 1.49283 P-value F crit ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups 0. Continued Purchasing SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 19 3.87333 Total 19.1333 20 0.3362 3.3 0.493625 0.33333 0.47536 2 0.54545 Group 3 6 22 3.4783 22 1.8 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F Between Groups 2.437681 df 2 MS F P-value F crit 0.9697 Group 3 6 24 4 0.7 Group 2 12 40 3.

53333 2 20 Total 15.44697 Column 3 6 22 3.118841 15.05 20 0.066667 MS F P-value F crit 0.076507 0.507238372 3.017391 17.606061 Column 3 6 20 3.454545 Column 3 6 20 3.05942 0. Continued Within Groups Total 9.702341 0.65217 22 Increased profitability SUMMARY Groups Count Column 1 5 21 4.8 0.304348 22 Overall supply chain reduction SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 17 42 3.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups SS 0.333333 1.7 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.82609 22 Within Groups Total df Reducing bureaucracy/paper SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 17 40 3.008696 0.492828 Sum Average Variance ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.4 3.3 0.86 0.926616378 3.333333 1.2 0.4 3.7 Column 2 12 47 3.916667 0.8 0.98994478 3.776667 0.010111 0.5 0.466667 MS F P-value F crit 0.333333 1.666667 0.Table C-2.492828 Sum Average Variance 19 3.666667 MS F P-value F crit 0.776087 2 0.21739 22 Cost reductions within your organization SUMMARY Groups Column 1 Count 5 65 .5525 11.388043 11.2 2 20 Total 17.

7 0.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups 0.07971 0.515152 Column 3 6 24 4 0.192754 2 0. Column 2 12 48 4 0.492828 Sum Average Variance Between Groups Within Groups 0.82609 22 MS F P-value F crit 0.134783 14.82609 22 Benefits to the client SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 21 52 4.715 0.909091 Column 3 6 23 3.63333 20 0.333333 0.067391 0.094254 0.5 0.66667 2 20 Total 11.873086386 3.84 1.492828 66 .781667 Total 15.606061 Column 3 6 22 3.43478 22 Benefits to the supplier SUMMARY Groups Count Column 1 Column 2 5 12 14 40 2.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit 0.096377 Within Groups 15.8 3.2 4.15942 11.8 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.8 2 20 Total 18.884668174 3.833333 0.166667 0.7 0.666667 1.123297 0.566667 MS F P-value F crit 0.606061 Column 3 6 25 4.86957 22 Improved quality assurance SUMMARY Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 Groups Count 5 12 20 50 4 4.034783 0.466667 MS F P-value F crit 1.312949226 3.166667 0.069565 16.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 2.231884 0.136646 0.3 2 20 Total 14.583333 0.Table C-2 Continued.333333 0.910453768 3.

74609 0.3 0.4525 0. 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 4.21667 2 20 26.7 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS df 1.05 2 20 Total 31.666667 0.083696 1.8 4.266667 MS F P-value F crit 0.666667 0.696014 1.7 1.266667 MS F P-value F crit 1.45 df 2 20 67 .101087 0.7 2.492828 Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply Chain Relationship with a Supplier Table C-4.083333 0.202174 7.583333 0.260833 0.5 0.3725 0.416667 0.765093 3.271374 0.392029 25.265152 Group 3 6 22 3.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups SS 0.21739 22 Clients SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Group 1 Group 2 5 12 19 49 3.6087 22 MS F P-value F crit 0.584307 3.Companies value partnership with their suppliers/clients Table C-3.492828 Average Variance ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 2.719697 Group 3 6 27 4. Detailed results for factors which are necessary for contractors when developing a successful supply chain relationship with a supplier Reliable delivery date SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 22 55 4.167391 29.552027 0.4 4.44697 Column 3 6 28 4.2 3.486962 3.

