Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Supplier selection process in an integrated construction materials

management model
Mahdi Safa a,⁎, Arash Shahi a, Carl T. Haas a, Keith W. Hipel b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada
b
Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The procurement and management of construction materials involve challenges related to reducing inventory,
Received 23 October 2013 speeding delivery, and increasing the control of materials, thus decreasing the overall project cost. The objective
Received in revised form 2 July 2014 of this research was to define and develop an integrated construction materials management (ICMM) model to
Accepted 20 August 2014
address these challenges by deploying principles of virtual inventory management, feasible materials manage-
Available online 16 September 2014
ment networks, and a supplier selection process. Contributions include the development of the ICMM model
Keywords:
and the demonstrated potential of the selection supplier process for improving procurement for construction
Construction material management projects. The use of the supplier selection process has been demonstrated through implementation on an indus-
Supplier selection process trial project and using the TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method. This
BOM process optimizes and validates purchasing at each stage of fabrication for each construction package. A variety of
Decision making project-specific criteria are involved in the supplier selection process, including price, lead-time, cash rebate, and
Optimization supplier performance.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction These elements of materials management systems are associated pri-

Construction materials management can best be defined as “the
planning and controlling of all activities necessary for ensuring and
confirming that the correct and accurate quantity and quality of
materials and equipment are appropriately specified in a timely
manner, are obtained at a reasonable cost, and are available when
needed” [1]. In typical construction projects, the cost of materials can
constitute 50% to 60% of the total cost of the project [2–5], and their
management affects 80% of the project schedule [6]. Strong evidence
shows that an effective and optimized materials management system
can ensure the availability of sufficient quantities of materials and
equipment for construction needs and the minimization of surpluses
at the end of the project [7,8]. Because of their role as important and
complex functions of a project, construction materials management
systems and their elements require substantial improvement [4],
creating significant demand for both their enhancement or amendment
and the development of new applications.
The CII Materials Management Handbook lists critical elements that
can cause shortages of materials: lost or damaged materials, materials
required but not purchased, materials purchased but not received,
errors in material takeoff, variances in additional material requirements,
and materials that are issued to crafts and are not used or installed [8].
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: msmahdisafa@gmail.com (M. Safa).
marily with the purchasing process. Purchasing usually involves tasks
such as selecting and awarding suppliers, analyzing proposals,
delivering purchases, inspecting goods supplied, and maintaining a
variety of purchasing records [9]. This paper introduces a supplier selec-
tion procedure for facilitating the purchasing process. The TOPSIS
method has been used to demonstrate the new procedure for an
industrial project.
Two factors associated with construction materials management
should be noted. The first is that the specification of an integrated
construction materials management system should be conducted over
a reasonable period and as a strategic decision during the Front End
Planning (FEP) phase [9]. The second is related to the fact that materials
management is affected by the “temporary multi-organization” [10]
nature of uniquely defined and executed projects [11,12] that are
characteristic of the construction industry. As with other construction
systems, any supplier selection process developed should therefore be
flexible enough to meet the materials management requirements for a
wide variety of projects. The process presented in this paper was
created with this goal in mind.
Section 2 provides a review and summary of the scholarly works
whose concepts informed the research presented in this paper. The
section is arranged thematically so that it corresponds to the steps
involved in the developed supplier selection process. The discussion
covers a synthesis of current knowledge as well as the gaps between
existing construction materials management practices and the desired
model, which were subsequently addressed through the development

