Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-019-00188-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

A simulation‑based decision‑making framework for construction

supply chain management (SCM)
Ajinkya Kulkarni1 · Srijeet Halder1 

Received: 4 June 2019 / Accepted: 12 August 2019

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
The conventional economic order quantity (EOQ) model used for calculating re-order point in construction material procure-
ment cycle is fundamentally limited by the assumed constant lead time. In real construction scenario, the lead time is hardly
ever constant. This study uses a PERT-based simulation model to calculate optimum re-order point and order size with an
objective of minimizing the average inventory level and downtime due to non-availability of material. The simulation is run
on the STROBOSCOPE simulation framework developed by the researchers at the University of Michigan. The duration
data collected from a construction project are used to model each step of the procurement process. The results from the
simulation are analyzed to study the relationships between order size, re-order point, average inventory level and work–idle
time. A decision-making framework is proposed to choose the optimum order size and re-order point (minimum inventory
threshold) for efficient use of storage space and minimum idling.

Keywords  Supply chain management · Stroboscope · Simulation · Modeling · Variable lead-time · Decision-making

Introduction to commencement of work (Soni et al. 2016). Managing

Construction processes and activities can vary in complex-
ity. While simple processes are easier to analyze, complex
processes require special techniques for proper analysis. The
complexity in analysis within the construction activities and
processes could be made easier using computer simulations
(Martinez 1996).
Supply chain management is one of the core processes
of a construction project. About 64% of the total project
cost is spent on material costs. Any saving in material cost
can be of great importance in improving the profitability of
the project (Saharkar and Nanaware 2017). According to
Prasad et al. (2018, p. 13), the primary objective of mate-
rial management is ‘having materials of the Right Quality,
from Right Source, at Right Price, of Right Quantity, and at
Right Time’. The productivity of the project can be improved
by as much as 8–10% by proper management of materials
to ensure availability of materials at the project site prior
* Srijeet Halder
shalder@ricssbe.edu.in
1
RICS School of Built Environment, Amity University
Mumbai, Mumbai-Pune Expressway, Mumbai 410206,
Maharashtra, India
the inventory level within imposed constraints is a major
challenge, since, if the inventory is allowed to run low, the
execution of work might stop due to unavailability of mate-
rials. Yet, keeping a too high inventory level runs a risk of
exhausting space as well as of wastage due to material dete-
rioration. In projects near a densely populated area where
space is less such as in downtown commercial-space projects
or in expansion projects, managing the inventory space is
a major challenge. Often, land from outside of the project
perimeter is leased to stack the bulk materials, which, of
course, comes with additional cost.
While the need for managing inventory is obvious, it is
not so easy to implement practically. For example, in the
case of materials which have long yet variable lead time, it
is not easy to predict the exact point in time to re-order the
material. For an item which can take anywhere from 7 to
15 days from raising the request to the item being delivered
at the site and clearing the quality check, order it too soon
and there is too much of it lying idle at the site, order it too
late and the work gets halted.
Apart from design and engineering, simulation has been
used in construction management as well for quite long. It has
been used for simulating the tunneling process with a tunnel
boring machine (AbouRizk 2010). Monte Carlo simulation is

