Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: 0953-7287 (Print) 1366-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Understanding Construction Supply Chain

Management

Panchanan Behera, R.P. Mohanty & Anand Prakash

To cite this article: Panchanan Behera, R.P. Mohanty & Anand Prakash (2015) Understanding
Construction Supply Chain Management, Production Planning & Control, 26:16, 1332-1350, DOI:
10.1080/09537287.2015.1045953

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1045953

Published online: 22 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5078

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 53 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
Production Planning & Control, 2015
Vol. 26, No. 16, 1332–1350, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1045953

Understanding Construction Supply Chain Management

Panchanan Beheraa, R.P. Mohantya and Anand Prakashb*
a
Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan University, Bhubaneswar 751030, Orissa, India; bBalaji Institute of Telecom & Management, Pune 411019,
India
(Received 15 June 2014; accepted 20 April 2015)

The purpose of this study was to understand some of the many perplexing questions eluding managers of overwhelmingly
complex construction supply chain management (CSCM) based on review of some important research issues pertaining to
construction supply chains. This study has illustrated understanding on CSCM using qualitative approach of triangulation
applying foundational research methodology and soft system methodology in a coal-based thermal power plant project to
validate its complex CSCM systems. The study highlights that a typical CSCM eco-system for the coal-based thermal
power plant construction as unit can be considered to operate as a system with sub-systems as concept phase, procurement
phase, production phase, installation phase and winding up phase. This study suffers from methodological limitations
associated with qualitative research. Finally, this study provides practical insights for research opportunities in the area of
interdisciplinary construction projects.
Keywords: construction industry; construction supply chain management; project management; soft systems
methodology

1. Introduction aim to describe what currently exists (Ali et al. 2010;

Companies have managed supply chains for decades, but
never in history did they have the kind of competitive
pressure that they face now. Research into integration
and coordination of different functional units in an
organisation started much earlier than the creation of
phrase ‘Supply Chain Management (SCM)’ in 1982
(Oliver and Webber 1982). The supply chain in their
view lifts the mission of logistics to become a top man-
agement concern, since only top management can assure
that conflicting functional objectives along the supply
chain are reconciled and balanced. The literature on
SCM indicates that the research tends to fall within four
main streams, namely, distribution, production, strategic
procurement and industrial organisational economics
(London and Kenley 2001).
Past supply chain research, both in process-based
production management and in project-based construc-
tion management, has relied upon describing specific
supply chains for exclusive products. The literature on
construction supply chain management (CSCM) is seen
to be lacking in the industrial organisational economics
field (Aloini et al. 2012). The research relating to CSCM
has to date focussed upon management and development
of normative ideal types for supply chain management,
which use a deductive epistemology (London 2004).
Little attention has been paid to supply chain economics
and developing positive models, which are inductive and
Bassioni, Price, and Hassan 2004).
This study intends to illustrate currently existing
complex supply chains and participating firms in the
construction industry for the purpose of understanding
CSCM following conductive line through social actions
using foundational research followed by soft system
methodology. The discussion of foundational research
questions is about exploring, explaining and describing
logical answers in the light of latest information on
CSCM with intention to put a solid footing for
emancipation that they can be more clearly articulated
and studied when applied with soft system methodology
(Prakash and Mohanty 2014).
2. Review of literature
An accurate performance analysis of the supply chain
serves several purposes and is more a continuous task
than a one-time effort for both process-based and pro-
ject-based industries.
2.1. Supply chain performance of process-based
industry
In most concepts involving supply chain performance of
process-based industry, there are fundamentally two
interwoven tasks, namely, process modelling and
performance measurement.

*Corresponding author. Email: aprakash@nicmar.ac.in

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 Production Planning & Control
2.1.1. Process modelling
When analysing supply chains of process-based industry,
the process modelling is an important first cornerstone,
which is usually done using the Supply Chain Operations
Reference (SCOR®) model maintained by the Supply
Chain Council, which is a consortium of 69 organisations
founded in 1996, whose membership is open to all
organisations interested in applying and advancing the
state-of-the-art in supply chain management systems and
practices. As a reference model, the SCOR model is a
tool for representing, analysing and configuring supply
chains with standardised terminology for the purpose of
benchmarking of processes and the extraction of best
practices from certain processes, but it does not provide
methodology for optimisation (Huan, Sheoran, and Wang
2004; Thunberg and Persson 2013). Extending from sup-
plier’s supplier to customer’s customer, SCOR is based
on five management processes, namely, plan, source,
make, deliver and return. Each of these processes is
implemented through four levels of planning, namely,
scope and content of the model, operations strategies,
management practices and aspects relating to people for
implementation of specific supply chain management.
Although the SCOR model includes all customer interac-
tions, physical material and service transactions, and mar-
ket interactions; it however does not address functional
silos (Thunberg and Persson 2013).
The second most popular framework for analysing
supply chains of process-based industry is developed by
the Global Supply Chain Forum (GSCF), which identi-
fies eight core supply chain processes, namely, customer
relationship management, customer service management,
demand management, order fulfilment, manufacturing
flow management, supplier relationship management
(procurement), product development and commercialisa-
tion, and returns management (returns). Each process
runs cross-functionally, cutting through functional silos
within each organisation (Croxton et al. 2001). Although
the importance of each of these processes may vary
between different supply chains, these eight processes
make up an integral part of the business to be analysed.
As the GSCF framework has defined functional silos, for
example, as marketing, research and development,
finance, production, purchasing, and logistics with pro-
cesses intersecting them, the result can be an efficient
and effective supply chain given existence of proper inte-
gration, coordination and collaboration. Each process is
furthermore broken down into a series of strategic sub-
processes, thus providing the blueprint for implementa-
tion of the framework.
The GSCF framework is broad in scope, but the
SCOR framework may be easier to implement as it only
involves the business functions of sourcing, manufactur-
ing and logistics. On a positive note, a common thread
1333
among SCOR and GSCF frameworks is the importance
of cross-functional processes, to be process orientated,
and to apply process modelling for promoting cross-
organisational collaboration.
2.1.2. Performance measurement
Having modelled supply chain processes for analysing
supply chains of process-based industry, assigning appro-
priate measures to these processes is always important
for the purpose of informing, steering and controlling.
Historically, measures and systems of measures have
been based on financial data, as financial data have been
widely available for long. Nevertheless, some additional
and more appropriate measures of supply chain perfor-
mance should be derived, since the focal points of cus-
tomer-oriented SCM are integration, coordination and
collaboration of organisational units.
The transition to incorporate non-financial measures
in the evaluation of business performance is widely
accepted, though. Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1993) intro-
duced the concept of a balanced scorecard (BSC) that
received broad attention not only in scientific literature
but also in practical applications. In addition to financial
measures, the BSC comprises a customer perspective, an
innovation and learning perspective as well as an internal
business perspective. The measures chosen depend on
the individual situation faced by the company. An
increasing number of contributions in the literature is
dealing with the adaption of BSCs to fit the needs of
SCM (see, for example, Brewer and Speh 2000;
Bullinger, Kuhner, and van Hoof 2002). Such adaption
is proposed within the original framework of BSC, and
structural changes are also proposed (Weber, Bacher, and
Groll 2002). Fundamentally, every context-based supply
chain performance measure of process-based industry
requires attending to issues of definition, perspectives,
consistency, completeness and confidentiality.
2.2. Supply chain performance of project-based
industry
Most companies have standard templates for project
management, but very few companies have supply chain
specific templates for project-based industry. Notably,
supply chains of project-based industry have inherent
uncertainty associated with the timing and specifications
of the project, rather than the procurement quantity as is
the case in process-based supply chains with recurring
demands. Often units of a project-based industry face
challenge of real time supply chain visibility resulting in
delays in project implementation and revenue recognition
because of rapid growth in today’s technology friendly
economy. Order/service fulfilment organisations tend to
1334 P. Behera et al.
hold high inventory which increases working capital
requirements. And, in many organisations, the traditional
approach of managing services and supply chain opera-
tions separately results in lack of coordination in execut-
ing project orders, with resulting delays and in potential
dissatisfied customers.
From the point of view of knowledge areas in project
management, every project may be assumed to be simi-
lar, yet they all are different. Understanding what differ-
entiates projects that address different types of projects is
very important for studying supply chain performance of
project-based industry.
2.3. Supply chain performance of project-based
construction industry
The SCM in construction is more than a management fad
and provides the opportunity for substantial improve-
ments in client and stakeholder value and/or reductions in
overall costs. In contrast to process-based manufacturing,
construction is by nature is dominated by project-based
one-off approaches and ‘pull’. Often every construction
project is different and delivered to a different client com-
prising of many fragmented self-protected entrepreneurs
with paranoid attitudes. The typical supply chain for any
given construction project could include architects and
engineers, main contractors, speciality subcontractors and
material suppliers that come together one time to build a
project for a specific owner. Except for the architect, sup-
port engineer, or other construction professional whose
fees are negotiated, the ‘low bid wins’ is the pricing
model that repeats itself in each link of the supply chain.
This complex supply chain is characterised by adver-
sarial short-term relationships driven by the competitive
bidding process, very little information sharing and little
motivation for continuous learning. However, the days of
slow learning construction firms are coming to an end.
More and more firms in the construction industry are
adopting the lessons learned from the manufacturing sec-
tor. Progressive firms are now implementing six sigma
and lean management initiatives to drive efficiencies for
their project operations. This transition has generated the
CSCM revolution.
SCM in construction is debatably a more recent
innovation than partnering. The Egan report (DETR
1998) was quite specific in its reference to SCM. The
report recommends the adoption of the important features
of SCM, namely, acquisition of new suppliers through
value-based sourcing; organisation and management of
the supply chain to maximise innovation, learning and
efficiency; supplier development and measurement of
suppliers’ performance; management of workload to
match capacity and incentivisation of suppliers to
improve performance; and capture of suppliers’ innova-
tions in components and systems.
CSCM refers to the management of information,
flow and money in the development of a construction
project (Simchi-Levi, Kaminsky, and Simchi-Levi 2000).
Hatmoko and Scott (2010) defined CSCM as ‘a system
where suppliers, contractors, clients and their agents
work together in coordination to install and utilise
information in order to produce, deliver materials, plant,
temporary works, equipment and labour and/or other
resources for construction projects’. The concept of the
CSCM implicitly provides the opportunity for substantial
improvements in client and stakeholder value through a
strategic look at profitability.
O’Brien (1999) noted that the existing manufacturing
research in SCM for process-based industry, while use-
ful, does not readily translate to a construction environ-
ment; given the transient nature of production in
construction projects, and concluded that relatively little
is known about CSCM; therefore, this study intends to
exclusively review some popular studies in the area of
CSCM published since last 15 years. In order to derive
the arguments for establishing the gap in literature, this
study attempts to review these popular studies in CSCM
in the light of changed business scenario and analyse
them for suitability/need for modification in the current
context, namely, (CSC 01) Vrijhoef and Koskela 2000;
(CSC 02) Dainty, Millett, and Briscoe 2001; (CSC 03)
London and Kenley 2001; (CSC 04) Cox and Ireland
2002; (CSC 05) Barlow et al. 2003; (CSC 06)
Palaneeswaran, Kumaraswamy, and Ng 2003; (CSC 07)
Bassioni, Price, and Hassan 2004; (CSC 08) Green,
Fernie, and Weller 2005; (CSC 09) Karim, Marosszeky,
and Davis 2006; (CSC 10) Xue et al. 2007; (CSC 11)
Harty et al. 2007; (CSC 12) El-Sayegh 2008; (CSC 13)
Albaloushi and Skitmore 2008; (CSC 14) Arif et al.
2009; (CSC 15) Delgado-Hernandez and Aspinwall
2010; (CSC 16) Meng, Sun, and Jones 2011; (CSC 17)
Mokhlesian and Holmén 2012; (CSC 18) Doloi,
Sawhney, and Iyer 2012; (CSC 19) Larsen and Whyte
2013; and (CSC 20) Banawi and Bilec 2014. Note that
CSC stands for studies in ‘Construction Supply Chain’,
which has been chronologically, serialised having num-
bered from 01 to 20. In order to make suitable compara-
tive evaluations, following research issues pertaining to
CSC are considered important as depicted in Table 1:
A. Definition of CSCM
B. Reviewing prior literature
C. Phases in a construction project
D. Major problems in a construction project for
CSCM
E. Complexities involved in a construction project
for CSCM
F. Linkages of a construction project for CSCM
G. Characteristics of CSC
H. Business models of a CSC
Table 1. Evaluation of studies in CSC.