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.08.008
0926-5805/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M. Safa et al. / Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73
of an integrated construction materials management model (ICMM) for
the industrial construction sector. While some articles and studies were
drawn on more heavily than others, and some provided a direction for
reflection rather than actual concepts, all of the work cited provided in-
sights that proved valuable in the development of the model. Section 3
presents the vision of this research with respect to the development of
the ICMM based on the needs and knowledge gaps identified through
the literature review. Individual elements of the developed ICMM are
also described. In Section 4, the approach taken during the creation of
the supplier selection process is explained, and Section 5 discusses the
implementation of the new process in an organization for a specific
project, based on a real case study. Section 6 presents the conclusions
that can be drawn from our findings.
2. Important concepts and characteristics of materials management
Construction materials management is a multi-disciplinary field that
is appropriate for and can build on the correspondence between con-
struction processes and some aspects of the manufacturing industry
that entail a variety of activities for the large-scale conversion of raw
materials into finished products (fabricated products). Thus, some
manufacturing principles may be appropriately applied to construction
as staged-fabrication.
Because EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction) entities
and construction companies often cannot perform all required project
tasks on-site in an efficient and timely manner, construction managers
(experts) have tended to use staged-fabrication technologies whereby
operations traditionally performed on-site have been moved to a
manufacturing environment. Staged fabrication offers an opportunity
to overcome some of the challenges associated with construction mate-
rials management, such as the absence of site inventories, demanding
schedules, permit requirements, and adverse site conditions [13,14].
The staged-fabrication method is addressed in the next section, follow-
ed by a discussion of site materials management and other relevant
concepts.
2.1. Materials management for staged fabrication (off-site)
Staged fabrication is a method of working with contractors so
that value is added at the appropriate “stage” in the supply chain,
and the resulting products such as pipe spools and precast concrete
elements are efficiently delivered to a construction site. The value
of such techniques includes the possibility of enhanced quality
control, improved design details, compressed schedules, and
reduced reliance on site labor. These benefits come at an increased
cost for some projects, but the additional cost could decrease over
time, as the construction industry becomes familiar with the
staged-fabrication process [15]. Already, the application of
staged-fabrication principles to construction materials manage-
ment is beginning to demonstrate benefits with respect to quality,
time, and cost savings [16–18]. Materials management for staged
fabrication is concerned with both the input and output of the
fabrication process.
Implementation of staged-fabrication requires the collaboration of
clients, developers, designers, contractors, manufacturers, suppliers,
government agencies, advisors, and researchers. A variety of staged-
fabrication strategies are commonly used in the construction industry,
including semi-prefabrication, prefabrication, comprehensive, and
modular [19]. With respect to transportation considerations,
prefabricated elements have a higher added value than bulk materials.
The materials to be delivered are, in fact, manufactured products with
value added by a separate workforce, and the percentage of the total
costs represented by the amount required for direct labor and materials
for a project may thus change if additional fabricated products are
incorporated into the construction project [20].
65
2.2. Site materials management
In recent years, there has been an increased research interest in the
materials management theories and methods. These researches recom-
mended an integrated management of the interface between site activ-
ities, the computer systems that are used for design and scheduling, and
other components of the integrated materials management model
[21–23]. The potential benefits to the integrated materials management
include: high accuracy, low cost, and robustness [24]. The attributes of
materials management systems that contribute to the success of a
project were identified by some scholars and experts [8,25,26]. They
associated their findings related to the attributes of materials manage-
ment systems for mega and complex industrial construction projects
with the control of the functions related to quantity takeoff, vendor
evaluation, purchasing, expediting, receiving, warehousing, and distri-
bution. These findings showed that lack of proper management of
these functions leads to shortages and surpluses of materials and to
cash flow problems.
Bell and Stukhart (1995) quantified the savings in the areas of
improved labor productivity, reduced surpluses of bulk materials,
fewer manpower requirements for materials management, and
enhanced cash flow. Surpluses of bulk materials were reduced from a
range of 5% to 10% of the amount purchased to about 1% to 3% of the
amount purchased. This study also showed that an efficient materials
management system can reduce the man-hours needed for materials
management; in the absence of a materials management system, craft
foremen spent up to 20% of their time searching for materials and
another 10% tracking purchase orders (POs) and expediting delivery
[25].
2.3. Planning and control for materials management
One of the most important elements of any effective construction
materials management system is planning [3]. Materials planning inte-
grates and combines the functions of vendor enquiry and evaluation,
project planning, purchasing, material takeoff, transportation, field ma-
terials control, and warehousing [3]. Significant cost overruns can be
caused by shortages of materials resulting from lack of proper materials
planning and control. Improper materials planning and control result
in: the absence of adequate statistics related to the availability of the
materials, a shortage of funds for procurement (budgeting), inadequate
transportation capacities, excessively long average waiting times and
uncertainty about the delivery of the materials ordered and about the
availability of some materials [8].
Transparency among the suppliers, subcontractors and owners is
important for materials planning [27]. The subcontracting concept is
crucial in the materials management process, which should be consid-
ered over developing and implementing the ICMM. The scope of the
subcontracts and lists of equipment and materials to be furnished by
subcontractors are defined during the planning stage [28,29]. The criti-
cal materials are usually procured by the owner (or an EPC), while the
minor equipment and bulk materials may be furnished by the subcon-
tractors. In general, subcontracting requires considerable effort on the
tasks of materials procurement and scheduling but relatively less
emphasis on tasks related to the on-site materials management [30,31].
Transportation planning, materials specification and a coding sys-
tem are important functions of construction materials planning.
Transportation planning should include consideration of cost, safety,
timely delivery, and hazardous materials content. A materials specifica-
tion and coding system must first be established for handling bulk ma-
terials. A materials takeoff establishes the quantity of bulk and
engineered items needed for the project, based on the design. However,
the creation of composite items requires that they be quantified and
arranged based on their relationships, therefore a Bill of Materials
(BOM) must be created from the materials takeoff in order to define
the requirements with respect to project materials.
66 M. Safa et al. / Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73
2.4. Labor productivity and cost impact of materials management
The review of construction materials management on major capital
projects demonstrates that the absence of materials on-site is one of
the most commonly experienced causes of delays and a significant driv-
er of overrun costs [4,32–36]. On the other hand, costs associated with
developing and implementing materials management systems are
substantial. Growing evidence shows that an efficient materials man-
agement system can ensure that the quantities of materials available
are sufficient for construction needs and can minimize surpluses at
the end of the project, thus leading to large cost savings [8]. Such a
system creates an interface between the most important contractors
and the suppliers, which can decrease the average cost of materials by
up to 10% [35,36]. The appropriate supervision of the flow of materials
may also play a substantial role in enhancing the effectiveness of a
contractor [37–39].
Labor cost is one of the key factors that impacts the overall project
cost. In one study 27.7% of the time that craft labor was idle was because
of the unavailability of the required materials, resulting in costly delays
[40]. The unavailability of materials and resources has reportedly had a
negative impact on craft labor productivity by increasing the related
amount of time spent on craft labor activities [41].
2.5. Waste of materials
The minimization of waste (surplus) with respect to construction
materials is a significant issue in many projects worldwide. Experts
recommend that when designs are being prepared, designers employ
a system that has less potential to produce site waste [42]. Construction
experts have established a set of waste-prevention strategies for con-
struction projects. These strategies involve the effective coordination
of materials management processes such as: the well-organized
purchase and proficient ordering of materials, an effective delivery
schedule, effectual storage, the maximization of reuse, and the preven-
tion of rework [43]. The implementation of an integrated materials
management model would provide a valuable opportunity to reduce
the amount of materials wasted and to increase the recovery of those
that would be otherwise be wasted.
2.6. BOM
A BOM is one of the principal elements of any materials manage-
ment system. In general, The BOM is a technical document that clarifies
the composition of a module (or a facility). BOMs determine the struc-
ture and relationship between the module, sub-assembly, prefabricated
units, as well as the corresponding quantities of the subordinate items
and materials of each assembly [44]. Between the primary products
and the top products is a category termed subassemblies [45]. In
construction, the concept of subassemblies is related to staged-
fabrication.
In manufacturing, a generic BOM describes all variants of all compo-
nents and makes it possible to construct a specific BOM for a specific
product variant [46]. Similar components can be grouped as one generic
component, so that each component description would only exist once
in the generic structure, but the variant set of a component would be
described independently. A generic BOM system requires the selection
of the specifications for the generation of the required variant [47].
BOMs have been used in other industries to address the challenges
associated with materials management. For example, Zhang et al.
(2011) designed an auto-parts data management system based on the
BOM [48]. Lee et al. (2012) integrated the BOM with the design of
ship-outfitting equipment and showed that the architecture of a BOM
can be used to define the relationships among parts, assemblies, and
an overall view of a BOM that evolves with ship design [49].
While some construction companies may use in-house or commer-
cial systems to meet their day-to-day materials management needs
based on their specific requirements, the research presented in this
paper shows that an automated/integrated supplier selection process
with an appropriate degree of integration has yet been developed or
suggested in the literature for the construction industry. The developed
integrated construction materials management (ICMM) model as the
foundation of the developed process, as well as its supplier selection
and automation processes, is further discussed in the following section.
3. Integrated construction materials management (ICMM) model
The above discussion clearly establishes the need for an integrated
materials management model and provides an understanding of the
fundamental concepts related to construction materials management
systems, including their benefits and deficiencies. This section explains
how this background informed the development of an ICMM model
that can play a critical role in the success of a construction project. The
core function or process of such a system model is the supplier selection
process, which is the focus of the research presented in this paper.
An ICMM model has the potential to improve construction supply
management processes and thereby lead to enhanced project perfor-