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

often used for cost estimation (Chou 2011). Oracle Primavera
Risk Analysis™ uses Monte Carlo simulation to analyze time
and cost risks in a construction schedule, which is often more
informative than a simple CPM-based schedule.
Construction processes which are often stochastic in
nature benefit a lot from simulations. Due to randomness
and uncertainty ingrained in many of the processes, adopt-
ing a deterministic approach often has limited application
in construction management. Simulations not only give
results, but also provides the best-case and worst-case sce-
narios which are greatly useful for anticipating and manag-
ing risks. Another advantage of using simulations is that
it can work with estimated data as well. This is especially
helpful during preliminary analysis when exact data are not
available. Yet, we get a result and the confidence level asso-
ciated with it. Earlier, when computers were not mainstream
and running simple simulations required high-end comput-
ers, simulations found limited applications. Recently, with
technological advancement in computer science, even a low-
end all-purpose desktop computer can run these simulations
with much ease. Further enhancement of efficient computer
architecture and development of soft-computing techniques
such as artificial neural net, fuzzy logic and evolutionary
algorithms will allow researchers to develop more efficient
prediction models, which do not rely solely on quantitative
data but also consider qualitative data.
In supply chain management (SCM), simulation has
been used to assess the effect of variation in demand on the
transportation cost and overall logistics cost (Vidalakis et al.
2011). Jung et al. (2018) developed a simulation model to
simulate the supply chain in a high-rise building and ana-
lyzed the effect of sharing limited storage space and hoisting
equipment. The methodology adopted by them is similar to
the methodology adopted in this study. Agent-based mod-
eling, which is a new development in the field of simula-
tion and modeling, has been explored only recently in the
context of SCM, that too in a limited way. Van Der Zee and
Van Der Vorst (2005) developed an agent-based modeling
framework to simulate the supply chain for optimization of
the logistics process.
Computer simulation helps to understand the tedious
and complicated processes in a simpler manner. There
are various simulation platforms available such as Sim-
phony, CYCLONE, STROBOSCOPE, RESQUE and UM-
CYCLONE (AbouRizk 2010; Sawhney et al. 2003). But as
far as availability, ease of operation, and capability to run the
simple as well as heavier simulations are concerned, “STRO-
BOSCOPE Educational” is favoured by many construction
researchers (Sawhney et al. 2003). The same has been cho-
sen for running the supply chain simulation in this study.
In general terms, STROBOSCOPE is a tool which is used
for simulating cyclical activities. STROBOSCOPE stands
for State and Resource-Based Simulation in COnstruction
13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
ProcEss. The basic meaning of simulation is to run a real-
world process in a computer environment multiple times by
varying the different parameters.
This paper is written in four parts. First, the extant body
of literature is reviewed related to simulation, supply chain,
and various techniques to solve supply chain problems. Then
the simulation process and the methodology are described,
and various notations used in model development are
explained. Next, an example case is taken to demonstrate
the simulation process. The results from the simulation are
discussed along with its potential use in decision-making.
Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications of the
study are discussed and directions for future research are
provided.
Literature review
Cheng et al. (2010) developed a Web service-based col-
laboration platform called ‘SC Collaborator’. Such plat-
forms facilitate real-time data exchange between different
parties of the supply chain. Being a Web-based platform,
it is also independent of the type of system being used for
accessing it. With the advent of smartphones, people may
use it directly from the site without the need for a desktop
computer.
Roozbeh Nia et al. (2014) developed the ‘Ant Colony
Optimization (ACO)’ algorithm to solve the EOQ problem
by mimicking the natural algorithms of ants to find the short-
est route from their nest to a food source. They compared
ACO with more popular genetic algorithm (GA) and dif-
ferential evolution (DE) algorithm. All of these algorithms
create near-optimum solutions. Although ACO produced a
slightly less optimized solution (5.77% more cost as com-
pared to DE) on average, it took 33.7% less time in find-
ing the solution. ACO is a goal-based heuristic algorithm,
that is, it tries to find the optimum solution based on the
constraints and the objective function by taking small steps
toward the set goal. However, such algorithms are not always
able to reach the global optimum point, but can reach a near-
optimum point very quickly which is practically acceptable.
Research on heuristic and meta-heuristic algorithms are
rising in recent years (Kaveh and Vazirinia 2019). Heuristic
algorithms are problem specific, while meta-heuristics are
generic algorithms which can be used to develop heuristic
algorithms for specific problems. Genetic algorithm (GA)
is an example of a meta-heuristic approach that has been
applied to many types of problems, such as resource leveling
(Li and Demeulemeester 2016) and construction layout plan-
ning (Papadaki and Chassiakos 2016). Kaveh and Vazirinia
(2019) applied many such meta-heuristic algorithms, such as
charged system search (CSS), whale optimization algorithm
(WOA), vibrating particles system (VPS), and enhanced
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
vibrating particle system (EVPS) to optimize the site precast
yard layout. They found that VPS and EVPS provided more
reliable solutions as compared to other algorithms studied,
while EVPS reached the solution fastest.
Sremac et al. (2019) developed a decision support system
using an Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS)
approach to determine the economic order quantity (EOQ).
ANFIS integrates benefits of both artificial neural network
(ANN) and fuzzy logic systems. It combines adaptability
of ANN with approximation and reasoning capabilities of