Time
line year 2000 2001 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2014

Issue # CSC01 CSC CSC03 CSC04 CSC05 CSC06 CSC07 CSC08 CSC09 CSC10 CSC11 CSC12 CSC13 CSC14 CSC15 CSC16 CSC17 CSC18 CSC19 CSC20
02
A ✔ ✔
B ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
C ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
D ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
E ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
F ✔ ✔ ✔
G ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
H ✔ ✔ ✔
I
Production Planning & Control

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
J

Note: The markings ‘✔’ denote that the issues (in rows) are present in particular study on CSC (in columns).
1335
1336 P. Behera et al.
I. Successful practices of CSC in real life
J. Application of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
for management of CSCM.
Although many studies have attempted to review
prior literature in respect of major problems and com-
plexities involved in a construction project for CSCM,
the knowledge about CSCM is still to be considered
embryonic, and therefore, many inadequately answered
questions arise in ignorance and perplexity for fully
understanding CSCM (see, Table 1). Interestingly, no
study has applied SSM for management of CSCM,
which is a method to handle ever-changing flux of inter-
acting events in construction like businesses. Hence, we
seek answers to the following critical questions that
elude managers of CSCM for representing, analysing
and configuring supply chains:
• What are the important phases in a construction
project?
• What are the major problems in a construction pro-
ject?
• What are the complexities involved in a construc-
tion project?
• What are the linkages of a construction project?
• What is the characteristics of ‘CSC’?
• What are different business models of a CSC?
• What are the successful practices of CSC in real
life?
• How can CSCM be defined and improved innova-
tively with ever-changing flux of interacting events
in construction business?
Posing such critical questions in systematic search of
grounded knowledge can become highly imperative for
the pursuit of right knowing and acting (Dillon 2004).
There appears a substantial body of literature available
on use of questions in various fields of practice for
building credible standards where de facto standards are
not available (see, for example, Lakhe and Mohanty
1994; Prakash and Mohanty 2013, 2014).
3. Research methodology
The preceding questions are some of the many raised by
managers of CSC. Our objective in this study was to
find out some logical answers to these questions. This
study applies qualitative research using a naturalistic and
systematic approach following exploration, explanation,
description and emancipation (Prakash and Mohanty
2014). Notably, exploration, explanation and description
are aspects of foundational research methodology,
whereas emancipation concerns the application of soft
system methodology for developing a rich picture of
supply chain management in the construction of a coal-
based thermal power plant project. Qualitative research,
broadly defined, means ‘any kind of research that pro-
duces findings not arrived at by means of statistical
procedures or other means of quantification’ (Strauss and
Corbin 1990) and instead, the kind of research that pro-
duces findings arrived from real-world settings where the
‘phenomenon of interest unfold naturally’ (Patton 2002).
The phenomenon of interest happens to be CSCM. The
purpose of qualitative exploration is to make investiga-
tion on identifying important phases of supply chain in a
construction project. The purpose of qualitative explana-
tion is to explain major problems and complexities
related to supply chain of construction projects. The pur-
pose of qualitative description is to describe the ‘phe-
nomenon of interest’, which is about CSCM, which
requires describing linkages, characteristics, models and
successful practices. The purpose of qualitative
emancipation is about creating opportunities engaged in
social actions pertaining to CSCM as applied to the con-
struction of a coal-based thermal power plant project.
Patton (2002) states that reliability and validity are
two factors which any qualitative researcher should be
concerned about while designing a study, analysing
results and judging the quality of the study. To ensure
reliability in qualitative research, examination of trust-
worthiness is crucial (Patton 2002; Prakash and Mohanty
2014). Moreover, there can be no validity without
reliability, a demonstration of the former [validity] is
sufficient to establish the latter [reliability] (Soni and
Kodali 2012).
Triangulation has risen an important methodology in
naturalistic and qualitative approaches to evaluation [in
order to] control bias and establishing valid propositions
(Golafshani 2003). Bechara and Van de Ven (2011) have
advocated the use of triangulation by stating ‘triangula-
tion strengthens a study by combining methods’. Trian-
gulation has been used in this qualitative study as a
validity procedure for convergence among multiple and
different sources of information to form a theme on
understanding CSCM using foundational research and
soft system methodology as applied to the construction
of a coal-based thermal power plant.
4. Results and discussions
This section presents answers to questions eluding CSC
managers with sufficient supporting evidences based on
logic and reasoning.
4.1. What are the important phases in a construction
project?
A common representation of the construction process, as
shown in Figure 1, starts with an initiative by the client
to demand a constructed asset. After establishing a con-
struction project organisation to provide the necessary
 Production Planning & Control
competence and expertise to finalise the design and spec-
ification, the client undertakes a tendering process to
select a manufacturer as the main contractor to be
incharge of the project, where the project does consist of
the procurement of a known quantity of materials
according to a specified delivery schedule and techno-
logical specifications. In addition, the production phase
activities are not openly related to the suppliers but have
close relationships with the main contractor. In most
cases, the main contractor takes care of deployment of
direct suppliers, subcontractors and indirect suppliers.
However, for very large-scale construction, the client
exclusively makes decision on procurement of materials
and equipment.
When contracts are formalised, and a sufficient
amount of information is available, the physical execu-
tion for the production of the construction project can
start. This includes engineering, procurement, fabrication
and assembly of elements and leads to final construction
for installation by on-site organising and operation. After
the successful completion of the project, the asset is
handed-over for use by the end user who undertakes
maintenance from time to time.
4.2. What are the major problems in a construction
project?
In construction, we observe clients, consultants, contrac-
tors and suppliers in the broadest sense positioned as
nodes connected by interfaces comprising knowledge
transfer, information exchange, financial and contractual
relationships. These networks are transitory, and the flows
Figure 1. Phases in a typical construction project.
1337
are continually linking and disconnecting depending on
the project function to be performed. Each interface
involves flows that produce a response and generate a
succession of multi-directional flows until a particular
function is satisfied and specific issues are resolved. A
major part of problems of a construction project originates
at the interfaces of different parties or functions, as
represented in Figure 1:
• End user/client interface: difficulties in finding out
end user’s wishes, changes of end user’s wishes,
long procedures to discuss changes in feasibility,
financing and tendering.
• Client/design interface: difficulties in finding out cli-
ent’s wishes, changes of client’s wishes, long proce-
dures to discuss changes in concept and full design.
• Design/procurement interface: incorrect documents,
design changes, extended waiting for architect’s
approval.
• Main contractor/subcontractors interface: inaccu-
rate data, information needs not met, adversarial
bargaining and other changes.
• Main contractor/indirect suppliers interface:
deliveries not in conformance with planning, wrong
and defective deliveries, long storage period,
awkward packing and large shipments.
• Production/organising interface: inaccurate data,
subcontracted work not delivered according to main
design, contract and planning.
• Organising/handing-over interface: inaccurate data,
information needs not met, unresolved quality prob-
lems, delayed occupation due to late completion,
adversarial bargaining and other changes.
1338 P. Behera et al.
With the proliferation of clients using a separate
project management company to manage construction
projects, a number of such problems arise. These funda-
mental problems faced are mostly relationship based.
4.3. What are the complexities involved in a
construction project?
Construction projects presently are far more complicated
than ever before. They operate on stretched schedules,
involve large capital investments, embrace multiple disci-
plines, engage widely dispersed project participants and
require stringent quality standards. Time is one of the
most critical factors in construction operations and has
significant legal consequences followed by delays, which
are specifically addressed in contract documents in antic-
ipation of liquidated and other damages.
Pricing in construction can be lump sum, cost plus,
negotiated or unit price. All pricing in construction
depends on the time that the contractor determines it will
take to complete a job. The labour-intensive construction
operation is characterised by decentralisation. A main
contractor may self-perform a portion of the work as
other specialty subcontractors move in and out of the
project as their sections of work are ready. Over time,
the jobsite is transformed from a temporary production
facility with materials and heavy equipment to the actual
completed project.
There is little coordination and collaboration
between the design professionals, main contractors, sub-
contractors and suppliers involved during the life cycle
of the project. Information generated by various
sources, at many levels of abstraction and detail, con-
tributes to the fragmentation, which eventually results
in lack of communication and implementation and leads
to significant negative performance impacts – low pro-
ductivity, cost and time overruns, change orders, inade-
quate design specifications, liability claims, and,
generally, conflicts and disputes – which directly impact
the customer by increasing project completion time and
cost.
The key generic supply chains required for a typical
solution of a construction project are rather simple and
linear, but the reality is quite different. The ultimate
level of complexity involved with the management of a
construction project is to be determined by the exten-
sive requirements of the end customer as defined in the
design and specification (see Figure 1). It is difficult to
quantify the exact number of constituent material,
equipment and labour supply chains that have to be
integrated into a ‘typical’ construction project due to its
unique project-specific requirements. With limited
pre-fabrication, construction is largely a site operation,
confined to the specific location where the final assem-
bly takes place.
4.4. What are the linkages of a construction project?
There is a need to develop a conceptual model of
linkages for CSC composed of firms and industrial rela-
tionships brought about by construction projects depend-
ing on the industrial organisational economics theory.
This model is a synthesis of industrial organisation and
supply chain literature and involves describing CSCs.
Hines (1996) developed typology model to locate the
research that concerns the supply chain, inspired by him,
London (2004) proposed five types of linkages, namely,
project–firm: one-to-one linkage, project–firm: one-to-
many linkage, linkages between isolated multiple pro-
jects and multiple firms, a network of many firm–project
linkages, and a network of many firm–project and firm–
firm linkages. We have extended the conceptual model
of linkages for CSC by including two more linkages,
namely, a network of many firm–project, project–project
and firm–firm linkages; and a network of firm–many
project and firm–firm linkages (Figure 2).
Following linkages of a construction project can be
visualised in order to conceptually model CSCM that
defines entities such as firms, projects, firm–firm relation-
ships and their relative associations:
(a) Project–firm: one-to-one linkage: At the most
basic level, a project represents a market opportu-
nity for a firm to supply its commodity for a
return. There is an association between a project
and the firm; a firm mobilises its resources and
works on a project.
(b) Project–firm: one-to-many linkage: Construction
projects are much more complex. On any indi-
vidual project, there are numerous firms that
work simultaneously and each firm has an
interaction with the project.
(c) Linkages between isolated multiple projects and
multiple firms: This simple abstraction, although a
useful start, makes the depth and breadth of the
construction industry, as it is a narrow and limited
view on the number of projects that are occurring
concurrently. In reality, there are multiple projects
in various stages taking place simultaneously and,
although there is one project that has many firms
working on it, there are also many other projects in
the industry. Despite these multiple connections,
each firm usually forms one relationship that con-
nects them to the project, which is typically
through the upstream client on each project.
(d) A network of many firm–project linkages: This
indicates the underlying structure of the construc-
tion industry in terms of projects and firms, that is,
the industry is composed of many projects and
numerous firms working on these projects.
However, firms typically supply to more than one
project simultaneously.
 Production Planning & Control 1339

Figure 2. Linkages of a construction project.

(e) A network of many firm–project and firm–firm
linkages: The construction industrial organisa-
tional structure has to contend with both firm–firm
networks and firm–project networks.
(f) A network of many firm–project, project–project
and firm–firm linkages: The construction industrial
organisational structure has to contend with pro-
ject–project networks, firm–firm networks and
firm–project networks.
(g) A network of firm–many project and firm–firm
linkages: The construction industrial organisa-
tional structure has to contend with both project–
project networks and firm–project networks.
These linkages based on industrial organisation eco-
nomics model focussing upon oligopoly deals with the
performance of project-based construction business for
recognising how firms are organised, owned and
managed.
4.5. What is the characteristics of CSC?
Construction projects often require collaboration between
diverse firms in order to achieve a common goal. The CSC
has been seen to be characterised by customer influence
(Vrijhoef and Koskela 2000), fragmentation (Albaloushi
and Skitmore 2008; Dainty, Briscoe, and Millett 2001;
O’Brien 1999), number and type of stakeholders (Xue
et al. 2007), buyer–supplier relationship (Cox and Ireland
2002; Palaneeswaran, Kumaraswamy, and Ng 2003),
temporary multiple organisation (Aloini et al. 2012),
change inertia (Palaneeswaran, Kumaraswamy, and Ng
2003), make-to-order supply chain (Vrijhoef and Koskela
2000), collaborative opportunities (Akintoye, McIntosh,
1340 P. Behera et al.