mance. Such a model would help ensure that selected materials are
delivered to the construction site, in a manner that adheres to project
requirements such as price, lead-time, cash rebates, supplier perfor-
mance, and preferred supplier early payments. The goal of developing
this type of model is to reduce inventory and waste with respect to
on-site materials, speed up delivery, and provide increased control of
materials, all of which will decrease the cost of a construction project.
In the ICMM model defined here, project managers can view and
forecast the anticipated arrival dates of goods and are then presented
with consistent and clear shipping documentation so that they can suc-
cessfully complete the receiving process.
A critical aspect of this model is based on the concept of construction
packaging. Construction packaging is an emerging paradigm suited to
the complex and dynamic processes inherent in a construction project
[50,51]. Construction packages can be defined for specific stages of fab-
rication according to the nature of a project. Such staged-fabrication
processes require early collaboration between the construction project
team and other project stakeholders because the knowledge provided
by specialists and experts and the information stored in the historical
database are crucial for these processes. Fig. 1 illustrates the progression
of stages in a typical staged-fabrication process. In staged-fabrication
projects, the output of a construction package can be a prefabricated
unit, a subassembly, or a module. The term “stage” refers primarily to
the idea of progressive assembly into interim products that together
form the final facility, but a “stage” can also occur at different locations
and at varying points in the supply chain or in the project schedule.
The following are three contrasting examples:
1- Prefabricated unit: prefabricated wood frame, pre-stressed rein-
forced concrete element, precast elements, pipe spools, and
prefabricated structural steel frame.
2- Subassembly: purified water storage system, cantilevered deck of an
elevated bridge, decks for a long-span bridge, and platform for a
railway station.
3- Module: pipe module, modular building, and electrical modular box.
In this paper, these types of output are referred to generally as
“fabricated products,” regardless of the stage of fabrication, and in
order to avoid confusion due to a multitude of terms. It should be
noted that any fabricated product of a construction package might con-
tain more than one BOM; however, assigning only one BOM to a fabri-
cated product is more desirable and easier to manage. All BOMs
contain design “fabricated components” that are listed in the schematic
source documents and also include supplementary items that could be
added manually at any stage of fabrication.
The ICMM model defined as part of this research was developed
with the goal of overcoming the manual and inefficient nature of the
 M. Safa et al. / Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73
Fig. 1. Flow of staged-fabrication and terms for stages.
order process by enabling the identification of an appropriate BOM that
results in the total materials cost and primary product availability that
will lead to the most overall cost-effective alternative for a particular
product. The ICMM model is intended to be suitable for internal parties
related to a project, such as the site management team, warehouses, the
financial department, and the purchasing department as well as
external parties, such as suppliers, fabricators, and transportation com-
panies; however, the following discussion relates to the personnel
responsible for the supply chain, who normally determine require-
ments from a number of sources. Materials may be identified from a
request, a planning inquiry, a schedule review, or a restocking demand.
The purchasing (supply chain) department can employ the defined
model as a means of ensuring that timely and cost-effective procure-
ment practices are followed and also that appropriate tasks are
addressed proactively prior to procurement. These tasks include deter-
mining shipping requirements and costs, creating and maintaining
accurate BOMs, ensuring that warehouse procedures are established at
the facility, ascertaining procurement requirements, determining
whether materials are stocked, establishing a process for evaluating
critical items, and setting up a procedure for verifying and coordinating
the availability and cost of materials through monthly system updates.
An important function implemented in the defined ICMM model is a
software algorithm that generates the best possible purchasing strategy
for each BOM item through a supplier selection process. For any large
BOM, obtaining the most cost-effective and timely arrangement of
primary products typically requires extensive manual work. Both the
number of potential suppliers and the prices of materials fluctuate
over time and require constant updating. Manually updating these
records on all corresponding BOMs can become very time-consuming.
Time constraints related to delivery can add to or subtract from the
value to be derived from obtaining a BOM item from a particular suppli-
er, and experience with a specific product source and the possibility of
bulk discounts could also impact project cost. An additional factor is
that modern construction material management processes require
contractors to maintain long-term partnerships with fewer and more
67
reliable suppliers [53]. The ICMM model eliminates the necessity of
manually updating a BOM and takes into account both cost and time
constraints along with any other criteria that must be evaluated. The
supplier selection process described in the remainder of this paper facil-
itates the critical integration of all of these considerations and thus plays
a key role in achieving shorter lead times, reduced costs, and higher
quality [52].
4. Supplier selection process
Today's complex global market and the advancement of enabling
information technologies require a robust framework covering all facets
of material management. Herein, the configuration of the developed
model reflects the expertise gained from extensive surveys, discussion
with experts, and studies of several construction projects in the North
America. The ICMM model illustrated in Fig. 2 consists of six main
components: a warehouse, the selection process, work package compo-
nent, purchase order, supplier's information, and decision component.
The inputs of the ICMM model include updated supplier information,
generic BOM structures, and criteria weighting factors. A simplified
architecture of the ICMM model is depicted in Fig. 2.
Even though there was substantial effort devoted to completing the
programming and implementing the logics of the developed model, the
most critical challenges in implementing the model was defining the
integration architecture and interfaces. All distributed data sources
along the ICMM model must be properly connected and data is
retrieved from one database (e.g. warehouse) should be able to easily
integrate with another database (e.g. project planning). Hence, the
MATLAB programming was employed in this study as it can be integrat-
ed with Excel (purchase department's information and suppliers' data
source), Oracle (used for work packages), and SAP (the warehouse
database).
Most construction capital projects face uncertainty in the estimates
of the performance ratings and criteria weights due to the subjectivity
of procurement experts' judgments [54,55]. Selection of appropriate
criteria influences the supplier selection process, when, conflicting
relationships exist between the criteria and qualitative criteria are
included [56]. Hence, the criteria for evaluating potential suppliers and
also the weight of each individual criterion should be provided by the
project management team prior to procurement process inception. A
further requirement is the purchasing department order (initiated by
site manager/supervisor), which indicates the required quantity of a
target product (output(s) of a work package). This number is multiplied
by the amount listed for that product in the generic requisition order so
that a final requisition order can be produced for the acquisition of
materials for a specific project. A detailed discussion of this process is
provided in the subsequent sections, including decision support.
Several selection methods and multi-criteria decision making
approaches have been developed for supplier selection, such as multi-
criteria utility theory models [57], the simple multi-attribute rating
technique (SMART), the Compromise Ranking method (VIKOR) [58],
evidential reasoning [59], fuzzy set theory [60], the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP), the analytic network process (ANP), case-based reason-
ing (CBR), data envelopment analysis (DEA), genetic algorithms (GA),
and mathematical programming. All these methods can handle multiple
quantitative and qualitative factors [61].
The multi-attribute decision making methods in the construction
management context has been investigated by many scholars and
experts in this field [62–64]. The construction industry needs simple
but effective decision making methods; hence, the TOPSIS approach
[65] is considered and applied in this study. TOPSIS uses the multi-
attribute suppliers ranking method to order the feasible alternative
solutions (best supplier for each item of the BOMs). The MATLAB
programming language was used to apply the TOPSIS method to allow
a simple interaction with Microsoft Excel TM spreadsheets, because it
can extract and manipulate the data as well as maintain the indexing
68 M. Safa et al. / Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73
Fig. 2. Simplified architecture of an ICMM model.
established within the spreadsheet. The first element which is involved
in this process is the generic BOM. A generic BOM contains the general
description and quantity of each item in a fabricated product of a
work package. A purchasing strategy for those items should then be op-
timized based on some criteria such as availability, lead time, and cost.
The main steps of the TOPSIS decision making approach, for this optimi-
zation using Shannon's entropy weighting method, are explained in the
following paragraphs [66].
TOPSIS considers that there are m alternatives (potential suppliers)
and n attributes/criteria and that there exists a unique score for each op-
tion with respect to each criterion. If xij is the score of option i with re-
spect to criterion j, then we have a matrix X = (xij), which is an m × n
decision matrix. The decision matrix containing all the criteria for a par-
ticular item is taken from the supplier information database. The deci-
sion criteria are important elements of the developed process and can
be changed from one project to another in order to accommodate the
one-off nature of the construction projects and unique needs of each
project. However, criteria for selecting the best potential suppliers are
previously investigated and are employed in most construction projects
[67–69]. The selected criteria by the project management team for the
development of the decision matrix developed in this study were:
• Price,
• Lead time,
• Supplier performance, and
• Preferred supplier
The decision matrix, Fig. 3, shows how potential suppliers are evalu-
ated against these criteria for a specific item of the BOM. The first col-
umn consists of the possible suppliers' list (alternatives) from which
Fig. 3. Structure of the alternatives performance matrix used for each item.
decision makers have to choose for a specific item, and the remaining
columns contain criteria with which alternative solutions are measured.
The evaluation attributes are selected by taking into consideration the
objectives and interests of the stakeholders.
The TOPSIS method allows simultaneously dealing with qualitative
and quantitative (different dimensions) criteria. Hence, the attribute di-
mensions must be transformed into non-dimensional attributes, when
the decision matrix is established. In other words, the raw data are nor-
malized to eliminate inconsistencies with respect to differing measure-
ment units and scales. The columns containing each criterion are then
normalized. Each row indicates that an item originates from a specific
supplier. The scores or data are normalized with the following equation:
xij xij
nij ¼ vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; or nij ¼ ; j ¼ 1; …; m; i ¼ 1; …; n: ð1Þ
uX X
m
u m 2 xij
t xij ;
j¼1 j¼1
The nij are normalized values of decision matrix elements, where i is
the supplier and j is the criterion. The normalization is corrected, when
0 ≤ nij ≤ 1.
Accordingly, the normalized decision matrix Pij, shown in Fig. 4, pro-
vides the relative performance of the alternatives through utilizing
Eq. (1). The criteria weight vector needs to be determined in the next
step to present the relative ranking of the alternatives. Shannon's entro-
py was used in this study to calculate the weight vector. Shannon's en-
tropy is one of the various methods for obtaining weights for each
criterion when obtaining a suitable weight based on the decision mak-
ing preferences is challenging. The use of objective weights based on
 M. Safa et al. / Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73 69