fuzzy logic. However, one inherent disadvantage of such
system is that it requires large datasets to train and test the
model. Without enough data, the output of the model is not
reliable. Simulation proves to be advantageous here, as it
needs very less amount of data. Even a small dataset from
a reliable source and having less variability can be used to
produce reasonably accurate results for practical purposes.
Simulations can be distinguished into four types, namely,
spreadsheet simulation, system dynamics, discrete-event
dynamic systems, and business games (Kleijnen 2005). The
choice of simulation method depends upon the complexity
of the supply chain under study, its predictability, and the
level of confidence desired from the results.
In a study, similar to the current one, Vidalakis et al.
(2013) developed a simulation model based on the discrete
simulation modeling technique. They used the simulation
software Simul8™ in their study to assess the effect of fluc-
tuations in demand for construction materials on the cost
efficiency of the construction supply chain. They found that
the profits were inversely related to the demand level. This
was mostly due to the higher inventory cost associated with
higher demand.
STROBOSCOPE has been used by Marzouk et al. (2007)
to simulate the construction of a bridge using incremental
launching technique. The objective behind the development
of the simulation model was to optimize the resource and
production rate of the bridge. Using simulation, they were
able to test different scenarios such as constructing single
segment vs constructing two segments simultaneously. It
also enabled them to carry out sensitivity analysis on the
resources, which revealed that the construction rate was
most sensitive to the rebar crew.
Zhang, Xiong and Tao (2019) developed a plugin for MS
Excel to model the supply chain of construction projects.
They used the linear programming (LP) method to calcu-
late optimum quantities of material to be transported from
various warehouses to the various construction sites. The
objective function was to minimize the total cost of mate-
rial distribution and transportation, subjected to constraints
of storage capacities of the warehouses and the demands at
the sites. This method is easy to use as it does not require
any special software or even any technical knowledge of
quantitative techniques on the part of the users. The success
of the model solely depends on the accuracy of defining the
constraints and the unit prices of transportation and storage.
However, LP has an inherent disadvantage of the inability to
consider fluctuating constraints. Since both demand and unit
prices may vary from time to time, LP alone cannot cater to
such variability.
In a similar study, Minnullina and Vasiliev (2018) com-
bined the well-known Harris–Wilson model of economic
order quantity and the classical model of Economic Batch
Quantity (EBQ) to solve the optimization problem of the
total cost of material supply. Their research focused mainly
on the supply chain of high-rise constructions.
Simulation process
Background of the study
The proposed simulation model is developed by first identi-
fying steps in a typical procurement process. From issuing
an order to final unloading at the site, there are 16 steps that
must be taken. Each step is assumed to have variable dura-
tions. Therefore, they are best modeled using PERT (Pro-
gram Evaluation and Review Technique) that fundamentally
revolves around uncertainty in estimating durations. Other
assumptions made in this study are as follows:
• There is only a single consumer of resources at the site.
However, the model can be adjusted to accommodate
multiple consumers by tweaking a single parameter in
the simulation code.
• The consumption and procurement of material run paral-
lel to each other. This means that the existing inventory
may change between placing the order and material even-
tually reaching the site.
• There is enough material available with the supplier for
completion of work.
• Execution stops as soon as the amount of material in the
storage falls below the requirement for the next day of
work. This means that there can still be a little amount
of material left in the storage while execution stops due
to lack of material.
• The time required to shift material from site storage to
the actual point of work is negligible.
Simulation notation
The terminologies used in this study are similar to that in
the STROBOSCOPE modeling framework (Martinez 1996).
The following terminologies and notations have been used
in the simulation model.
Activity Activities in the context of this study are actions
that take resource and pass it on to the next activity or queue.
13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Combi activity Combi activity is always preceded by a
queue. The Combi activity can start only if the preceding
queue has sufficient resource, more than what is required
for one instance of the Combi activity predefined by the
DRAWAMT keyword.
Queue Queues are where resources are created and stored.
An activity cannot store a resource. It must take resources
from its preceding activity or queue at the beginning of its life
cycle and pass them to the next activity or queue at the end
of its life cycle. In the simulation, the ‘Product’ type resource
is created in the ‘Pending order’ queue. It moves through
various activities and is temporarily stored in the queue ‘Stor-
age’ until drawn by the activity ‘Utilize’. This final activity
dumps the resource into the last queue ‘Executed Quantity’
that marks the consumption of a certain amount of resource.
OrderSize by user). The queue ‘Pending order’ is initiated
with new resources of type ‘Product’ of quantity equaling
the OrderSize parameter defined in the simulation code,
which prompts the activity ‘Call for product’ to start. It runs
for a duration randomly assigned to it at runtime based on its
optimistic, pessimistic, and most likely duration and assum-
ing a PERT distribution. After completion of this activity,
the next activity ‘Request for Quotation’ starts and assumes
a random duration based on its own three-point duration
estimate. STROBOSCOPE makes it very easy to estimate a
random duration for an activity. For an activity with optimis-
tic, most likely, and pessimistic duration as 1 h, 2 h and 3 h,
its duration can be defined in STROBOSCOPE as:
DURATION request for quotation Pert[1.0, 2.0, 3.0].