and Fitzgerald 2000) and cyclical demand (Akintoye, project starts for the size of investment. Risk should be
McIntosh, and Fitzgerald 2000). These characteristics of low if the construction project is well planned.
CSC are explained below:
(a) Customer influence: A customer exercises great 4.6. What are different business models in CSCM?
influence on the final product in relation to its
Understanding of market segments of construction indus-
physical aspects and to the value of logistic
try is important before classifying business models in
parameters.
CSCM. The construction industry can be divided into
(b) Fragmentation: Construction industries are very
three market segments, namely, infrastructure, industrial
complex as many subcontractors and vendors are
and real estate. Some examples of infrastructure
involved and active group of institutions that
segments are roads, ports, airports, irrigation, railway,
operate to meet numerous different and incompati-
power projects and the like. Industrial construction
ble business purposes.
includes both public and private industries in steel,
(c) Number and type of stakeholders: The main
textiles, refineries, petrochemicals and the like. Real
stakeholders are owners, designers, constructors
estate constitutes residential, commercial and retail con-
and suppliers; however, a typical network
struction. Commercial construction includes hotels, office
involves multiple organisations and relationships,
space, hospitals and schools, while retail sector includes
including the flow of information, the flow of
malls and multiplexes. The business models in CSCM
materials, services and products, and the flow of
are based on acquisition strategy for the complex
funds between client, designer, contractor and
construction industry, which are of two types – heavy
supplier.
construction horizontal supply chain models and light
(d) Buyer–supplier relationship: This is mostly of
construction vertical supply chain models.
transactional nature, strained by conflict and mis-
trust. Moreover, it is widely known, especially
among public sector clients, that in construction, 4.6.1. Heavy construction horizontal supply chain
a tender price is the most significant parameter models
used for a bid evaluation. This focus on price is
Construction projects in heavy construction horizontal
the main reason for project delivery problems.
segment are the most complicated and require the highest
(e) Temporary multiple organisation (project-based
levels of technical, financial and managerial expertise.
nature): Production at a temporary site by a
This market sector also requires sophisticated materials
temporary organisation leads to relationships
handling methods. The heavy CSC market segments are
focused on the short-term thinking, with actors
dams, bridges, highways, airports, petroleum refineries,
attempting to leverage what they can out of the
power plants and the like. They have global market
existing contract, resulting in an environment
potential and require high levels of engineering. The key
where opportunism reigns.
supply chain participants in the heavy CSC model are
(f) Change inertia: Construction organisations tend to
the project owner, the design engineer, the main contrac-
be conservative referring to the need to change,
tor, the subcontractors, the suppliers of materials and
because of the risks associated with the procure-
equipment and the banks. Horizontal projects are usually
ment of projects.
publicly funded and characterised by government agen-
(g) Make-to-order supply chain: Clients are often
cies in the role of the project owner. In addition to the
seen as the ultimate source of changes in spec-
project owner’s own in-house technical capabilities, the
ifications in make-to-order production. It is the
supply chain members have substantial engineering
client who takes the initiative to start a construc-
expertise.
tion project, and this leads to the frequent con-
ceptualisation of the CSC as a process explicitly
starting and ending with the end user. 4.6.2. Light construction vertical supply chain models
(h) Collaborative opportunities: In an effort to model
The vertical construction sector includes a wide range of
inter-organisational innovation in construction,
projects from apartment buildings, elementary schools
there is a need for exploration of collaborative
and department stores in the private sector to universities,
opportunities.
hospitals, and local, state and central office buildings in
(i) Cyclical demand: The construction industry is
the public sector. The private projects in this sector are
highly cyclical in output because its product is not
financed by commercial banks. Engineers and architects
transportable but durable.
usually collaborate on the design phase. The bids are
These characteristics make CSC a complex contract packaged and categorised by system, such as mechanical,
business where the scope is laid out in detail before the electrical or structural. The vertical non-government CSC
 Production Planning & Control
market segment include an equipment-intensive operating
environment, significant material costs (concrete, steel,
pipe and rock), mostly privately financed projects, high
levels of expertise and pricing based on competitive bid-
ding. Construction managers are a key supply chain
entity in the vertical model. Because of private ownership
issues, there can be vulnerability to bankruptcy in some
variations of the vertical model.
4.7. What are the practices of CSC in real life?
There are many examples of good practice from con-
struction industry and government, but there is scope for
government and the industry to do more on understand-
ing best practices as lessons learnt from major construc-
tion hubs of the world, namely, United Kingdom (UK),
United States of America (USA), Canada, Australia,
Turkey, United Arab Emirates (UAE), China, Japan,
Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore and India (see Table 2).
The highlighted good practices are to be passed on down
the supply chain to give suppliers long-term visibility.
4.8. How can ‘CSCM’ be defined and improved
innovatively with ever-changing flux of interacting
events in construction business?
The CSCM has been understood as complex, where con-
struction managers live in a world of an ever-changing
flux of interacting events and ideas and that management
is reacting to that flux to achieve organised actions for
dynamically changing industry. Different individuals and
groups in construction make different messy evaluations
of interacting events, which leads to them taking differ-
ent actions. Because of such inbuilt difficulties, concepts
and ideas from systems engineering are to be useful in
management of complex CSC, which complement to
conventional scientific enquiry of reducing complex phe-
nomena into smaller and smaller components in order to
study and understand them to take a holistic view of the
interrelations of component parts – the wider picture
(Checkland 1989; Checkland and Poulter 2006).
SSM was developed by Checkland and colleagues at
the University of Lancaster. It has come to be charac-
terised as hard or soft. There are fundamental differences
between a man-made system such as a thermal power
plant and an organisational system such as a human
activity system. Where mechanical components are
involved, their behaviour can be predicted with reason-
able accuracy – these are hard systems. However, human
behaviour is unpredictable and the organisational and
management problems are complex with many indeter-
minable variables which make up soft systems. There-
fore, the application of SSM becomes necessary in terms
of scrutinising the use of resources for evaluation with
large-scale interventions.
1341
There are seven stages in the SSM process
(Checkland 1989), but they are not necessarily followed
in a linear fashion, namely, (stage 1) enter situation con-
sidered problematic, (stage 2) express the problem situa-
tion, (stage 3) formulate root definitions of relevant
systems of purposeful activity, (stage 4) build conceptual
models of the systems named in the root definitions,
(stage 5) compare models with real-world situations,
(stage 6) define possible changes which are both sys-
tematically desirable and culturally feasible and (stage 7)
take action to improve the problem situation.
4.8.1. Applying ‘SSM’ for improving innovatively
ever-changing ‘CSCM’, say, of a coal-based
thermal power project
Let us postulate that a major construction company has
undertaken a large-scale coal-based thermal power plant
project along with several other projects of different sizes
located at multiple sites at different time. ‘Engineering,
Procurement and Construction’ is usually the form of
contract used for such large-scale thermal power projects,
which requires expertise ranging from concept to design
through construction and operation of complete power
plant along with the supply of the engineered systems
and equipment form the critical parts of power plant
including technical, legal, financial and environmental
consultancy services.
Important jobs in the construction of a coal-based
thermal power plant project are generation, transmission
and distribution. Each such job can be considered as a
sub-project comprising of concept phase, procurement
phase, production phase, installation phase and winding
up phase to be undertaken by distinct teams. In such
complex and competitive circumstances, it becomes
necessary to make the knowledge explicit. However,
many difficulties can arise when attempting to capture
knowledge explicit through a simple flow chart or other
illustrating techniques. In order to capture context for
providing insight into a system containing interdependent
human and technological components, SSM has become
an important tool for knowledge elicitation as explained
below in detail with special reference to the construction
of a coal-based thermal power plant project for manage-
ment of its supply chain.
4.8.1.1. Stage 1: Finding out situation considered
problematic. The construction of a large-scale coal-based
thermal power project is very complex involving many
subcontractors to meet numerous incompatible business
purposes full of opportunism to be strained by conflict
and mistrust in ever-changing flux of interacting events
and ideas. In fact, such a large-scale project involves
multi-objective management perspective for simultaneous
performance of all sub-projects of different times at
1342 P. Behera et al.
