<%BANNER%>

Supply Chain Management as Perceived by the U.S. Construction Industry

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024110/00001

Material Information

Title: Supply Chain Management as Perceived by the U.S. Construction Industry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (83 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Karatas, Aslihan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: chain, construction, industry, management, supply
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Civil Engineering thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Supply chain management (SCM) has become a fundamental element in the construction industry to improve the efficiency and productivity in recent decades. The construction sector players including contractors, suppliers and clients have major roles in establishing and developing supply chain management and collaboration. In this study, the relationship between contractors, their suppliers and clients has been investigated to reveal the degree of importance of supply chain management from the point of view of contractors. The individual opinions of the contractors have also been analyzed to obtain personal data on the subject. This study details the results of a questionnaire survey of supply chain management applied to US construction industry contractors randomly selected among US construction industry contractors. From the results obtained, some solutions can be proposed for the effective use of supply chain management for optimum construction performance as well as emphasizing some crucial points avoiding optimum efficiency and productivity in the construction business.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Aslihan Karatas.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Ellis, Ralph D.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024110:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024110/00001

Material Information

Title: Supply Chain Management as Perceived by the U.S. Construction Industry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (83 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Karatas, Aslihan
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: chain, construction, industry, management, supply
Civil and Coastal Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Civil Engineering thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Supply chain management (SCM) has become a fundamental element in the construction industry to improve the efficiency and productivity in recent decades. The construction sector players including contractors, suppliers and clients have major roles in establishing and developing supply chain management and collaboration. In this study, the relationship between contractors, their suppliers and clients has been investigated to reveal the degree of importance of supply chain management from the point of view of contractors. The individual opinions of the contractors have also been analyzed to obtain personal data on the subject. This study details the results of a questionnaire survey of supply chain management applied to US construction industry contractors randomly selected among US construction industry contractors. From the results obtained, some solutions can be proposed for the effective use of supply chain management for optimum construction performance as well as emphasizing some crucial points avoiding optimum efficiency and productivity in the construction business.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Aslihan Karatas.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Ellis, Ralph D.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024110:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SURVEY OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AS PERCEIVED BY THE US CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY By ASL I A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE D EGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Asl

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank people who helped me complete the work contained in this thesis. The h elp of my supervisor Dr. Ralph Ellis was of great value. I would like to thank Dr. Raymond Issa for his technical advice, encouragement and insightful comments throughout my work I thank Dr. Zohar Herbsman for serving as my thesis committee member and hel pful advices. I would like to express my special thanks to my parents Dr. Necmiye and Dr. my sister Berfin and my beloved aunt Dr. Gnseli Grr Their understanding and faith in me and my capabilities, their love, encouragement, and eternal support have motivated me all the time. Their support was the big gest motivation for the completion of my degree. Also I would like to thank my dear friends, Diner Konur and Sezgin Ayabakan, without them it would be hard for me to accomplish this work.

PAGE 5

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

PAGE 6

6 APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM ......................................................................................................................... 46 Informed Consent Form .............................................................................................................. 46 Questionnaire Form ..................................................................................................................... 47 B CRONBACHS ALPHA TEST RESULTS .............................................................................. 51 Fac tors Affecting Contractors Organization when Considering Developing SC Collaboration ........................................................................................................................... 51 Factors Necessary for Contractors when Developing Successful SC Relationship with a Supplier .................................................................................................................................... 54 Factors Affecting the Development of a Successful Supply Chain Relationship between Contractors and Clients ........................................................................................................... 57 Factors which are Barrie rs to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors ................................ 60 C ANOVA RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 63 Functions Affecting the Contractors Efficiency of Supply C hain in Relation to Suppliers ................................................................................................................................... 63 Factors for Developing SC Collaboration ................................................................................. 64 Companies value partnership with their suppliers/cli ents ........................................................ 67 Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply Chain Relationship with a Supplier ........................................................................................ 67 Fa ctors Affecting the Development of a Successful Supply Chain Relationship between Contractors and Clients ........................................................................................................... 71 Factors which are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its Clients/Supplie rs ...................................................................................................................... 75 Relationship between contractor and the majority of their suppliers/clients ........................... 76 Factors which are Barriers to Supply Chain Integration for Contractors ................................ 77 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 83