Fig. 4. Normalized alternatives performance matrix.

Shannon's entropy ensures that the evaluation result is not affected by be calculated through Eq. (8), and the separation from the negative ideal
the inter-dependency of criteria and inconsistency of subjective alternative is given as Eq. (9).
weights. The original procedure of Shannon's entropy can be expressed
in a series of steps [70,71]: X   1
þ n þ 2 2
dj ¼ i¼1
vij −v i ; j ¼ 1; …; m ð8Þ
Step 1) The amount of normalized decision matrix (Fig. 3) should be
measured by the entropy value as:
m X   1
hi ¼ −K∑i¼1 pij  lnpij ð2Þ þ n − 2 2
dj ¼ i¼1
vij −v i ; j ¼ 1; …; m ð9Þ
where K = (ln m)−1 is the entropy constant and pij is the
amount of decision information (normalized decision matrix)
Then, the closeness coefficient should be defined to determine the
emitted from each criterion Ci.
ranking order of all suppliers (alternatives). The relative closeness of
Step 2) The degree of divergence di should be calculated as di = 1 − hi,
the alternative Aj with respect to A+ is described as:
i = 1,…, n. The di represents the inherent contrast intensity of
the criterion Ci.  
− þ −
Step 3) The degree of importance of criterion Ci (objective weight for R j ¼ d j = d j þ d j ; j ¼ 1; …; m ð10Þ
each criterion) can thus be calculated through:
Since d+ +
j ≥ 0, dj ≥ 0, Rj ∈ [0, 1]
di
wi ¼ ; i ¼ 1; …; n ð3Þ In this step, the preference order of all alternatives must be “ranked”
∑ni¼1 ds according to the closeness coefficient. Then, the best option (supplier) is
selected. The selected supplier for each item (alternative) must have the
Step 4) The comprehensive weight matched with the ith index factor shortest distance from the positive ideal solution, and the farthest dis-
can be obtained through experts' presumption (A =a1, …, am) tance from the negative ideal solution [72]. In other words, the ranking
and the entropy weight vector (3), as follows: order of all suppliers (according to the closeness coefficient) can be de-
a i  wi termined. Then, the best supplier for each specific item from among a
0
wi ¼ ; i ¼ 1; …; m ð4Þ set of potential suppliers can be selected.
∑m
i¼1 ai  wi