Figure 3. Rich picture for constructing a coal-based thermal power project.
different places requiring the use of scarce resources in
different quantities (Mohanty and Siddiq 1989b). In such
multi-project situation involving ‘CSCM’ of a coal-based
thermal power project, the interest of management is in
the simultaneous solution of the problems relating to
timely completion on one hand and effective utilisation
of available resources on the other hand for the sake of
effective partnering (Mohanty 1988; Mohanty and Siddiq
1989a, 1989b).
4.8.1.2. Stage 2: Finding out the problem situation. The
rich picture intends to depict identification of the stake-
holders and actors who are those with an interest in the
system or who are likely to be affected by changes to it
in an organisational context and culture. For developing
a rich picture, some informal and unstructured interviews
were conducted with selected project team members
about their involvement in the CSCM process for struc-
tures and associated beliefs in constructing a coal-based
thermal power plant project. In the problem relating to
constructing a coal-based thermal power plant project,
the stakeholders and actors are to be considered as power
ministry, implementing agency and site-level manage-
ment, who interact with end user, client, architects and
consultants, main contractor, direct suppliers and subcon-
tractors, and indirect suppliers in different phases for set-
ting the criteria needed to define what will be a
successful design of CSC of a coal-based thermal power
plant for generation, transmission and distribution subject
to their culture and politics. The rich picture portrays all
stakeholders and actors involved in the process of CSCM
of a coal-based thermal power plant and presents a struc-
tured view by putting into context the phases affecting
the process. This has been described by the rich picture
(Figure 3).
4.8.1.3. Stage 3: Developing root definitions. SSM
requires one or more root definitions to be stated describ-
ing the ideal system portrayed by the rich picture
(Figure 3). The main purpose of this stage is identification
of key transformations. In order to ensure that appropriate
elements of the system are captured in a root definition,
the CATWOE mnemonic has been used as applied for the
case of coal-based thermal power plant shown below:
• Customer: The client
• Actors: Power Ministry, Implementing Agency,
Architects and Consultants, Main Contractor, Direct
Suppliers and Subcontractors, and Indirect
Suppliers.
• Transformation: To use data, information, knowl-
edge, skills and experience from previous projects
to prepare realistic preliminary understanding of the
project on power plant construction.
• Weltanschauung (Worldview): The client may be
loosing engineering knowledge and the client’s
architects and consultants have not provided the best
possible design parameters as required by power
ministry, implementing agency and site-level
management.
 Production Planning & Control
Figure 4. Conceptual model of CSCM process in construction of a coal-based thermal power plant.
• Owner: Supply Chain Head of the Construction
company.
• Environment: Critical with respect to scheduling
especially for managing procurement and contract.
Then, taking example of CSCM for a coal-based
thermal power plant project a possible root definition
could be:
A system owned by the supply chain head of the coal-
based thermal power plant construction company, who
seek data, information, knowledge, skills and experience
from previous projects to prepare realistic preliminary
estimates on understanding of scheduling especially for
managing procurement and contract of the project for
use of power ministry, implementing agency, architects
and consultants, main contractor, direct suppliers and
subcontractors, and indirect suppliers in generation,
transmission and distribution of power.
This root definition has assumed that scheduling is the
only fundamental for planning, monitoring and control
of coal-based thermal power plant construction project
situated at multiple locations especially in managing pro-
curement and contract terms. Scheduling involves multi-
tude of activities where each activity is to be analysed
using critical activities, early and late start/finish times
and floats with constraints of limitation on requirement
of resources (Mohanty and Siddiq 1989b).
4.8.1.4. Stage 4: Building conceptual models. In SSM, a
conceptual model is a diagram of activities with links
connecting them. It is developed from the root definition
and it uses verbs or action statements describing the
1343
activities which are needed by the root definition (see
Figure 4). It links activities according to logical depen-
dencies. The main purpose of this stage is identification
of patterns in performance of knowledge for different
phases of CSCM activities relating to scheduling for
managing procurement and contract of coal-based ther-
mal power plant construction project. There are a few
ways to improve the rate of progress when behind
schedule in any of the construction project phases,
namely, improve productivity (Prasad, Jha, and Prakash
2015), increase staff, allow overtime, reduce the work,
and subcontract part of the work based on considerations
of community expectations for remaining competitive.
Given critical priority goals chosen by the construc-
tion project organisation, the evaluation can be based on
set of effectiveness measures relating to planning and
scheduling for controlling phases of the construction pro-
jects of all sizes comprising of the right strategic mix of
stakeholders to balance resource capacity on issues
involving integration, coordination, collaboration, health
and safety, risk and sustainable environment for tracking
progress and monitoring project performance in respect
of jobs at generation, transmission and distribution.
The root definition, CATWOE and conceptual model
have been derived from the rich picture, then the initial
version of rich picture and model were presented to a
focus group of the CSCM team members to elicit further
knowledge for confusion and misunderstanding from
initial interviews. With enhanced understanding, espe-
cially of tacit knowledge, the researchers prepared list of
suggestive measures of different phases (sub-systems),
1344 P. Behera et al.
namely, concept phase, procurement phase, production
phase, installation phase and winding up phase for a
typical CSCM eco-system for the power plant construc-
tion as unit to be considered to operate as a system.
The list of suggestive measures for managing a typi-
cal CSCM system for the power plant construction are
as follows:
Phase 1: concept phase
• Feasibile definition of what is wanted from the
owner and suppliers
• Proper communication between the parties
involved for financing
• Complete drawings and details to be available for
tendering
• Mobilisation of resources
Phase 2: procurement phase
• Identification of needed materials for each item
• Estimation of the quantity of the needed materials.
• Definition of any special requirements (say, materi-
als) to be used.
Phase 3: production phase
• Classification of materials that are off-the-shelf and
that need to be prefabricated.
• Identification of local and imported materials for
requesting proposal.
• Request quotations from suppliers in order to get
reasonable good prices.
• Finalisation of MOU (Memorandum of Under-
standing) and rate contracts.
• Preparation of project estimates based on best
prices.
Phase 4: installation phase
• Scheduling materials per each item that are needed
to be available.
• Finding out the exact materials delivery location
per each item.
• Verifying materials received against the quantity
ordered.
• Inspecting the delivered materials to ensure that it
meets the specifications.
Phase 5: winding up phase
• Storing the surplus materials to be used in the
future projects.
• Returning back the surplus materials to the suppli-
ers without penalty.
• Returning back the surplus materials to the suppli-
ers with penalty.
• Selling the surplus materials to the other contractors.
• Scraping the surplus materials.
The respondents may use their experience to agree
on the degree of occurrence of the above measures on
the scale of 1 to 5, where ‘1’ stands for never, ‘2’ stands
for seldom, ‘3’ stands for some times, ‘4’ stands for
often and ‘5’ stands for always. The degrees of occur-
rences can relate to estimate on measures to meet
community expectations.
4.8.1.5. Stage 5: Comparing models with the real world.
The developed conceptual model is to be compared with
some other real-world problem from knowledge areas of
construction project management than scheduling,
procurement and contract effecting the management of
CSC which may impact each phase of CSCM and differ-
ent stakeholders of the power plant project on a typical
construction job with respect to important issues such as
integration, coordination, collaboration, health and safety,
risk and sustainable environment.
4.8.1.6. Stage 6: Identifying changes. It should be noted
that modelling skills remain important even after the
final solution has been installed successfully. Thus, it has
to be checked regularly, whether the currently applied
models of the supply chain and the currently applied
planning models are still up to date or have to be
re-formulated in respect of following reporting parame-
ters for each phase of CSCM of the coal-based thermal
plant project:
• Comparing quotations and obtaining approval of
higher up of placing order.
• Periodically review of ordered materials and cir-
culation of status report.
• Periodically monitoring the vendor’s performance
report.
• Addition and deletion of vendors as per their
performance under management guidelines.
• Periodically monitoring the contract terms perfor-
mance report.
• Addition and deletion of contract terms for delivery
performance under management guidelines.
The changes need to be systematically desirable and
feasible.
4.8.1.7. Stage 7: Taking action. This stage involves put-
ting into practice the most appropriate changes identified
in the previous stage (if applicable) while integrating
technology with human, CSCM phases and organisa-
tional sub-systems. Many enterprises have experienced
spectacular project failures due to a number of reasons,
surprisingly few of which have to do with the technol-
ogy involved. Reasons that show up consistently include,
say, the user expectations were not met, the cost to
implement was much greater than expected, the time to
Table 2. Practices of CSC.