69697 Column 3 6 29 4.386364 Column 3 6 26 4. Continued Total 7.304348 22 Delivery at specified time SUMMARY Groups Count Column 1 Column 2 5 12 19 50 3.Table C-4.260507 0.783333 2 20 Total 9.166667 68 .492828 Sum Average Variance ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 2.652174 22 Accurate order fulfillment SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 21 4.8 4.833333 0.567391 0.43478 22 Flexibility SUMMARY Groups Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 Count 5 12 Sum 20 43 4 3.5 0.833333 0.386364 Column 3 6 28 4.134783 9.383333 2 20 Total 9.4 3.3 2 20 Total 12.2 0.666667 0.04242 3.583333 0.266667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.716483 0.521014 6.75 0.333333 0.9949 P-value F crit 0.166667 MS F P-value F crit 1.387335 3.492828 Level of complaints/ returns SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 17 45 3.7 Column 2 12 51 4.834058 8.339167 3.370734 0.2 0.166667 0.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 3.417029 0.217391 22 MS F 0.054758 3.465 3.3 0.266667 MS F P-value F crit 1.419167 0.25 0.44697 Column 3 6 23 3.

83333 2 20 Total 13.428823 3.198084 3.333333 0.342391 0.825362 10.492828 Sum Average Variance ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 2.82609 22 MS F P-value F crit 0.916667 0.492828 69 .10942 11.585833 0.093389 0.539167 1. Continued ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.492828 Handling of complaints SUMMARY Groups Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 Count 5 12 20 42 4 3.039855 0.8 3.5 0.91304 22 Added value SUMMARY Groups Count Column 1 Column 2 5 12 18 45 3.209329 3.684783 7.75 2 20 Total 8.75 0.6087 22 MS F P-value F crit 0.692763 0.492828 Average Variance Fast order cycle time SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Column 1 Column 2 5 12 19 47 3.454545 Column 3 6 25 4.166667 0.911234 3.386364 Column 3 6 26 4.912681 0.07971 11.78333 2 20 12.71667 2 20 Total 11.810606 Column 3 6 24 4 0 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.05471 0.966667 MS F P-value F crit 1.3875 0.591667 1.757502 0.7 0.434783 22 MS F P-value F crit 0.8 0.Table C-4.5 0.666667 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS df 1.6 3.88359 0.

266667 70 .25 0.3 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.424242 Column 3 6 27 4.741998 3.73965 0.333333 0.492828 Sum Average Variance ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.5 0.5 0.166667 0.44697 Column 3 6 25 4.25 1 0. Continued Quality of materials SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 21 51 4.7 0.55 2 20 Total 13.Table C-4.333333 0.928261 12.302905 0.3 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total MS F P-value F crit 0.47826 22 Simplifying the whole construction process SUMMARY Groups Count Column 1 Column 2 5 12 20 51 4 4.159783 0.869565 22 MS F P-value F crit 0.860692 0.2 4.5275 10.568182 Column 3 6 26 4.2 4.492828 10.43795 3.351449 0.86957 22 Quality of service SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 20 52 4 4.568182 Column 3 6 27 4.966667 MS F P-value F crit 0.5 0.48989 3.166667 2 20 Total 8.6275 0.55 20 0.702899 8.7 0.492828 Average Variance Trust SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Column 1 Column 2 5 12 21 55 4.46413 0.319565 SS df 2 0.408333 0.583333 0.

579167 0.913043 1.5 3.91304 22 MS F P-value F crit 0.755281 3.568182 4.58333 2 20 Total 11.083333 0.4 1.186891 3.424242 Column 3 6 26 4. Detail results for factors affecting the development of a successful SC relationship between contractors and clients Reliability of supply SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 20 44 4 0.164855 0.666667 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups SS MS 1.666667 0.826087 2 10 20 11.25 Variance 0.650485 0.275 1.55 15.333333 0.826087 P-value F crit 0. Continued ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.8 4.666667 71 .492828 P-value F crit 0.7 0.666667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS Between Groups Within Groups 2.492828 Factors Affecting the Development of a Successful Supply Chain Relationship between Contractors and Clients Table C-5.82609 22 Within Groups Total df F 0.333333 0.32971 11.21705 3.7725 Trust SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Column 1 Column 2 5 12 19 51 Column 3 6 26 Average 3.284642 0.628788 Column 3 6 26 4.3 4.333333 0.45 2 20 18 22 Total df MS F 1.492828 0.5 Top management support SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 17 49 3.Table C-4.