5. Supplier selection process implementation

Thus, the comprehensive weight vector is: w′ = (w1′, w2′, …, wi′).
Based on the nature of the project (entropy method) and the opinion The supplier selection process described in this paper, as part of the
of the experts who are all from industry, the weight vector calculated ICMM model, was programmed in MATLAB environment in order to
for this study is [(1) price = 23%; (2) lead time = 31%; (3) supplier per- provide a simple implementation platform that could effectively
formance = 37%; and (4) preferred supplier = 9%]. After calculating a communicate with Excel spreadsheets, the most common data source
set of weights for each criterion (wi′ for i = 1…n), each column of the on construction projects. The program, upon initialization, checks for
normalized decision matrix must be multiplied by its associated weight. an existing generic BOM database file to load. If no database file is
The weighted normalized value vij (performance ratings of the alterna- detected, it prompts the user to create a database by selecting a folder
tives and objective weights of the criteria) is calculated as: for each individual fabricated product one by one. For each folder
selected, the program processes every BOM within that folder and
0
vij ¼ wi nij ð5Þ stores the order lists for all primary fabricated products, along with
the total cost of all fabricated products, taking into account the varying
The next step is producing an overall performance index for each quantities for each separate BOM. After the database has been created
supplier (alternative). Now, the positive ideal solution (Eq. (6)) and and detected, it then creates a directory where all the BOM selection
negative ideal solution (Eq. (7)) can be identified as: files are stored.
To obtain a selection of a supplier for a particular item from the
n o n   o
þ þ þ construction package, the user selects the fabricated product(s) of a
A ¼ v1 ; …; vn ¼ maxj v ji∈I ; mini vij ji∈ J ð6Þ
construction package from the drop-down menu that lists every fabri-
cated products within the database, and initiates the selection process
n   o which then requires the user to choose the quantity of the specific
− − −
A ¼ fv1 ; …; vn g ¼ minj v ji∈I ; maxi vij ji∈J ð7Þ fabricated product desired. The program detects the best selection of
suppliers for the items of a BOM with the minimum cost and lead
where I is associated with supplier performance, and preferred supplier time from the database and outputs the order of primary fabricated
criteria; and J is associated with price and lead time criteria. At this step, products with the quantities adjusted based on the desired amount of
the separation of each alternative (supplier) from the ideal solution can the fabricated product input by the user.
70 M. Safa et al. / Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73
The developed supplier selection process is intended for use with a
large BOM database so that any specific company can generate an
order quickly and efficiently, without the requirement for manual
browsing of BOMs and a lengthy selection process. With the ICMM
model, most of the detailed record keeping and updates are automated,
and project managers are notified about purchasing requirements. The
code related to the MATLAB functions that were programmed for the
selection process has been previously published by the author [73].
The BOM selection process requires the presence and processing of
the components necessary for the selection of a best possible BOM so
that a database can be created. The first element is an updated supplier
information sheet, which should include the cost of a particular (or min-
imum) quantity of an item, the lead time, and a company rating, or
experience factor for that specific supplier. The full fabricated product
data are then extracted and stored in a variable in the same structure
where the pre-arranged Excel sheet is located. The next step incorpo-
rates all generic BOM structures, which serve as a “skeleton” for
constructing a selected BOM. All BOM structures required for a particu-
lar project are extracted in a system-specified format from each
construction work package.
For the ICMM model, every generic BOM is placed in its own unique
Excel sheet. A generic BOM file of each fabricated product contains each
item name, item code, units, hierarchy, and quantity. The supplier selec-
tion process filters all items of a BOM for the completion of a requisition
order for a particular fabricated product. This process is run for all BOMs
imported into the model, and a database of fabricated product requisi-
tion order templates, complete with item quantities for each unit of
that specific BOM, is generated and stored.
The last step involves the extraction of the user-specified Excel sheet
containing the weighting factor for each criterion in the updated suppli-
er information sheet. Once the processing algorithm is initialized, the
supplier selection process checks for a materials list database. If none
is detected, the user is prompted to load every generic BOM structure
sequentially for every fabricated product, following which a fabricated
product database is created. The user next selects the materials manage-
ment spreadsheet, which the program reads and stores within a new
materials list database. Finally, the user is prompted for the weighting
factor spreadsheet, which is then stored.
6. Validation and data preparation
The following case study provides an understanding of the way the
process can be developed and implemented in an organization for a
specific construction project. Since the names of suppliers and all details
associated with the contracts must be kept confidential and may not be
made public, capital letters are used as anonymous designations for
suppliers. In this case, the project included 680 work packages, all of
which had to be procured using a BOM per work package. For the
purposes of this demonstration study, only the fabrication of a complex
piping module consisting of 20 of the construction packages is
addressed. Its fabrication is discussed with respect to the implementa-
tion of the ICMM model as a means of illustrating the production of an
automated final order. For these 20 construction packages used in this
validation, 14 different potential suppliers of the required materials
were available. After the pre-evaluation process, three suppliers were
removed by the project management team. It should be noted that if a
supplier provides two or more prices with different lead times or condi-
tions, the model recognize this suppliers as the two or more suppliers
with distinctive IDs.
As mentioned previously, when a request is issued by an authorized
person (e.g., the project manager, superintendent, or project engineer),
the first draft is prepared through appropriate amounts listed in the
generic BOM. This draft order must then be compared with the ware-
house inventory stock. This process is shown in Fig. 2. The warehouse
inventory can be categorized into virtual and actual inventories. A
virtual inventory includes all of the materials, equipment, and
prefabricated modules on hand, whether on other sites, suppliers' stores
or at the shipping process. Internet connectivity and cloud computing
have provided the infrastructure for virtual inventories. Virtual invento-
ry lists do not include the materials and equipment currently at the
construction site. Virtual inventory provides the ability to achieve a
faster purchasing process, to avoid the surplus (left over in other
projects), and to achieve flexibility, and higher valuations than the
more traditional “stock and reactive purchasing process”.
The warehouse component of the ICMM model, which is specified to
be integrated with the other elements of the model, is intended to
record whether the item is a new or replacement material, a safety- or
augmented-quality material, measuring and test equipment (M&TE), a
rotatable spare, or a lead-time item and whether it is covered by the
maintenance rule. The ICMM model requires a robust warehouse
system for the control and management of all activities related to the re-
ceipt, inspection, storage, counting, distribution, issuance, and shipping
of equipment and materials. Following this comparison, the draft of the
purchase order is ready, and the model is run in order to obtain the
optimal solution, which is the final purchase order. The running of the
program and support for this part of the model requires accurate infor-
mation about suppliers, which must then be entered into the model. The
study with 20 construction packages is described next.
Suppliers S1, S2, …, S8 have almost the same characteristics, and their
location is the same locale as the project site and therefore would entail
no delivery fees. These suppliers also have knowledge of the policies
and delivery procedures used by the Canadian group of construction
companies and are on the group's Approved Suppliers List (ASL)
because of years of proven reliability in supplying several projects.
Other characteristics that were considered with respect to each individ-
ual supplier included quick order turnaround time, consistently correct
documentation accompanying shipments, immediate correction of
order problems by the inside sales contact, immediate correction of in-
voicing issues and prompt issuing of credits, early payment discounts
for payments made within the specified terms, and status as a preferred
supplier of the construction group companies involved, which entails
valuable year-end sales rebates.
The database information about suppliers S9, S10 and S11 showed
that none of these suppliers are local, so additional delivery fees
would be charged. Suppliers S9, S10 and S11 are also not on the ASL for
the group of companies, which means that these suppliers would be
required to complete an evaluation form and submit it to quality control
for review and possible audit. The quality control department would
also have to evaluate and then approve or deny all materials, a process
that can be quick or lengthy, depending on the supplier's certifications,
qualifications, and internal quality programs.
After the supplier selection process was completed, using all of the
processes explained previously, the potential awarded suppliers against
each item can be determined. Table 1 shows the sample results of the
procurement exercise. It depicts a portion of one of the BOM structures
for this project, showing the corresponding work package, item name,
item code, awarded supplier for each item, hierarchy, and quantity for
all fabricated products. The cost column in this figure represents only
the best cost option after the selection process was run. It should be
noted that even after selecting best items and initiating the purchase
order, the purchasing department would still need to negotiate and fi-
nalize the contract details with the successful supplier.
The implementation of the selection process was discussed with
experts, throughout this research. The results were then compared
with those obtained through the purchasing department. The results
showed that the process is accurate and can be performed project-
wide. Our study showed that the most challenging part of this process
is assigning the proper weight to each criterion, based on experts'
opinion. This process is critical as the results of the selection process
may change by small changes in weighting vector (Table 2). In this re-
search, approximately 350 man-hours was spent to extract all necessar-
ily information from PDF and Excel files provided by contractor, only for
 M. Safa et al. / Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73 71