Nation Contribution Implementation focus Lessons learnt

UK • Latham (1994) Committed leadership; Focus on the customer;
• Egan (1998) Integrated processes and teams; Quality driven
• Akintoye, McIntosh, and Fitzgerald (2000) agenda; Commitment to people; Partnering the supply
• Wolstenhome (2009) chain
USA • Cheng et al. (2010) Communication and negotiation for procurement with
• Minchin et al. (2012) external companies; Shortening lead time to
manufacture costly major equipment
Canada • Blayse and Manley (2004) New combinations of building materials; Humidity
• Bhatnagar and Sohal (2005) and air barriers; Roofing and sprinkler systems;
Recycling of industrial by-products; On-site
productivity; Problems of older buildings; Technology
transfer
Australia • Dulaimi et al. (2002) Environmental factors; Regulatory and compliance
• London (2004) requirements; Advances in technology; Appropriate
• Bhatnagar and Sohal (2005) allocation of risk; Work arrangements; Safety on site
Turkey • Tavakoli and Tulumen (1990) Competitive regulatory environment; New
• Kazaz, Manisali, and Ulubeyli (2008) procurement systems; New management techniques;
Adoption of Information and Communication
Technologies; Reinforce Research and Development
Reducing cost and time; Quantifying the scope for
improving construction efficiency; Reducing in the
number of reportable accidents
Rising material costs as a major portion of total costs
in projects; Neither the major equipment supplier nor
the client keeps the buffer inventory for the project;
Suppliers and main contractors separately use time
buffers
Difficulty in establishing socio-economic problems
associated with buildings and construction; Difficulty
in developing generic testing techniques; Thin
margins with intense competition; Inadeqaute
qualified people; Demographics of immigrants; Huge
fiscal pressure
Rising project costs (due to rise in prices of oil and
metals, rising interest rates and a strong Australian
dollar); Decreasing workplace productivity (average
work hours either decreased or remained the same);
Skilled labour shortages; Capital supply constraints
Tedious bureaucratic procedures; Expected attributes
and requirements are not clearly defined;
Uncertainties in roles and responsibilities lead to
disputes between contracting parties causing delays,
and sometimes project termination; Wasteful
Production Planning & Control

UAE • Zaneldin (2006) Greater resource efficiency; Developing private
• Albaloushi and Skitmore (2008) banking sector; Loosen up capacity pressures on
• El-Sayegh (2008) labour and materials
China • Bassioni, Price, and Hassan (2004) Raising share of global construction spending;
• Xue et al. (2007) Construction of double-track railways; Energy-saving
• Minchin et al. (2012) and environmental protection; Next generation
information technology; Bio-technology; Equipment
manufacturing; New energy; New materials; New
energy vehicles
expenditure
Demand driven by shifting population demographics;
Passiveness of the owner in terms of decision-
making; Lack of manpower; Permit obtaining
problem and government regulations; Contractor’s
cash flow problem
Increasing demand on raw materials such as steel and
cement; Severe partnering and bidding restrictions for
foreign contractors; Resisting the implementation of
the new tendering and bidding regulations by
unpublished restrictions and procedures to result in
costly delays; Chinese tax, accountancy and
employment law impacting licensing of professionals
1345