Methodology Here, ‘DURATION’ is a STROBOSCOPE reserved key-

A small construction contractor firm in Mumbai City was
approached to collect data regarding the supply chain links.
Site store-in-charge was interviewed to understand the steps
taken between placing a request by a site execution team
and delivery of material at the site. The steps (or activities)
identified from the project along with their optimistic, most
likely and pessimistic durations are reported in Table 1.
These activities are modeled in the STROBOSCOPE
modeling framework. Figure 1 shows the simulation model
developed in this study. The simulation starts with issu-
ing a new order of predefined quantity (defined as variable
word to define the duration of the activity ‘requisition for
quotation’ (user defined). ‘Pert’ is also a reserved keyword
which tells the simulation engine to estimate a duration based
on PERT distribution with the provided three-point durations.
The whole sequence of activities is executed until the Product
reaches the queue ‘Storage’. The ‘Utilization’ activity depletes the
‘Storage’ with a variable per-day consumption rate. The ‘Utiliza-
tion’ activity is defined as a Combi activity in STROBOSCOPE,
which means it can run only if both the queues ‘Storage’ and
‘Consumer Waiting’ are not empty. It ensures that work will be
executed only if there’s material in the storage and there’s a con-
sumer (labor) available to work. The queue ‘Consumer Waiting’

Table 1  Steps in a typical procurement process and their durations

Sr. no. Activity name Duration (h) Remarks
Optimistic Most likely Pessimistic

1 Call for product 0.25 0.5 0.75 An order is placed with the supplier
2 Request for quotation 1 2 3 Quotation is prepared and submitted
3 Quotation approval 0.5 0.75 0.1 Quotation is approved by managers
4 Ready to supply 1 2 3 Material is prepared for dispatch
5 Physical checks-1 0.25 0.5 0.75 Physical check done at supplier’s end
6 Weighing-1 0.1 0.25 0.5 Weighing done at supplier’s end
7 Quality checks-1 0.5 0.75 1 Quality check done at supplier’s end
8 Documentation-1 0.25 0.5 0.75 Waybill, tax Challans and other documentation prepared by supplier.
9 Load 0.25 0.5 0.75 Material loaded on trucks
10 Transport 5 6.5 8 Materials transported by trucks
11 Halt 0.25 0.5 0.75 Trucks cleared security checks at the site gate
12 Physical checks-2 0.25 0.5 0.75 Physical check done at site
13 Weighing-2 0.1 0.25 0.5 Weighing done at site
14 Quality checks-2 0.5 0.75 1 Quality check done at site
15 Documentation-2 0.25 0.5 0.75 Receipt note, inspection note and other documentation prepared
16 Approval 0.083 0.167 0.25 Final acceptance of material done at site
17 Unload 0.5 0.75 0.1 Material unloaded at site store
18 Utilize 24 Material consumed by site execution