Table 1
Sample results of the supplier selection process for a work package.

Work package # Item # Item Code Awarded supplier(S) Quantity Cost ($)

3 1 FT 12″ XH 1333 GR6 SMLS DR 1154788 S10 170 21,590

3 2 FT 8″ XH A333 GR6 SMLS 1158486 S10 20 900
3 3 FT. 15″ XH A106B SMLS DR 1166788 S4 80 392
3 4 FLANGE 12″ PN100 RFWN XH A350LF2 CL1 1165879 S7 10 5650
3 5 ELBOW 90 LR 12″ XH A420WPL6 1768688 S7 13 9360
3 6 ELBOW 90 1.5″ 3M THREADED A105 1768329 S7 11 136
3 7 CONIC REDUCER 12″ × 8″ XH × STD A420WPL6 1662187 S7 3 2250
3 8 SWAGE CONC THRD 1.5″ × 0.5″ XH A234WPB 1157777 S7 6 102
3 9 UNION THRD 1.5″ 3M A105 1323255 S10 8 112

3 117 BULL PLUG HEX SOLID BODY 1.5″ 6M A234WPB 1766978 S10 8 98
3 118 TEE STRAIGHT THRD 1687878 S7 10 158

a small portion of the project (20 out of 680 work packages). Even
though this seems to be a very significant effort, it should be noted
that once an ICMM framework is fully implemented as described in
this paper, all required information is captured and automatically
utilized through the system. Therefore, the supplier selection process
for the entire project can be performed in a matter of minutes, hence
utilizing the true advantages of automation in construction. Most of
the information captured in an ICMM model is transferrable from
project to project, with minor modification, thus increasing the return
on investment in an ICMM system in the long-term.
For this case study, partial sensitivity analysis was performed for the
weight-vector through changing parameter values and rerunning the
selection process. In other words, managers changed the weight of
criteria and examined the impact that the change had on the model's
results. In practice, the factors affecting the purchasing decision process
are changing from project to project. They may also change over the
course of a project. Thus, project managers can control the process
through alterations in the weight of attributes. This approach could pro-
vide valuable insights into the robustness of purchase-decisions. Differ-
ent scenarios were considered for this study (Table 2). For example,
Scenario 6 occurs when project execution is deemed to be far behind
the project schedule and therefore the weight of lead-time is increased.
Scenario 5 could be considered when the cost needs to be kept down.
Table 2 shows the different scenarios' results. Any changes in the
weights of criteria may change the results; however, the outcomes of
some scenarios are identical for this specific study.
It should be noted that some of procurement experts prefer to
eliminate the weighting criteria to avoid the challenges such as conflict
opinions, and lack of time and precise information due to the project
complexity. A few methods, such as the FPSI method, have been devel-
oped to eliminate the weighting criteria through assigning relative im-
portance of each (based on decision maker's opinions) [74].
By implementing the ICMM model, the procurement process can
also be integrated and automated. Furthermore, the user can mitigate
the significant risk of excessive partnership strength in which the
relationship between managers (decision makers) and suppliers can
become too personal over the course of years. While this kind of person-
al selection practice has associated benefits, such as stability, mutual
trust, and reduced transaction and search costs, it also entails problems.
Trust between an owner and a supplier which is created through
credibility and benevolence is such an important factor [75] that should
be always considered for the development of the ICMM. However, a
critical recommendation is the avoidance of any unsystematic tenden-
cies and reliance, instead, on a systematic method for designating a
supplier.
7. Conclusion
The major contribution of this paper lies in the development of the
ICMM model for the efficient procurement of construction materials,
primarily through the use of the TOPSIS (Technique for Order
Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) method as an effective frame-
work for the supplier selection process. The developed model is based
on consideration of the majority of the activities associated with the
procurement of materials: (1) processing and administration related
to purchase requisitions, (2) purchase orders, (3) internal supply
requests, (4) shipping, (5) expediting of materials, and (6) supplier
selection. The general-purpose framework for the selection of the
most suitable supplier is formulated as a multi-criteria decision-
making problem that incorporates a variety of material management
parameters. The TOPSIS method, an effective multi-criteria decision
analysis method, was therefore employed as the framework for ranking
the suppliers for each BOM item. A MATLAB programming language
environment was used for developing and implementing the supplier
selection process developed in this research. The new process was
applied for an industrial construction project and was functionally
demonstrated to be effective for facilitating the decision-making pro-
cess by providing optimal supplier rankings for each BOM item based
on consideration of a number of constraints and interdependencies. It
can thus be concluded that materials supplier selection for construction

Table 2
The consequence table in sensitivity analysis for the total of items purchased (20 selected work package).