38333 2 20 Total 13.528261 12.47826 22 MS F 0.95 2 20 Total 13.Table C-5.30435 22 MS F 0.977545 3.566667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 1.492828 P-value F crit 0.407923 0.833333 0.61667 2 20 Total 15.6475 72 P-value F crit 0.3 0.4 3.780833 Closer links between demand/ supply SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance 1.802174 1.330413 3.4 3.30435 22 MS F 0.166667 0.492828 .65217 22 MS F 0.515152 Column 1 Column 2 5 12 17 46 3.583333 Column 3 6 23 3.566667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0. Continued ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.460507 0.604348 13.035507 15.670439 3.022737 0.833333 Column 3 6 25 4.743753 0.492828 Mutual interest SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance 1.488022 3.171057 0.619167 P-value F crit 0.5 1.26413 0.685 Manpower development SUMMARY Groups Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 Count 5 12 Sum 17 41 3.44697 Column 3 6 21 3.4 3.7 2 20 Total 15.1 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.416667 1.492828 P-value F crit 0.017754 0.3 0.921014 12.3 0.44697 Column 1 Column 2 5 12 17 43 3.

75 Variance 0.094222 P-value F crit 0.366667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 2.492828 P-value F crit 0.5 0.416667 0.066667 73 .568182 3.928261 16.070677 0.579426 3.589855 2 Within Groups 12.833333 1.36667 20 Total 14.366667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.492828 P-value F crit 0.55 2 20 Total 17.8 0.7 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS Between Groups 2.5475 More frequent meetings SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 14 29 2.3 3.95652 22 F 1.149355 3. EDI) SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 17 37 3.515152 4.2 2.21739 22 MS F 1.810606 Column 3 6 17 2.8275 Joint business planning SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Column 1 Column 2 5 12 15 33 Column 3 6 22 Average 3 2.294928 2.47826 22 MS F 0.133696 2.666667 1.4 0.083333 0.46413 0.618333 Integrated information systems (e.492828 0.833333 0.Table C-5.152294 3.267391 10.95 2 20 Total 13.560883 0.8 3. Continued Free flow of information SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Column 1 Column 2 5 12 18 46 Column 3 6 27 Average Variance 3.833333 1.265152 Column 3 6 23 3.6 0.g.5 0.

108817 3.21739 df 2 20 22 MS F 0.Table C-5.666667 0.177174 0.7 13.7475 Creating standardization of processes SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 16 44 3.95 2 20 Total 15.679167 P-value F crit 0.4 0.833333 0.628788 Column 3 6 23 3.30435 22 MS F 0.58913 0.492828 P-value F crit 0.8 3.833333 0.178261 16.407395 0.373188 13.95652 22 MS F 1.492828 P-value F crit 0.354348 14.517391 12.492828 Simplifying the whole construction process SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 18 47 3.722859 0.2 1.237022 0.3 17.833333 0.497615 3.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS Between Groups Within Groups Total Simplifying the bidding process SUMMARY Groups df 1.686594 2.424242 3.2 3.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS 0.47826 Count Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 5 12 6 MS F 2 20 22 0.492828 P-value F crit 0.8 3.606061 Column 3 6 23 3.258696 0.815 Sum Average 17 44 23 Variance 3.483329 0.6 0. Continued ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 3.670779 3.666667 0.916667 0.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.791159 3.635 74 .58333 2 20 Total 16.

052174 0. 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 3.666667 MS F P-value F crit 1.665 1.272727 Group 3 6 27 4.21739 22 MS F P-value F crit 0.7 0.3 0.66 1.30435 22 75 .8 4.441648 0.Factors which are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its Clients/Suppliers Table C-6.7 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 1.3 2 20 Total 15.333333 0.333333 0.5 1.6087 22 Being consulted by suppliers in deciding the production schedule SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 Group 2 5 12 18 52 3.22782 3.179348 0.6 4.358696 18.594203 0.260084 3.296568 3.666667 MS F P-value F crit 1.810606 Group 3 6 26 4.292436 0.583333 1.25 2 20 20.9125 1.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 2.104348 13.958696 0.424242 Group 3 6 26 4.5 0.2 2 20 Total 15.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS df 2.917391 13.333333 1.5 0.492828 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.

75 0.484783 SS df 2 0.834281 3.217391 22 MS F P-value F crit 0.6 3.075725 0.583333 0.386364 Group 3 6 23 3.33775 3.416667 0.492828 76 .166667 0.400362 0.308526 3.8 0.6 3.95 20 0.166667 MS F P-value F crit 0.5 0.14655 0.414167 0. 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 3.434783 22 Clients SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Group 1 Group 2 5 12 20 53 4 4.800725 6.628788 Group 3 6 25 4.247883 0.3 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.492828 12.416667 2 20 Total 7.742391 1.566667 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total MS F P-value F crit 1.5 0.265152 Group 3 6 27 4.Table C-6.833333 0.492828 Average Variance ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 0.320833 1.283333 2 20 Total 8.6475 14. Continued 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 3.182836 0.8 0.151449 8.43478 22 Relationship between contractor and the majority of their suppliers/clients Table C-7.