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Fig. 1  Simulation model
is initialized with only one consumer. Since the ‘Utilization’
activity is a Combi activity, it can run only when there’s a con-
sumer in the ‘Consumer Waiting’. This ensures that only one
instance of the activity can run at a time, or else there would be
an infinite number of parallel ‘Utilization’ activities and the ‘Stor-
age’ will be exhausted in a single run. The ‘Consumer Waiting’
can be initialized with a value other than 1 depending upon the
number of consumers consuming the same resource in parallel.
Once, the ‘Storage’ reaches a value below a predefined
threshold (which is the re-order point defined by the user), a
new order is issued by increasing the ‘Pending order’ count
by OrderSize. The same process is repeated and the ‘Stor-
age’ is replenished by OrderSize quantity of the material.
The stopping condition is set initially as the total quantity
of the material required for construction. Once the condition
is reached, which means that much quantity of the material
has been consumed by the ‘Utilization’ activity and dumped
into the ‘Executed Quantity’ queue, the execution stops and
the results are displayed.
Example case
To test the simulation process, an example case is taken. In
this, the total scope of 2000 units is assumed to be executed
in a project. The total quantity is not procured in one order,
but ordered gradually in multiple deliveries.
The traditional EOQ problem assumes demand and lead
time to be constant throughout the project length. A safety
stock is maintained to meet the demands at all times. The
material is consumed at a constant rate until it reaches the
re-order point. A new batch of material is delivered at the
site and the inventory is replenished. The economic order
quantity, which is the size of each batch of material to be
delivered at site, is calculated from the following formula:
√
2⋅D⋅S
Q= ,
H
where Q is the EOQ units, D is the rate of consumption, S is
the order cost, and H is the holding costs.
Figure 2 shows the movement of the level of stock of
material due to steady consumption and periodic replenish-
ment. However, this model does not consider the variable
rate of consumption and variable lead time. It also assumes
inventory space to be infinite and the safety stock is cho-
sen arbitrarily. Traditional EOQ model focuses on the cost
aspect, while completely ignoring the space constraints and
stochastic nature of supply chains.
In a realistic scenario, when the consumption rate var-
ies and the lead time is also not constant, the level of the
stock moves irregularly. Figure 3 represents the movement
of stock in such situations. If the safety stock is not chosen
properly, stock can even reach zero level, thereby hampering
the progress of work.
The simulation model proposed in this study provides
a basis for selecting the safety stock and batch order size,
taking into consideration the constraint of limited storage
capacity as well as variable lead time.
The simulation process starts with the material going
through the supply chain to reach the ‘Storage’ queue. The
simulation runs in thousands of iterations, and with each
iteration OrderSize and Threshold parameters are varied.
The size of a single order (OrderSize) is varied from 20
to 200 units. The material is consumed continuously with
again a PERT-based hourly consumption rate. The storage is
allowed to deplete gradually until the storage level reaches
13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

12

10

8 Order size
(Economic
Quanty

Order Quanty)
6

2
Re-order point
Safety stock
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Days

Fig. 2  Movement of level of stock in inventory in an ideal situation

12

10

8
Order size
Quanty

(Economic
6
Order
Quanty)
4

2
Re-order point
Safety stock
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637
Days

Fig. 3  Movement of level of stock in inventory in a realistic situation

a minimum Threshold. Once, that condition is reached,
another OrderSize quantity of material is ordered which
reaches the ‘Storage’ after some lead time.
The above process is repeated until 2000 units of material
reaches the final queue ‘ExecutedQuantity’, then the process
stops. This whole sequence is considered as one iteration.
The average inventory level is noted by STROBOSCOPE
by calculating the time-weighted average of quantity stored
in ‘Storage’. Idle time is noted by calculating time-weighted
average quantity in ‘ConsumerWaiting’. This queue, at any
instance, has value as either 0 (consumer is locked in the
‘Utilization’ activity) or 1 (‘Utilization’ activity is not run-
ning and the consumer is released, hence idle).
The simulation is run for multiple iterations by varying
OrderSize from 20 to 200 and Threshold from 10 to OrderSize.
Figure 4 shows a sample result reported by STROBOSCOPE.
All iterations are not shown in this paper, for brevity. The whole
simulation takes approximately 43 s to run on an Intel i3 3rd
Gen. CPU with 8 GB RAM and running on Windows 10 OS.
The results are exported into MS Excel spreadsheet for
further analysis. Figures 5 and 6 show the effect of OrderSize
and Threshold on Average Inventory Level (AIL). It can be
clearly observed that by increasing the value of either Order-
Size or Threshold, the AIL also increases, thus eating up stor-
age space and increasing holding cost. While OrderSize shows
a linear effect on AIL, Threshold shows a non-linear effect.

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Figures 7 and 8 show the variation of idle time in %age of
total time with the OrderSize and Threshold, respectively. It
can be observed that the idle time has inverse relationships
with these parameters.
From these results, it is seen that the objective of mini-
mizing average inventory level and idle time can be achieved
by optimizing these two parameters. Choosing the correct
combination of these two depends upon the site constraints.
For example, if the storage space is not as big a constraint
as the time, a high value of these two parameters will ensure
that there is no significant idle time. However, if the stor-
age space is limited and must be managed efficiently, lower
values of those will be prudent.
Discussion
This study describes a simulation method to model the sup-
ply chain of construction projects. This simulation process
is developed in the STROBOSCOPE framework, which is a
discrete event-based simulation framework. The uniqueness
of this simulation process is in its capacity to acknowledge
the stochastic nature of the supply chain activities. It uses
Fig. 4  STROBOSCOPE results
window
PERT to model the uncertainties in the duration of each
activity in the supply chain.
The results from the simulation show that both idle time
and average inventory level strongly depend upon the two
parameters, viz., order size (aka Economic Order Quantity)
and minimum re-order threshold. The objectives of effective
supply chain management (SCM) in a construction project
are to minimize the idle time (i.e., the time wasted due to a
material shortage at the site) and minimize the average inven-
tory level (i.e., average stock level maintained in inventory).
While keeping the idle time close to zero is important to
maintain the efficiency of the project, minimizing average
inventory level is important especially in projects where stor-
age space is limited. In projects where storage space is leased
from nearby sites, the role of managing the space becomes
crucially important to avoid incurring additional costs.
However, a similar study has been done in the past to
develop practical methods to calculate the economic order
quantity and re-order point (Nia et al. 2014; Sremac et al.
2019), using ANN and other techniques. This simulation-
based approach is much easier, as it requires very less spe-
cialized knowledge of advanced techniques.
13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 5  Average inventory level 140