Price Lead time Performance Early payment Awarded suppliers

Base case 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 S1 & S2 & S4 & S5 & S6 & S7 & S9 & S10 & S11
Scenario 1 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.1 S1 & S2 & S3& S4 & S5 & S6 & S7 & S9 & S10 & S11
Scenario 2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 S1 & S2 & S3& S4 & S5 & S6 & S7 & S9 & S10 & S11
Scenario 3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 S1 & S2 & S3& S4 & S5 & S9 & S11
Scenario 4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 S3 & S4 & S5 & S6 & S7 & S9 & S11
Scenario 5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 S1 & S2 & S4 & S7 & S8 & S9 & S11
Scenario 6 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 S1 & S2 & S4 & S5 & S6 & S7 & S8 & S11
72 M. Safa et al. / Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73
enterprises can be optimized using the TOPSIS method and the frame-
work presented here. Further development and enhancements could
include connecting the ICMM model to the materials management sys-
tems of trusted suppliers and implementing additional automation and
integration within their models. Future research will provide further
comparisons of the proposed and current selection processes and also
investigate alternative optimization approaches.
References
[1] Business Roundtable, Modern management systems, Construction Industry Cost
Effectiveness Report A-61982.
[2] G. Stukhart, L.C. Bell, Attributes of materials management systems, phase 1
research-material management performance, Report prepared for the Construction
Industry Institute (CII), Source Document 1, USA1987.
[3] Construction Industry Institute (CII), Project Materials Management Handbook,
University of Texas at Austin, Materials Management Task Force, CII, 1988.
[4] N.T. Ibn-Homaid, A comparative evaluation of construction and manufacturing
materials management, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20 (4) (2002) 263–270.
[5] C.H. Caldas, D.G. Torrent, C.T. Haas, Integration of automated data collection technol-
ogies for real-time field materials management, Proceedings of the 21st International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Jeju, Korea, 2004.
[6] A.E. Kerridge, Manage materials effectively, Hydrocarbon Processing, Part 1 and 2,
661987. (63-71 and 67-70).
[7] H.R. Thomas, D.R. Riley, John I. Messner, Fundamental principles of site material
management, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 131 (7) (2005) 808–815.
[8] Construction Industry Institute (CII), Procurement and Materials Management: A
Guide to Effective Project Execution, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, 1999.
[9] M. Safa, C.T. Haas, J. Gray, K. Hipel, Electronic Process Management System based
Front End Planning Tool (FEPT), J. Constr. Eng. Proj. Manag. (ISSN: 2233-9582) 3
(2) (2013).
[10] I. Chapman, P. Olomolaiye, F. Harris, Automation problems in materials manage-
ment on large construction projects, Proceedings of the 7th ISARC, Bristol, United
Kingdom, 1990, pp. 499–504.
[11] R. Vrijhoef, L. Koskela, The four roles of supply chain management in construction,
Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 6 (2000) 169–178.
[12] D.M. Gann, A.J. Salter, Innovation in project-based, service enhanced Ž rms: the
construction of complex products and systems, Res. Policy 29 (2000) 955–972.
[13] C.T. Haas, W.R. Fagerlund, Preliminary research on prefabrication, pre-assembly,
modularization and off-site fabrication in construction, Construction Industry
Institute (CII), University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, 2002.
[14] S.H. Han, M. Al-Hussein, S. Al-Jibouri, H. Yu, Automated post-simulation visualiza-
tion of modular building production assembly line, Autom. Constr. 21 (2012)
229–236.
[15] N. Yeung, A. Chan, D. Chan, Application of prefabrication in construction — A new
research agenda for reform by CII-HK, Conference on Precast Concrete Building
Systems, Hong Kong, 2003.
[16] R. Sacks, C.M. Eastman, G. Lee, Process model perspectives on management and en-
gineering procedures in the precast/pre-stressed concrete industry, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 130 (2) (2004) 206–215.
[17] C.T. Haas, J.T. O'Connor, R.T. Tucker, J.A. Eickmann, W.R. Fagerlund, Prefabrication
and preassembly trends and effects on the construction workforce, Report No. 14,
Center for Construction Industry Studies, Austin, TX, 2000.
[18] H. Voordijk, B. Meijboom, J.D. Haan, Modularity in supply chains: a multiple
case study in the construction industry, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 26 (6) (2006)
600–618.
[19] V. Tam, C. Tam, W. Ng, On prefabrication implementation for different project types
and procurement methods in Hong Kong, J. Eng. Des. Technol. 5 (1) (2007) 68–80.
[20] C. Hendrickson, A. Tung, Project Management for Construction, Fundamental
Concepts for Owners, Engineers, Architects and Builders, Prentice Hall, 1998, ISBN
0-13-731266-0.
[21] A. Segerstedt, T. Olofsson, Supply chains in the construction industry, Supply Chain
Manag. Int. J. 15 (5) (2010) 347–353.
[22] R. Vrijhoef, L. Koskela, The four roles of supply chain management in construction,
Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 6 (3-4) (2000) 169–178.
[23] A. Dubois, L.E. Gadde, Supply strategy and network effects — purchasing behavior in
the construction industry, Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 6 (3-4) (2000) 207–215.
[24] W. Jang, M. Skibniewski, Cost–benefit analysis of embedded sensor system for con-
struction materials tracking, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 135 (5) (2009) 378–386.
[25] H.M. Elzarka, L.C. Bell, Object-oriented methodology for materials-management sys-
tems, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 121 (4) (1995) 438–445.
[26] H.R. Thomas, V. Sanvido, Impact of material management on productivity—a case
study, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. ASCE l (i 15) (1989) 370–384 (1(i 15).
[27] J.C.P. Cheng, K.H. Law, H. Bjornsson, A. Jones, R. Sriram, A service oriented frame-
work for construction supply chain integration, Autom. Constr. (ISSN: 0926-5805)
19 (2) (2010) 245–260.
[28] A. Segerstedt, T. Olofsson, Supply chains in the construction industry, Supply Chain
Manag. Int. J. 15 (5) (2010) 347–353.
[29] H.P. Tserng, P.H. Lin, An accelerated subcontracting and procuring model for
construction projects, Autom. Constr. (ISSN: 0926-5805) 11 (1) (2002) 105–125.
[30] S.T. Ng, C.D.T. Luu, Modeling subcontractor registration decisions through case-
based reasoning approach, Autom. Constr. 17 (7) (2008) 873–881 ISSN 0926–5805.
[31] R. Sacks, M. Radosavljevic, R. Barak, Requirements for building information
modeling based lean production management systems for construction, Autom.
Constr. (ISSN: 0926-5805) 19 (5) (2010) 641–655.
[32] M.C. Forde, High performance construction materials and systems: An essential
program for America and its infrastructure technical report 93–5011, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1993. (ISBN 0-87262-938-2, 212 pp.).