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Sample of SC organization .................................................................................................... 17 2 2 M anufacturing companys SC (Spekman et al, 1998) ......................................................... 17 2 3 Supply chain data acquisition process in construction (adapted from Spekman et al. (1998) An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective on partnerships) ......................................................................................................................... 18 4 1 Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers .................................. 36 4 2 Factors developing a supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers ...................... 36 4 3 Relationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients ...................... 37 4 4 Partnership agreements with suppliers and clients ............................................................... 37 4 5 Average duration for partnership agreements with clients and suppliers ........................... 37 4 6 Results indicate how the contractors value partnership with clients and suppliers ........... 37 4 7 Developing a SC relationship with a supplier ...................................................................... 38 4 8 Developing a SC relationship with client ............................................................................. 39 4 9 Factors affecting the communication with the suppliers and clients .................................. 40 4 10 Barriers to suppl y chain integration for contractor .............................................................. 41 B1 Matrix plot of factors affecting contractors organization when considering developing a SC collaboration ............................................................................................... 53 B2 Matrix plot of factors which are necessary for contractors when developing a successful SC relationship with a supplier ........................................................................... 56 B3 Matrix plot of factors affecting the d evelopment of a successful SC relationship between contractors and client .............................................................................................. 59 B4 Matrix plot of factors which are barriers to supply chain integration for contractor ......... 62

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science SURVEY OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AS PERCEIVED BY THE US CONSTRUCTIO N INDUSTRY By Asl han May 2009 Chair: Ralph Ellis Major: Civil Engineering Supply chain management (SCM) has become a fundamental element in the construction industry to improve the efficiency and productivity in recent decades. The construction sector players including contractors, suppliers and clients have major roles in establishing and developing SCM and collaboration. In this study, the relationship between contractors, their suppliers and clients has been investigated to reveal the degree of importance of SCM from the point of view of contractors. The individual opinions of the contractors have also been analyzed to obtain personal data on the subject. This study details the results of a questionnaire survey of supply chain management applied to US constru ction industry contractors randomly selected among US construction industry contractors. From the results obtained, some solutions can be proposed for the effective use of SCM for optimum construction performance as well as emphasizing some crucial points avoiding optimum efficiency and productivity in the construction business.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This study presents the understanding and analyzing of Supply Chain Management (SCM) in the US construction industry regarding the relationship between m ajor contractor companies and their suppliers and clients with a view to come up with certain implications for optimum construction performance. It is conventional wisdom to accept that the construction sector is composed of a large number of players with numerous project su pply chains and various markets (OBrien et al ., 2002). Contractor companies, their suppliers and clients are major players of this sector. In this study, partnering relationships among these players are investigated, since a companys partners in the supply chain may well determine the companys success (Chopra and Meindel 2007). The questionnaire form was designed to display the degree of knowledge of contractor companies about SCM. The partnership agreements between the parties were inspected to see whether they are really aware of importance of such mutual relationships or they are ignored by contractors. As stated by Saada et al. (2002) p artnering in construction revolved around three key principles: agreeing mutual objectives; maki ng decisions openly and resolving problems in a way that was jointly agreed at the beginning of the project; and aiming to achieve measurable improvements in performance through incentives There are some vital factors to meet these key principles on the part of the contractors, suppliers and clients. Firstly, contractors should analyze their partners demand logically during the project which is essential for a successful collaboration between a contractor and its partners leading to a well -established an d developed SCM. In order to achieve the high levels of collaboration required to synchronize the supply chain, companies must balance the needs of customers with t hose of suppliers and partners (M a rtella 2000).

PAGE 11

11 Communication among the concerned parties is very important to improve collaborat ion. As pointed out by Elliman and Orange (2000), o ne of the major problems of the construction industry is its fragmented and a dversarial nature which is a key factor contributing to poor communication between all pa rties working on a construction project. The quality of communication and sharing information among the contractor companies, their suppliers and clients, determine the degree of achievement of the key principles. In addition to balancing the needs of cus tomers and suppliers, businesses must maintain equilibrium between open communication and re sponsible information exchange (M a rtella, 2000). Supply chain management is currently in its developing stage for construction industry. Since the innovations on s upply chain management in construction are still in the embryonic stage, many bar riers still need to be overcome (Cox and Townsend 1998). The obstacles preventing the optimum efficiency and productivity in the construction business were sought and some im plications were derived for the US construction industry to optimize the construction performance. This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 presents SCM with a brief description and SCM in construction industry with an explanation of the importance of roles of contractors suppliers and clients from the view of SCM philosophy. Chapter 3 provides the methodology of the research. The strategy used when designing a questionnaire form in terms of understanding and the attitudes of main contractors concern ing the perception of SCM in US construction industry with special emphasis on their relationship to their suppliers and clients was explained. Chapter 4 present s the survey results which were analyzed by using ANOVA, Cronbachs Alpha Test and graphical bar tools. Chapter 5 includes the conclusion part of this study. Chapter 6 consists of some recommendations to further this research in the future.