vs order size
120

Average inventory level

100
Threshold
80 20
40
60
60
40 80

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Order size

Fig. 6  Average inventory level 100

vs threshold
90
80
Order size
Avg Inventory level

70
50
60
70
50
90
40
110
30
130
20
150
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Threshold

In cases of construction bulk materials, such as reinforce-
ments, cement, etc. that require regular deliveries at the site,
procurement managers and store-in-charges often have to
decide the best approach to place the order to fully support
the work while keeping inventory costs and wastages low.
This method described under the current study provides a
practical approach to aid the decision-making process in
construction supply chain management. The procurement
managers and store-in-charges can adopt this technique to
determine the best parameters to run their supply chains.
Limitations and directions for future research
This study lacks the empirical validation of the simulation pro-
cess. Future research can be done on the parametric study of the
two main dependent variables in the construction supply chain,
viz., the idle time and the average inventory level. Real project
data can be used to model the supply chain using the proposed
method. The predicted values of the aforementioned depend-
ent variables can be compared to that observed at the project.
The proposed simulation model can be further developed
to incorporate the cost aspect of the supply chain in addition to
the time aspect. In modeling the procurement and delivery of
materials, such as diesel and other fuels that have fluctuating
prices in both short and long term, looking at both cost and
time aspects would be more useful instead of focusing on time
alone. For example, in the case of an anticipated rise in the
price of the material, stocking more quantities than required
could be beneficial. While the use of storage space would be
sub-optimal in this case, the cost–benefit would offset any
such disadvantages. This is applicable to the imported mate-
rials as well, which are sensitive to foreign exchange rates.

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Fig. 7  Idle time vs order size 50

45
Threshold
40
20
35
40

Idle me (%)

30
60
25
80
20
20
15
40
10
60
5
80
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Order size

Fig. 8  Idle item vs threshold 50

45
40
Order size
35
50
Idle me (%)

30
70
25
90
20
110
15
130
10
150
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Threshold

Conclusion if not measured with reasonable accuracy, can bring huge

A simulation model has been developed in the STROBO-
SCOPE simulation platform. The model is tested with an
example case. It shows how simulation can be a useful tool
in proper decision-making in construction supply chain man-
agement. The aim of this model is not to make the right
decision, but to aid in the decision-making process.
Simulation has been proven to be a great tool in many
scenarios. Construction supply chain management is one of
them. However, as in all simulations, the quality of input
has a tremendous effect on the quality of output. The con-
cept of “Garbage-in Garbage-out” plays a significant role in
simulations. The duration estimates of individual activities,
errors in the results. Too high variances in the three-point
durations can lead to reduced confidence level of the results,
thus rendering the whole process unreliable.
Acknowledgements  The authors express their deep gratitude toward
RICS School of Built Environment Mumbai and Amity University
Mumbai for supporting this study by providing adequate infrastruc-
ture and working environment. Without it, this study would not have
been completed.
Compliance with ethical standards 
Conflict of interest  On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

Appendix: Simulation code

/Sample Supply chain simulation model development

/User defined supplied data
VARIABLE totalQuantity 2000;
SAVEVALUE orderSize* 10;
SAVEVALUE threshold* 0;
VARIABLE step 10;
/total quantity to be executed (Stopping condition)
/quantity to procure in a single order
/re-order point

/Defining elements used in the model

GENTYPE Product;
GENTYPE Consumer;

/Defining queue
QUEUE storage Product;
QUEUE pendingorder Product;
QUEUE consumerwaiting Consumer;
QUEUE executedWork Product;