Nation Contribution Implementation focus
Japan • Ofori (2000) Demand for advanced construction techniques;
• Vrijhoef and Koskela (2000) Because 80% of the land area occupied by
• London and Kenley (2001) mountains, tunnelling works are indispensable; A
• Barlow et al. (2003) contract in the Japanese society is comprehended to
ensure ‘confidence’ in the contracting parties unlike
managing for mistrust in other nations
Brazil • London and Kenley (2001) Expected to step up investments near term; Resolving
• Karim, Marosszeky, and Davis (2006) financing constraints; Design and Build contracts;
• Segerstedt and Olofsson (2010) Coordinated onsite execution
Malaysia • Ali et al. (2010) Training local workers to replace foreign workers;
• CIDB (2007) Issues regarding payment problems, late payment,
under payment and non-receipt of payment in the
construction industry under Construction Payment and
Adjudication Act (CIPAA); Public Private Partnership
Singapore • Ofori (2000) Enhancing professionalism of the industry; Raising
• Dulaimi et al. (2002) the skills level; Adopting an integrated approach to
construction; Developing superior capabilities through
synergistic partnerships; Adoption of Information and
communication technology (ICT); The widespread
adherence to the construction quality programme
India • Bessant, Kaplinsky, and Lamming (2003) Build strategic partnering relationships; Bring
• Arif et al. (2009) discipline to planning and execution; Develop
strategic and tactical plans to ensure timely and
reliable delivery; Develop a networked information
system; Continuously improve to remove process
bottlenecks or constraints
1346
Lessons learnt
Poor working environment; High rate of labour
accidents; Stagnation in productivity growth;
Transparency on solid waste management; Foreign
contractors’ uncomfortable feelings to accept the
unclear provisions and one-sided clauses in the
construction contracts; The number of licensed foreign
firms have not drastically changed since early 1990s.
Managing currency volatility; Relatively aggressive
stance towards protecting its own industries for
internal political reasons and laws that constrain
expansion of the energy industry; Unskilled workers
Timely dissemination of information on projects;
High number of contractors; Time-consuming and
expensive dispute resolution mechanisms
Segregation of the industrial activities; the industry is
characterised by three ‘Ds’ – dirty, demanding and
dangerous;
Tedious bureaucratic procedures; High task
P. Behera et al.
uncertainties; Phase overlaps; Activity fragmentation;
Localised optimisation; Lack of discipline; Lack of
focus and priority. Time-consuming and expensive
dispute resolution mechanisms; Low construction
efficiency
 Production Planning & Control
implement was much longer than expected, and most
importantly, the community expectations were not met.
5. Implications
The construction industry is being transformed to meet
the new demands of the twenty-first century owing to
changes in project delivery concepts, group efforts, ethi-
cal lapses, growing shortage of skilled workers and
experienced managers, technological advances, and the
supply chain. Managers of tomorrow have to become
more astute and selective in defining their CSCs in
the face of stiffer competition, where general contractors
are to be looking for specialisation in a niche domain to
narrow competition.
With all of the changes taking place in the industry,
this study has presented an understanding on CSCM to
develop vital judgements to control over work process
with regard to the construction of a coal-based thermal
power plant. This study proposes mediating work pro-
cesses of CSCM phases for issues of integration,
coordination, collaboration, health and safety, risk and
environment across the networks of stakeholders in order
to improve the rate of progress for meeting community
expectations. The full and validated understanding of
CSCs intends to manage jobs of each stakeholder intelli-
gently and professionally at the construction project.
This study on understanding CSCM is meant for
inducing successful start, which is always demanded by
successful construction project completion for the imple-
mentation of conceptual model of CSCM processes in
construction of the coal-based thermal power plant.
The conceptual model seeks to policy-making from the
perspective of professional stakeholders.
6. Concluding remarks
CSCM is emerging as a rapidly growing discipline. It is
appropriate at this stage of globalisation of economies to
understand the current practices of CSCM and the state
of conceptual premises of such supply chain project
managers. Most experienced construction managers have
preferred ways of managing CSCs which they have
developed over many construction projects; however,
they lack systematic understanding which is underpinned
in this study. This study portrays a knowledge base and
may be helpful in improving the managerial effectiveness
in attaining construction project goals for strategic value
creation.
The introduction gives a brief outline of research in
the field of CSCM and its current status. This is fol-
lowed by a review of literature focussed on supply chain
performance for process-based industry, project-based
industry and project-based construction industry to high-
light critical questions that elude managers of CSCM for
1347
representing, analysing and configuring supply chains.
The research methodology adopted in this study is apply-
ing qualitative approach of triangulation involving
foundational research and Soft Systems Methodology for
validating a system of complex CSC. The study explores
important phases of CSC, major problems, complexities
and linkages. The concurrent viewpoints about various
dimensions of CSCM have been put forth in this study
in terms of several characteristics in order to provide a
constitutional definition. The basic argument is to evolve
a balanced normative theory that can deal explicitly both
with the contents and contexts of the system and can
reorient professionals towards dealing with the system
more effectively to attain the socio-economic goals of
the emerging era of competition and collaboration.
CSCs are becoming more complex, they are subject
to constant change, and the industry environment is
highly competitive and cost critical. The challenge
becomes greater where joint ventures, partnerships and
sub-contracting agreements are involved. The business-
as-usual approaches to construction management often
fail to perform in these situations, and managers need to
consider adopting innovative approaches to solve these
complex problems. We have suggested the use of SSM,
which is a systems approach that is used for analysis and
problem solving in complex and messy situations. SSM
uses ‘systems thinking’ in a cycle of action research,
learning and reflection to help understand the various
perceptions that exist in the minds of the different people
involved in the situation. It is particularly suited to com-
plex CSCM. In this study, we have outlined the modality
of applying SSM to a real-life power plant construction
project. We suggest that the potential of SSM lies in the
early stages of a project to assist stakeholders to achieve
a common understanding of the problem situation. Cush-
man et al. (2002) observes that ‘Construction is ulti-
mately a very complex, multi-disciplinary activity and
there is a need to integrate the kind of design and man-
agement processes in terms of skill and the knowledge
that people bring’. To achieve this, we have used SSM’s
rich pictures and root definitions to identify responsible
actors, key transformations, and the knowledge resources
that are appropriate to the needs of a construction
company.
Although this study has attempted to answer critical