PAGE 12

1 2 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Supply Chain Management The whole chain from producing a raw material to selli ng the product to the firm i.e a retail merchant is ascribed as a supply chain. Several companies take part in an organization for creating a product and transmitting it to the end user. Chopra and Meindl (2007) described the supply chain as consisting of the parties who are involved in satisfying the customer demands. The members of supply chain are not limited to the manufacturers and suppliers. Warehouses, retailers, transporters and customers are all players of supply chain. The sample of La Londe and Masters (1994) defined the supply chain more clearly as one firm producing a raw material and selling it to the second firm which then uses raw material and turns it to a component. The third firm buys this component from the second firm and assembles the component into a product sold to the fourth firm which might be a wholesale distributor. This firm distributes the product to the retail merchants wh o finally sell this product to the end users (customers). The set of firms which pass these materials forwa rd can be referred to as a supply chain. The schematic expression o f this chain is shown in Figure 2 1. Mentzer et al (2001) listed several activities which should be established by firms to behave consi stently with the SCM philosophy. In this research, t he focused activities are; integrated behavior, mutually sharing information, cooperation and partners building and maintaining long term relationships. Integrated behavior and cooperation with clients and suppliers are highly recommended to meet mutual expectations in the longterm ( Mentzer et al. 2001) Partners building and maintaining long term relationships are required for increasing the effectiveness of SCM ( Mentzer et al. 2001). Lee (2004) suggested that collaborative relationships should be de veloped with suppliers and customers so that companies work together

PAGE 13

13 to design or redesign processes, components an d products as well as preparing backup plans Thomas and Griffin (1996) explained that Supply Chain Management (SCM) is the management of m aterial and information flow both in and between facilities, such as vendors, manufacturing and assembly plants and distribution centers. An illustration of supply chain is indicated in Figure 2 2. It is very important to take into consideration the responsiveness of the supply chain while designing the supply chain which is basically enabled by sustained information flow (Chopra and Meindl 2007). In addition, information flow has a direct impact on the scheduling, inventory control and delivery plans wh ich are fundamental elements for the coordinati on of members in a supply chain (Lee et al. 1997) The supply chain strategy of many companies depends on getting quicker response rate at consumer flow, since it has tremendous effect to optimize the company s performance. So, a supply chain management strategy should be developed to attain the ultimate goals of the company; providing a competitive advantage. In this paper, the existence of effective collaboration within and beyond the boundaries of a company which is essential to convert competiti ve advantage into profitability was sought. Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry Major steps are taken to improve the efficiency and productivity of construction industry for the last decades. Although performance of construction industry with regards to the budget, quality of service, quality of materials and time of delivery are as well developed as the other industries it is believed that there is still room for the improvements of supply chain man agement tools for the Construction Industry. SCM plays a major role to improve the efficiency and productivity of companies. The actors of construction industry (contractors, su ppliers and customers) should interact and compromise to enable the essential adjustments (Dubois and Gadde 2000). Since, contractors,

PAGE 14

14 suppliers and customers are very significant elements for the implementation of SCM, collaboration between those sect or players is very essential. Total management of the supply chain enhances the c ompetitive edge of all players therein (Berry et al. 1994). Contractors have a key role to establish and develop the supply chain management. Their role includes the activities and tasks leading to preparation of the production on site involving construction clients and design team (Akintoye et al ., 2000). Sustainable cash flow and data flow among both the upstream and downstream of chain are provided by contractors (Figure 2 3) The relationship between a customer and a contractor and the relations hip between a supplier and a contractor develop long term financial performance which increases profi tability and competitiveness ( Dubois and Gadde 2000). Partnership with suppliers and customers are several advantages such as long term association, encou raging mutual planning and problem solving efforts (Maloni and Benton 1997). Matthews et al (2000) mentioned that adoption of partnering into the construction industries of the USA can also reduce the common construction industry problems such as lacking trust, respect and honesty between professionals. On the other hand, if the one partner can not meet the mutual expectations partnership agreement will become a disaster. Additionally, loss of partnership control and neglecting potential short comings bec ause of high expectations from the partnership can destroy mutual collaboration between the players. There are some features of the construction industry differing from the other industries which might prevent the proper application of SCM in construction industry. Vrijhoef and Ridder (2007) pointed out that the difference of SCM in construction industry from the other industries occurs at the end -customer stage, since clients are involved in the chain both at the start and at the end for construction proje cts. This nature of construction industry evolves