/Defining Activities
COMBI callforproduct;
NORMAL requestforquotation;
NORMAL quotationapproval;
NORMAL readytosupply; /involves manufacturing, preparation, finishing make it ready to
supply.
NORMAL physicalchecks1;
NORMAL weighing1;
NORMAL qualitychekcs1;
NORMAL documentation1;
NORMAL load;
NORMAL transport;
NORMAL halt; /for entry at the point of destination
NORMAL physicalchecks2;
NORMAL weighing2;
NORMAL qualitychecks2;
NORMAL documentation2;
NORMAL approval;
NORMAL unloading;
COMBI utilization; /End or exit or return

/Defining the Links

LINK A01 pendingorder callforproduct;
LINK A02 callforproduct requestforquotation Product;
LINK A03 requestforquotation quotationapproval Product;
LINK A04 quotationapproval readytosupply Product;
LINK A05 readytosupply physicalchecks1 Product;
LINK A06 physicalchecks1 weighing1 Product;
LINK A07 weighing1 qualitychekcs1 Product;
LINK A08 qualitychekcs1 documentation1 Product;

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

LINK A09 documentation1 load Product;

LINK A10 load transport Product;
LINK A11 transport halt Product;
LINK A12 halt physicalchecks2 Product;
LINK A13 physicalchecks2 weighing2 Product;
LINK A14 weighing2 qualitychecks2 Product;
LINK A15 qualitychecks2 documentation2 Product;
LINK A16 documentation2 approval Product;
LINK A17 approval unloading Product;
LINK A18 unloading storage;
LINK A19 storage utilization;
LINK A20 utilization executedWork;
LINK A21 consumerwaiting utilization;
LINK A22 utilization consumerwaiting;

DRAWAMT A01 orderSize;

DRAWAMT A19 Pert[2,3,7]; /per day consumption rate

/Duration @ Point of origin

/One hour is considered as an integer and less than one hour considered in decimals.
/ 1=one complete hour

DURATION callforproduct Pert[0.25,0.5,0.75];

DURATION requestforquotation Pert[1.0,2.0,3.0];
DURATION quotationapproval Pert[0.5,0.75,1.0];
DURATION readytosupply Pert[1.0,2.0,3.0];
DURATION physicalchecks1 Pert[0.25,0.5,0.75];
DURATION weighing1 Pert[0.10,0.25,0.50];
DURATION qualitychekcs1 Pert[0.5,0.75,1.0];
DURATION documentation1 Pert[0.25,0.5,0.75];
DURATION load Pert[0.25,0.5,0.75];
DURATION transport Pert[5.0,6.5,8.0];
DURATION halt Pert[0.25,0.5,0.75];
DURATION physicalchecks2 Pert[0.5,0.75,1.0];
DURATION weighing2 Pert[0.10,0.25,0.50];
DURATION qualitychecks2 Pert[0.5,0.75,1.0];
DURATION documentation2 Pert[0.25,0.5,0.75];
DURATION approval Pert[0.083,0.167,0.25];
DURATION unloading Pert[0.5,0.75,1.0];
DURATION utilization 1; /24 hrs for 1 day of consumption

13
 Asian Journal of Civil Engineering

/Defining variables to be used later

SAVEVALUE totalLeadTime 0;
SAVEVALUE cycleCount 0;
SAVEVALUE start 0;

/Print header of output table

DISPLAY "OrderSize Threshold AvgInventoryLevel IdleTime";

/Conditional statements
WHILE orderSize<=200;/(totalQuantity-step);
ASSIGN orderSize orderSize+step;
ASSIGN threshold 0;
WHILE threshold<orderSize-step;
ASSIGN threshold threshold+step;
CLEAR;
INIT consumerwaiting 1; /1 if only one location of usage. Can be
adjusted if required
WHILE executedWork.CurCount<totalQuantity;
IF storage.CurCount<=threshold;
INIT pendingorder orderSize;
ASSIGN start SimTime;
SIMULATEUNTIL storage.CurCount>(orderSize-1);
ASSIGN totalLeadTime totalLeadTime+SimTime-start;
ASSIGN cycleCount cycleCount+1;
ELSE;
SIMULATEUNTIL storage.CurCount<=threshold;
ENDIF;
WEND;
DISPLAY orderSize " " threshold " " storage.AveCount " "
consumerwaiting.AveCount;
WEND;
WEND;

/Present general statistics of the simulation run

REPORT;

DISPLAY "Average lead time of one cycle - " totalLeadTime/cycleCount " hours";