questions based on review of popular prior literature in
search of systematic grounded knowledge relating to
understanding of CSCM, this study does suffer from lim-
itation that it attempts for qualitative validation only.
Moreover, suggestive measures cannot always be applied
uniformly on all projects relating to CSCM, and they
should be determined based on degree of rigour for each
process of a construction project (Kerzner 2013; PMBoK®
2004). The future research work relating to CSCM would
empirically test and validate the qualitatively validated
1348 P. Behera et al.
conceptual model for testing of hypotheses elaborated on
roles and responsibilities of stakeholders extending to
adoption of dominant knowledge areas of project manage-
ment in construction, which are basically series of
processes of what goes into running a construction project
(Radosavljevic and Bennett 2012).
Acknowledgements
Authors express their sincere gratitude to Professor Bjorn
Andersen, and thank anonymous reviewers for valuable com-
ments, which helped in improving the quality of the study.
Notes on contributors
Panchanan Behera is the Cluster Materials
Manager in L&T Power (TPPC) and Doc-
toral Research Scholar at Siksha O Anu-
sandhan University, Bhubaneswar, India. He
has over 24 years of strong industry experi-
ence in supply chain management both in
manufacturing and construction sector in
reputed organizations.
R.P. Mohanty is the Senior Advisor of
ICFAI Group of Universities, Hyderabad,
India. He has 37 years of academic experi-
ences in institutes of national (India) impor-
tance and in some foreign universities. He
has ten years of industry experience in top
management positions. He advises aca-
demic institutions and industries, supervises
research scholars and undertakes sponsored
research projects. He has published more than 300 papers in
scholarly peer reviewed international journals and has also
authored twelve books. Many professional institutions both in
India and abroad have honoured him.
Anand Prakash is an Assistant Professor at
School of General Management (SOGM),
National Institute of Construction Manage-
ment & Research (NICMAR), Pune, India.
He has over 11 years of strong experience
in reputed organizations and academics. He
is engaged in post-graduate teaching, guid-
ance to research scholars and undertakes
projects. He has published a number of
papers in scholarly peer reviewed international journals. His
current research interest includes Construction Supply Chain
Management (CSCM), Green Supply Chain Management
(GSCM), Service Quality (SQ) Modelling, and applications of
Statistics & Quantitative Techniques.
References
Akintoye, A., G. McIntosh, and E. Fitzgerald. 2000. “A Survey
of Supply Chain Collaboration and Management in the UK
Construction Industry.” European Journal of Purchasing &
Supply Management 6 (3): 159–168.
Albaloushi, H., and M. Skitmore. 2008. “Supply Chain Man-
agement in the UAE Construction Industry.” International
Journal of Construction Management 8 (1): 53–71.
Ali, A., Z. Mohd-Don, A. Alias, S. Kamaruzzaman, and M.
Pitt. 2010. “The Performance of Construction Partnering Pro-
jects in Malaysia.” International Journal of Physical
Sciences 5 (4): 327–333.
Aloini, D., R. Dulmin, V. Mininno, and S. Ponticelli. 2012.
“Supply Chain Management: A Review of Implementation
Risks in the Construction Industry.” Business Process Man-
agement Journal, 18 (5): 735–761
Arif, M., C. Egbu, A. Haleem, D. Kulonda, and M. Khalfan.
2009. “State of Green Construction in India: Drivers and
Challenges.” Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology
7 (2): 223–234.
Banawi, A., and M. M. Bilec. 2014. “A Framework to Improve
Construction Processes: Integrating Lean, Green and Six
Sigma.” International Journal of Construction Management
14 (1): 58–71.
Barlow, J., P. Childerhouse, D. Gann, S. Hong-Minh, M. Naim,
and R. Ozaki. 2003. “Choice and Delivery in Housebuilding:
Lessons from Japan for UK Housebuilders.” Building
Research & Information 31 (2): 134–145.
Bassioni, H. A., A. D. F. Price, and T. M. Hassan. 2004. “Per-
formance Measurement in Construction.” Journal of Man-
agement in Engineering 20 (2): 42–50.
Bechara, J., and A. H. Van de Ven. 2011. “Triangulating
Philosophies of Science to Understand Complex Organiza-
tional and Managerial Problems.” Research in the Sociology
of Organizations 32 (2): 343–364.
Bessant, J., R. Kaplinsky, and R. Lamming. 2003. “Putting
Supply Chain Learning into Practice.” International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 23 (2): 167–184.
Bhatnagar, R., and A. S. Sohal. 2005. “Supply Chain Competitive-
ness: Measuring the Impact of Location Factors, Uncertainty
and Manufacturing Practices.” Technovation 25 (5): 443–456.
Blayse, A. M., and K. Manley. 2004. “Key Influences on Con-
struction Innovation.” Construction Innovation: Information,
Process, Management 4 (3): 143–154.
Brewer, P. C., and T. W. Speh. 2000. “Adapting the Balanced
Scorecard to Supply Chain Management.” Supply Chain
Management Review 5 (2): 48–56.
Bullinger, H.-J., M. Kuhner, and A. van Hoof. 2002. “Analys-
ing Supply Chain Performance Using a Balanced Measure-
ment Method.” International Journal of Production Research
40 (15): 3533–3543.
Checkland, P. B. 1989. Soft Systems Methodology. Human
Systems Management 8 (4): 273–289.
Checkland, P., and J. Poulter. 2006. Learning for Action: A
Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and
Its Use for Practitioner, Teachers, and Students (Vol. 26).
Chichester: Wiley.
Cheng, J. C., K. H. Law, H. Bjornsson, A. Jones, and R.
Sriram. 2010. “A Service Oriented Framework for Construc-
tion Supply Chain Integration.” Automation in Construction
19 (2): 245–260.
Cox, A., and P. Ireland. 2002. “Managing Construction Supply
Chains: The Common Sense Approach.” Engineering Con-
struction and Architectural Management 9 (5–6): 409–418.
 Production Planning & Control
CIDB (Construction Industry Development Board). 2007. Con-
struction Industry Master Plan Malaysia 2006–2015. Jalan
Pahang: Contruction Industry Development Board.
Croxton, K. L., S. J. Garcia- Dastugue, D. M. Lambert, and D.
S. Rogers. 2001. “The Supply Chain Management Pro-
cesses.” The International Journal of Logistics Management
12 (2): 13–36.
Cushman, M., W. Venters, T. Cornford, and N. Mitev. (2002).
“Understanding Sustainability as Knowledge Practice.”
Paper Presented to British Academy of Management Confer-
ence: Fast Tracking Performance through Partnerships.
London, September 9–11.
Dainty, A. R., G. H. Briscoe, and S. J. Millett. 2001. “Subcon-
tractor Perspectives on Supply Chain Alliances.” Construc-
tion Management & Economics 19 (8): 841–848.
Dainty, A. R., S. J. Millett, and G. H. Briscoe. 2001. “New
Perspectives on Construction Supply Chain Integration.”
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 6 (4):
163–173.
Delgado-Hernandez, D. J., and E. Aspinwall. 2010. “A Frame-
work for Building Quality into Construction Projects – Part
II.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 21
(7): 725–736.
Dillon, J. T. 2004. Questioning and Teaching: A Manual of
Practice. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publisher.
Doloi, H., A. Sawhney, and K. C. Iyer. 2012. “Structural Equa-
tion Model for Investigating Factors Affecting Delay in
Indian Construction Projects.” Construction Management
and Economics 30 (10): 869–884.
Dulaimi, M. F. Y., F. Y. Ling, G. Ofori, and N. D. Silva. 2002.
“Enhancing Integration and Innovation in Construction.”
Building Research & Information 30 (4): 237–247.
Egan, J. 1998. Rethinking Construction: The Report of the
Construction Task Force (the Egan Report). London: Depart-
ment of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
(DETR), HMSO.
El-Sayegh, S. 2008. “Risk Management and Allocation in the