7 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit 0.493116 0.25 0.927822 3.166667 3.7 0.2 0.8 3.166667 0.366667 MS F P-value F crit 0.046486 3.492828 Sum Average Variance Between Groups Within Groups 0.63333 20 1.075196 0.2 3 0.82609 22 77 .894004 3.591524 0.130797 1.192754 2 0.986232 13.545455 Column 3 6 19 3.47826 22 Bidding process SUMMARY Groups Count Column 1 Column 2 5 12 21 39 4.5 2.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups 0.75 Column 3 6 25 4.492828 Sum Average Variance ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 4.628788 Column 3 6 21 3.261594 23.86957 22 Retention SUMMARY Groups Count Column 1 Column 2 5 12 16 36 3.583333 0.88333 2 20 Total 18.7 0. Detailed results for factors which are barriers to supply chain integration for contractors Late and incorrect payments SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 19 43 3.966667 MS F P-value F crit 2.2 3.160833 0.Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors Table C-8.112675 0.21667 2 20 Total 23.096377 Within Groups 25.281667 Total 25.694167 3.

594167 0.766667 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total MS F P-value F crit 2.Table C-8.261112 3.7 0.2 3.833333 1.37971 26.366667 MS F P-value F crit 0.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 1.7 0.666667 MS F P-value F crit 0. Continued Unrealistic program times SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 21 40 4.519991 0.2 3.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df Between Groups Within Groups 1.326667 0.333333 0.594928 31.015 23.458696 1.3 20 1.53333 2 20 Total 27.477273 Column 3 6 23 3.787879 Column 3 6 23 3.917391 SS df 2 1.21739 22 Traditional contracts do not engender good working relationships SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 16 39 3.797464 1.8 3.25 2.666667 2.91304 22 Companies do not understand other business within supply chain SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 14 37 2.265152 Column 3 6 18 3 1.492828 20.437139 0.2 1.2 78 .613774 3.88333 2 20 Total 33.689855 1.500239 0.083333 0.909091 Column 3 6 16 2.602346 3.4 3 0.47826 22 Estimators are too demanding on small organizations SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 Column 2 5 12 12 36 2.833333 1.8 0.

166667 0.241821 0.458582 3.966667 MS F P-value F crit 0.95 20 0.Table C-8.283333 11.78746 3.810811 0.71667 2 20 12 22 Total MS F P-value F crit 0.44697 Column 3 6 19 3.525 12.6475 14 22 79 .6 0.05 2 0.492828 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total SS df 1. Continued ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups SS df 0.083333 0.8 Column 2 12 37 3.492828 Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 13 2.141667 0.585833 0.

A.. T.L. M. “Emerging Logistics Strategies. D. and Wadsley.” Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management.” European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. 207-215. (2007). “Supply Strategy and Network Effects-Purchasing Behavior in the Construction Industry. and operation. Prentice Hall. G..” European Journal of Operational Research. 27-34.. 6(3-4). W.. (2004). A. “Electronic Commerce to Support Construction Design and Supply-Chain Management: A Research Note. “A Survey of Supply Chain Collaboration and Management in the UK Construction Industry. Maloni. London. (1997). and Benton. A. Chinowsky. and Realph. McIntosh. “Supply Chain Management in the Electronics Products Industry. “Supply Chain Partnerships: Opportunities for Operations Research. and Fitzgerald..” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. B.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 50(12). 159-168. L. (2000).. Harvard Business Review. Elliman. 80 . R. 20-32. 105-116.R.. “Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect. S. M. planning. J. (2000). 3rd ed. M. G. Dainty. “New Perspectives on Construction Supply Chain Integration.. Cox. 35-47. E. Supply Chain Management: strategy. 82(10). Fisher. V. P.H. J. 102-157. and Briscoe. and Gadde. 345-360. NJ. 6(4). and Whang. (1997).J. Towill. N. 163-173.. (1994). Thomas Telford. (2000). (1994). La Londe. 6(3-4). Chopra. Lee. A... K.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.LIST OF REFERENCES Akintoye.” Management Science. J. and Orange.” Journal of Management in Engineering.J. and Townsend. (2004). 1875-1886. 2001. Molenaar. Dubois. Padmanabhan. 101(3).. P. 23(1). 24(7). D. S.C. Millett. Lee. Strategic Procurement in Construction. The Triple-A Supply Chain. 75(2). S. “What is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product?” Harvard Business Review.. H. 30(3/4). A. 24(10). and Meindl. G.. 419-429.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. M. Berry. (1998). “Learning Organizations in Construction. H. (2007). and Masters.