References
AbouRizk, S. (2010). Role of simulation in construction engineering
and management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement, 136(10), 1140–1153.
Cheng, J. C. P., Law, K. H., Bjornsson, H., Jones, A., & Sriram, R.
(2010). A service oriented framework for construction supply
chain integration. Automation in Construction, 19(2), 245–260.
Chou, J.-S. (2011). Cost simulation in an item-based project involving
construction engineering and management. International Journal
of Project Management, 29(6), 706–717.
Jung, M., Park, M., Lee, H.-S., & Chi, S. (2018). Multimethod sup-
ply chain simulation model for high-rise building construction
projects. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 32(3),
04018007.
Kaveh, A., & Vazirinia, Y. (2019). Construction site layout planning
problem using metaheuristic algorithms: A comparative study.
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil
Engineering, 43(2), 105–115.
Kleijnen, J. P. C. (2005). Supply chain simulation tools and techniques:
A survey. International Journal of Simulation and Process Model-
ling, Citeseer, 1(1–2), 82–89.

13
Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
Li, H., & Demeulemeester, E. (2016). A genetic algorithm for the
robust resource leveling problem. Journal of Scheduling, Springer,
19(1), 43–60.
Martinez, J. C. (1996). Stroboscope: State and resource based simula-
tion of construction processes. Michigan: University of Michigan.
Marzouk, M., El-Dein, H. Z., & El-Said, M. (2007). Application of
computer simulation to construction of incremental launching
bridges. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 13(1),
27–36.
Minnullina, A., & Vasiliev, V. (2018). Determining the supply of mate-
rial resources for high-rise construction: Scenario approach. E3S
Web of Conferences, 3060.
Nia, A. R., Far, M. H., & Niaki, S. T. A. (2014). A fuzzy vendor man-
aged inventory of multi-item economic order quantity model
under shortage: An ant colony optimization algorithm. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, 155, 259–271.
Papadaki, I. N., & Chassiakos, A. P. (2016). Multi-objective construc-
tion site layout planning using genetic algorithms. Procedia Engi-
neering, Elsevier, 164, 20–27.
Prasad, K. N. N., Shreyas, M. V., Deshpande, A., & Singh, R. (2018).
Enhancing profitability through improved material management
practices in construction projects. i-Manager’s Journal on Civil
Engineering, 8(4), 13–20.
Roozbeh Nia, A., Hemmati Far, M., & Akhavan Niaki, S. T. (2014).
A fuzzy vendor managed inventory of multi-item economic
order quantity model under shortage: An ant colony optimization
algorithm. International Journal of Production Economics, 155,
259–271.
Saharkar, M. R., & Nanaware, U. R. (2017). Inventory management
technique in construction. International Journal of Engineering
Sciences & Research Technology, 6(9), 225–230.
Sawhney, A., Bashford, H., Walsh, K., & Mulky, A. R. (2003). Con-
struction engineering and project management II: Agent-based
modeling and simulation in construction. In Proceedings of the
35th Conference on Winter Simulation: Driving Innovation,
WSC’03, Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 1541–1547.
Soni, H., Pitroda, J., & Bhavshar, J. J. (2016). Analyzing Inventory
Material Management Control Technique on Residential Con-
struction Project. In International Conference on: Engineering:
Issues, opportunities and Challenges for Development, pp. 41–53.
Sremac, S., Zavadskas, E. K., Matić, B., Kopić, M., & Stević, Ž.
(2019). Neuro-fuzzy inference systems approach to decision sup-
port system for economic order quantity. Economic Research-
Ekonomska Istraživanja, 32(1), 1114–1137.
Van Der Zee, D. J., & Van Der Vorst, J. G. (2005). A modeling frame-
work for supply chain simulation: Opportunities for improved
decision making*. Decision Sciences, 36(1), 65–95.
Vidalakis, C., Tookey, J. E., & Sommerville, J. (2011). Logistics simu-
lation modelling across construction supply chains. Construction
Innovation, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 11(2), 212–228.
Vidalakis, C., Tookey, J. E., & Sommerville, J. (2013). Demand uncer-
tainty in construction supply chains: A discrete event simula-
tion study. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(8),
1194–1204.
Zhang, X., Xiong, R., & Tao, S. (2019). Research on model algorithms
of supply chain of material scheduling with elastic variables in
construction site for giant projects. In V. Sugumaran, Z. Xu, P.
Shankar and H. Zhou (Ed.), Application of Intelligent Systems
in Multi-modal Information Analytics (pp. 805–812). Cham:
Springer International Publishing
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13