UAE Construction Industry.” International Journal of Project
Management 26 (4): 431–438.
Golafshani, N. 2003. “Understanding Reliability and Validity in
Qualitative Research.” The Qualitative Report 8 (4):
597–607.
Green, S. D., S. Fernie, and S. Weller. 2005. “Making Sense of
Supply Chain Management: A Comparative Study of Aero-
space and Construction.” Construction Management and
Economics 23 (6): 579–593.
Harty, C., C. I. Goodier, R. Soetanto, S. Austin, A. R. Dainty,
and A. D. Price. 2007. “The Futures of Construction: A
Critical Review of Construction Future Studies.” Construc-
tion Management and Economics 25 (5): 477–493.
Hatmoko, J., and S. Scott. 2010. “Simulating the Impact of
Supply Chain Management Practice on the Performance of
Medium-Sized Building Projects.” Construction Management
and Economics 28 (15): 35–49.
Hines, P. 1996. “Network Sourcing: A Discussion of Causality
within the Buyer–Supplier Relationship.” European Journal
of Purchasing and Supply Management 2 (1): 7–20.
Huan, S. H., S. K. Sheoran, and G. Wang. 2004. “A Review
and Analysis of Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR)
1349
Model.” Supply Chain Management: An International Jour-
nal 9 (1): 23–29.
Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton. 1992. “The Balanced Score-
card – Measures That Drive Performance.” Harvard Business
Review 70 (1): 71–79.
Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton. 1993. “Putting the Balanced
Scorecard to Work.” Harvard Business Review 71 (5):
134–142.
Karim, K., M. Marosszeky, and S. Davis. 2006. “Managing
Subcontractor Supply Chain for Quality in Construction.”
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 13
(1): 27–42.
Kazaz, A., E. Manisali, and S. Ulubeyli. 2008. “Effect of Basic
Motivational Factors on Construction Workforce Productivity
in Turkey.” Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
14 (2): 95–106.
Kerzner, H. R. 2013. Project Management: A Systems Approach
to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Lakhe, R. R., and R. P. Mohanty. 1994. “Understanding
TQM.” Production Planning & Control 5 (5): 426–441.
Larsen, G. D., and J. Whyte. 2013. “Safe Construction through
Design: Perspectives from the Site Team.” Construction
Management and Economics 31 (6): 675–690.
Latham, M. 1994. Constructing the Team (Final Report of the
Joint Government/Industry Review of Procurement and Con-
tractual Arrangements in the United Kingdom Construction
Industry [Latham Report]). London: HMSO.
London, K. 2004. “Construction Supply Chain Procurement
Modelling.” PhD thesis., The University of Melbourne.
London, K. A., and R. Kenley. 2001. “An Industrial Organiza-
tion Economic Supply Chain Approach for the Construction
Industry: A Review.” Construction Management & Eco-
nomics 19 (8): 777–788.
Meng, X., M. Sun, and M. Jones. 2011. “Maturity Model for
Supply Chain Relationships in Construction.” Journal of
Management in Engineering 27 (2): 97–105.
Minchin Jr., R. E., S. Cui, R. C. Walters, R. Issa, and J.
Pan. 2012. “Sino-American Opinions and Perceptions of
Counterfeiting in the Construction Supply Chain.” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 139 (1):
1–8.
Mohanty, R. P. 1988. “Project Scheduling Methods: An Evalua-
tion.” Management Research News 11 (6): 19–31.
Mohanty, R. P., and M. K. Siddiq. 1989a. “Multiple Projects –
Multiple Resources Constrained Scheduling: A Multiobjec-
tive Analysis.” Engineering Costs and Production Economics
18 (1): 83–92.
Mohanty, R. U., and M. K. Siddiq. 1989b. “Multiple Projects-
Multiple Resources-Constrained Scheduling: Some Studies.”
International Journal of Production Research 27 (2):
261–280.
Mokhlesian, S., and M. Holmén. 2012. “Business Model
Changes and Green Construction Processes.” Construction
Management and Economics 30 (9): 761–775.
O’Brien, W. J. 1999. “Construction Supply Chain Management:
A Vision for Advanced Coordination, Costing and Control.”
In NSF Berkeley-Stanford Construction Research Workshop.
Stanford, CA.
1350 P. Behera et al.
Ofori, G. 2000. “Greening the Construction Supply Chain in
Singapore.” European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management 6 (3): 195–206.
Oliver R. K., and M. D. Webber. 1982. “Supply-Chain Man-
agement: Logistics Catches up with Strategy.” In Logistics –
The Strategic Issues, edited by M. Christopher , Booz, Allen
and Hamilton Inc: Outlook. Reprint in 1992, 63–75. London:
Chapman Hall.
Palaneeswaran, E., M. Kumaraswamy, and T. Ng. 2003.
“Targeting Optimum Value in Public Sector Projects through
“Best Value”-Focused Contractor Selection.” Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management 10 (6):
418–431.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. “Two Decades of Developments in Qual-
itative Inquiry: A Personal, Experiential Perspective.” Qual-
itative Social Work 1 (3): 261–283.
PMBoK®. 2004. A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge. 3rd ed. Newtown Square, PA: Project Manage-
ment Institute.
Prakash, A., and R. P. Mohanty. 2013. “Understanding Service
Quality.” Production Planning & Control 24 (12): 1050–1065.
Prakash A., and R. P. Mohanty. 2014. Understanding Construc-
tion Supply Chain Management for Road Projects. Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Systems and Management.
Accessed October 8. http://www.inderscience.com/info/in
general/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijlsm
Prasad, K. D., S. K. Jha, and A. Prakash. 2015. “Quality, Pro-
ductivity and Business Performance in Home Based Brass-
ware Manufacturing Units.” International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 64 (2): 270–287.
Radosavljevic, M., and J. Bennett. 2012. Construction Manage-
ment Strategies: A Theory of Construction Management.
West Sussex: Wiley.
Segerstedt, A., and T. Olofsson. 2010. “Supply Chains in the
Construction Industry.” Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 15 (5): 347–353.
Simchi-Levi, D., P. Kaminsky, and E. Simchi-Levi. 2000.
Designing and Managing Supply Chain: Concepts, Strategies
and Case Studies. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Soni, G., and R. Kodali. 2012. “Evaluating Reliability
and Validity of Lean, Agile and Leagile Supply Chain Con-
structs in Indian Manufacturing Industry.” Production
Planning & Control 23 (10–11): 864–884. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2011.642207.
Strauss, A., and J. M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative
Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tavakoli, A., and S. C. Tulumen. 1990. “Construction Industry
in Turkey.” Construction Management and Economics 8 (1):
77–87.
Thunberg, M., and F. Persson. 2013. Using the SCOR Model’s
Performance Measurements to Improve Construction Logis-
tics. Production Planning & Control 25 (13–14): 1–14.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2013.808836
Vrijhoef, R., and L. Koskela. 2000. “The Four Roles of Supply
Chain Management in Construction.” European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management 6 (3): 169–178.
Weber, J., A. Bacher, and M. Groll. 2002. “Konzeption Einer
Balanced Scorecard F¨Ur Das Controlling Von
Unternehmens¨Ubergreifenden Supply Chains.” Kostenrech-
nungspraxis 46 (3): 133–141.
Wolstenhome, A. 2009. Never Waste a Good Crisis – Con-
structing Excellence. Accessed April 29, 2014. www.con
structingexcellence.org.uk,http://www.constructingexcellence.
org.uk/pdf/Wolstenholme_Report_Oct_2009.pdf
Xue, X., Y. Wang, Q. Shen, and X. Yu. 2007. “Coordination
Mechanisms for Construction Supply Chain Management in
the Internet Environment.” International Journal of Project
Management 25 (2): 150–157.
Zaneldin, E. K. 2006. “Construction Claims in United Arab
Emirates: Types, Causes, and Frequency.” International Jour-
nal of Project Management 24 (5): 453–459.