[33] M.R. Manavazhia, D.K. Adhikarib, Material and equipment procurement delays in
highway projects in Nepal, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20 (2002) 627–632.
[34] G. Sweis, R. Sweis, Hammad A. Abu, A. Shboul, Delays in construction projects: the
case of Jordan, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (6) (2008) 665–674.
[35] H. Abdul-Rahman, M.N. Alidrisyi, A perspective of materials management practices
in a fast developing economy: the case of Malaysia, Constr. Manag. Econ. 12 (1994)
413–422.
[36] P.N. Christensen, G.A. Sparks, K.J. Kostuk, A method-based survey of life cycle
costing literature pertinent to infrastructure design and renewal, Can. J. Civ.
Eng. 32 (1) (2005) 250–259.
[37] E. Asplund, U. Danielson, Rata ut Byggsvangen (Straightening the Building
Roundabout), SBUF, Stockholm, 1991.
[38] J. Jarnbring, Construction Site's Material Flow Costs, Lund University of Technology,
Lund, 1994. (in Swedish).
[39] G. Polat, D. Arditi, The JIT materials management system in developing countries,
Constr. Manag. Econ. 23 (7) (2005) 697–712.
[40] J.D. Borcherding, S.J. Sebastian, Major factors influencing craft productivity in nucle-
ar power plant construction, Trans. Am. Assoc. Cost Eng. 1 (1980) (Paper I).
[41] S.A. Assaf, S. Al-Hejji, Causes of delay in large construction projects, Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 24 (4) (2006) 349–357.
[42] L.L. Ekanayake, G. Ofori, Building waste assessment score: design-based tool, J. Build.
Environ. (2004) 851–861.
[43] B.K. Fishbein, Building for the Future: Strategies to Reduce Construction and Demolition
Waste in Municipal Projects, http://www.informinc.org/cdreport.html1998.
[44] J. Guoli, G. Daxin, F. Tsui, Analysis and implementation of the BOM of a tree-type
structure in MRPII, J. Mater. Process. Technol. (ISSN: 0924-0136) 139 (2003)
535–538 (20).
[45] Y. Chung, G.W. Fischer, A conceptual structure and issues for an object-oriented bill
of materials (BOM) data model, Comput. Ind. Eng. 26 (2) (1994) 321–339.
[46] H.M.H. Hegge, J.C. Wortmann, Generic bill-of-material: a new product model, Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 23 (1–3) (1991) 117–128.
[47] J. Jiao, M.M. Tseng, Q. Ma, Y. Zou, Generic bill-of-materials-and-operations for high-
variety production management, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl. 8 (4) (2000) 297–321.
[48] Y. Zhang, Y. Yang, M. Jiang, P. Xia, B. Li, Design and implementation of auto parts
data management system based on BOM, Appl. Mech. Mater. 127 (2012) 42–47.
[49] J.H. Lee, S.H. Kim, K. Lee, Integration of evolutional BOMs for design of ship outfitting
equipment, CAD Comput. Aided Des. 44 (3) (2012) 253–273.
[50] Construction Owners Association of Alberta (COAA), Workface Planning Model and
Implementation Guide, 2007. (Edmonton. Alberta, Canada).
[51] Construction Industry Institute (CII), Work Packaging for Project Control, CII Infor-
mation Publication, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Texas, 1988.
[52] P. Bhutia, R. Phipon, Application of AHP and TOPSIS method for supplier selection
problem, IOSR J. Eng. 2 (2012) 43–50.
[53] A.A. Costa, L.V. Tavares, Advanced multicriteria models to promote quality and rep-
utation in public construction e-marketplaces, Autom. Constr. 30 (2013) 205–215.
[54] P. Jaskowski, S. Biruk, R. Bucon, Assessing contractor selection criteria weights with
fuzzy AHP method application in group decision environment, Autom. Constr. 19
(2) (2010) 120–126.
[55] A. Nieto-Morote, F. Ruz-Vila, A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for con-
struction contractor prequalification, Autom. Constr. 25 (2012) 8–19.
[56] P.O. Akadiri, P.O. Olomolaiye, E.A. Chinyio, Multi-criteria evaluation model for the
selection of sustainable materials for building projects, Autom. Constr. 30 (2013)
113–125.
[57] G. Arslan, S. Kivrak, M. Birgonul, I. Dikmen, Improving sub-contractor selection pro-
cess in construction projects: Web-based sub-contractor evaluation system
(WEBSES), Autom. Constr. 17 (2008) 480–488.
[58] Cristóbal J. San, Contractor selection using multicriteria decision-making methods, J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 138 (2011) 751–758.
[59] M. Sonmez, G. Holt, J.B. Yang, G. Graham, Applying evidential reasoning to
prequalifying construction contractors, ASCE J. Manag. Eng. 18 (3) (2002) 111–119.
[60] D. Singh, R. Tiong, A fuzzy decision framework for contractor selection, ASCE J.
Constr. Eng. Manag. 131 (1) (2005) 62–70.
[61] W. Ho, X. Xu, P.K. Dey, Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier
evaluation and selection: a literature review, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 202 (2010) 16–24.
[62] E.K. Zavadskas, T. Vilutiene, Z. Turskis, J. Tamosaitiene, Contractor selection for
construction works by applying saw‐g and topsis grey techniques, J. Bus. Econ.
Manag. 11 (2010) 34–55.
[63] Y.H. Lin, P.C. Lee, T.P. Chang, H.I. Ting, Multi-attribute group decision making model
under the condition of uncertain information, Autom. Constr. (ISSN: 0926-5805) 17
(6) (2008) 792–797.
[64] X. Xue, X. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Wang, An agent-based framework for supply chain coordi-
nation in construction, Autom. Constr. (ISSN: 0926-5805) 14 (3) (2005) 413–430.
[65] C.L. Hwang, K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision making: Methods and Applications,
Springer, New York, 1981.
[66] S.J. Chen, C.L. Hwang, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
[67] I.M. Mahdi, M.J. Riley, S.M. Fereig, A.P. Alex, A multicriteria approach to contractor
selection, Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 9 (1) (2002) 29–37.
[68] J.T. O'Connor, G.E. Gibson, G.C. Migliaccio, R1–2004 Annual Interim Report, Report
0–4661–1 to Texas Department of Transportation, CTR, Austin, TX, 2005. 32.
 M. Safa et al. / Automation in Construction 48 (2014) 64–73
[69] D. Singh, R. Tiong, Contractor selection criteria: investigation of opinions of
Singapore construction practitioners, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 132 (9) (2006)
998–1008.
[70] C.E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27 (1948)
379–423.
[71] H. Deng, C. Yeh, R.J. Willis, Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with
objective weights, Comput. Oper. Res. 27 (2000) 963–973.
[72] G.R. Jahanshahloo, F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, M. Izadikhah, An algorithmic method to
extend TOPSIS for decision-making problems with interval data, Appl. Math.
Comput. 175 (2006) 1375–1384.
73
[73] M. Safa, A Comprehensive Advanced Construction Supply Nexus Model, University
of Waterloo, Canada, 2013. 181–205 (PhD thesis).
[74] H. Abbasianjahromi, H. Rajaie, E. Shakeri, A framework for subcontractor selection in
the construction industry, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 19 (2013) 158–168.
[75] I. Rodríguez del Bosque, J. Collado, H. San Martín, Determinants of economic and
social satisfaction in manufacturer–distributor relationships, Ind. Mark. Manag.
(ISSN: 0019-8501) 35 (6) (2006) 666–675.