577-589. B. D. 11th Annual Conf. L.. Scheuren.. IGLC-11. G. 109113. Rernaldo. Jones. S. J. W. and Zacharia. Z. Brazil.” Proceedings. and Santos. 2008) Sheehan..” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. D. 94(1). and James. Min. O’Brien. Group for Lean Construction.” Journal of Extension [On-line]. DeWitt.. N.” European Journal of Operational Research.” Journal of Business Logistics. Collective-.html Saada. (2006).joe.. and Privately-Owned Enterprises.” European Management Journal.. K.” Achieving Supply Chain Excellence Through Technology (ASCET). “Construction Supply Chain Modeling: A Research Review and Interdisciplinary Research Agenda. M. “Understanding Construction Supply Chains: A Multiple Theoretical Approach to Inter-Organizational Relationships. Robb. 8(3) 289-308.org/joe/1999April/ tt3. F.whatisasurvey. Gramado. (2000).info > (Oct. “A Review of the Progress Towards the Adoption of Supply Chain Management (SCM) Relationships in Construction. E.. “Enabling Supply Chain Automation Through Information Synchronization. L. J. M. P.. and Myhr. 173-183. Thomas. W. R. S. W.C. (1996). B. W.. 17(4-5). “Coordinated Supply Chain Management. “An Empirical Investigation into Supply Chain Management: A Perspective on Partnerships. M. G. Available at: http://www. IGLC-10..” Journal of ComputerMediated Communication.. (2002). A. Mentzer. (2000)..” European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management. Int’l. D.. Phua. Int’l. and Rowlinson.M. (2003). J. (1998). (2002). R. 81 . Singapore. and Sridharan. Kamauff Jr. Pyke. Pellew. T. 7(1). A.Martella. and Howell. “Defining Supply Chain Management.. J. “The Knowledge of Coordination for Supply Chain. Simatupang. (1999). N. 37(2). “Manufacturing and Supply Chain Management in China: A Survey of State-. 1-15. K. J. T. 22(2). F. R. “Cronbach's Alpha: A Tool for Assessing the Reliability of Scales. “What is a Survey?” < http://www. 10th Annual Conf. Matthews. S. J. Vrijhoef. Wright. 6(2). (2001). 1-25. J. 0-0. Spekman. Nix. C. “Quality Relationships: Partnering in the Construction Supply Chain.. London. 18(6). 2002.. Group for Lean Construction. J. Keebler. (2000). 493-510. D. 23. Smith.” Proceedings. and Vrijhoef. (2008). 630-650. 8(3).. R.” Integration Business Process Management Journal. 28(8).” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.. “E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review. Koskela. and Farley. and Griffin. P..

“Trust in Construction Partnering: Views From Parties of the Partnering Dance”. G. (2004). (2007). International Journal of Project Management.. and Howell. Int’l. and Ridder.. 82 . L. 22(6). Sweden. Group for Lean Construction. S. 617. 9th Annual Conf. 437-446. Development Processes In Construction Management. (2001). “A Systems Approach for Developing a Model of Construction Supply Chain Integration. H. IGLC-9. R. 4th Nordic Conference On Construction Economics And Organization. R. USA.. S.” Proceedings. “Understanding Construction Supply Chains: An Alternative Interpretation. Koskela. Vrijhoef. P.Vrijhoef. Wong.” Proceedings. Blacksburg. and Cheung.

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. 83 . Zohar Herbsman for fall 2008 and spring 2009. Then. She received her MSc from the University of Florida in the spring of 2009. Ralph Ellis from fall 2007 to fall 2008.BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Aslıhan Karataş was born in Gaziantep. Ralph Ellis. she worked as a graduate teaching assistant of Dr. She worked as a graduate research assistant of Dr. In August 2007. Turkey. She obtained her Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering from Bogazici University in the spring of 2007.