PAGE 15

15 significant problems such as lack of communication, lack of knowledge sharing infrastructure, which are obstacles the improvement of SCM in construction. L atham (1994) reported that the fragmented and adve rsarial natu re of the construction industry have directly negative effects on communication between all parties on a construction project. Chinowsky et al (2007) indicated that knowledge sharing infrastructure is one of the primary barriers preventing the successful implementation of organizations. If an infrastructure can not be established for sharing the information, exchanging knowledge will only be restricted among individuals. The quality of communication and sharing information among the contractor companies, their suppliers and clients, determine the degree of achievement of the key principles. Vrijhoef et al (2003) p ointed out that insufficient mana gement of supply chain triggers natural problems of construction industry; a large quantity of wast e and problems. The old -fashioned management of supply chain leads to waste problem because of independent control of each stage of the chain. Only focusing on the optimization of local aims instead of concerning the whole chain (Chopra and Meindl 2007) and poor communication between the players on a project cause the lack of coordination between the parties (Latham 1994). This unimproved coordination causes unreliable environment, consisting of negative symptoms as not only waste and rework but also low efficiency level, high unpredictability, low profits (Vrijhoef and Ridder 2007) which might thwart the developing and sustaining of SCM coordination in construction industry. Partnering is one of the solutions to prevent those circumstances With this in mind, contractors partnership agreements with their clients and suppliers were investigated in this study. In this study, a questionnaire form was designed for contractor companies to display managements understanding of the concept and its effectivenes s for practical application in construction industry (Mentzer et al. 2001). The relationship between contractors, their suppliers

PAGE 16

16 and clients was examined for emphasizing the necessity of SCM application from the point of view of contractors. The approach es of contractors, who were assumed as the most vital players of the enabling the flow of organization in construction industry, to the SCM concept was investigated, since t here is a relationship between improving SCM strategy on construction projects and understanding the inherent behavior of firms in markets and the structural characteristics of those markets ( OBrien et al. 2002) Moreover since the nature of construction industry prevents the proper implementation of supply chain, barriers existing during enhancing the industry were asked to figure out the common problems of the constructors.

PAGE 17

17 I. Firm Produce raw mat Sell/distribute raw material II. Firm Produce a component Sell/distribute components III. Firm Assemble com. into a product Sell/distribute the product IV. Firm Distribute the product Sell/distribu te the product to a retail merchant V. Firm Distribute the product Sell/distribute the product to customer Figure 2 1. S ample of SC organization Figure 2 2. M anufacturing companys SC (Spekman et al, 1998)

PAGE 18

18 F igure 2 3 Supply chain data acquisition pr ocess in c onstruction (adapted from Spekman et al (1998) An empirical investigation into supply cha in management: a perspective on partnerships )

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This study inve stigated the understanding and the attitudes of main contractors concerning the perception of Supply Chain Management in US construction industry with special emphasis on their relationship to their suppliers and clients. Various studies, literature and re search articles on SCM and its application in construction industry were analyzed. A questionnaire form was designed to identify and discuss the views and opinions of the contractors about the application of SCM in construction sector, with the inspiration from previous studies on supply chain collaboration and management in the UK construction industry (Akintoye et al. 2000) and m anufacturing and supply chain management in China (Pyke et al. 2000). Questionnaire Design Survey questionnaire is a measurem ent tool to find out the opinions of a specific group about a certain subject. Since the needs for accurate and prompt flow of information has become very critical, surveys are used to gather information from a sample of individuals (Scheuren 2008). Quest ionnaire provides a major source of knowledge. In this study, a three page questionnaire with an informed consent letter was sent to US contractors randomly selected among the US contractors. Questionnaire forms were sent via e -mail, since researchers have pointed out numerous benefits of e -mail over postal mail surveys, especially in term s of speed and cost efficiency ( Sheehan 2006). The questionnaire study was designed by the implications of two studies carried out by Akintoye et al. (2000) A survey of supply chain collaboration and management in the UK construction industry and Pyke et al. (2000) M anufacturing and supply chain management in China US contractors approach to the concept of supply chain management in construction

PAGE 20

20 industry was sought t o define Relationship with their suppliers and clients were inspected to identify the importance of supply chain strategy for these companies. This mutual relationship is the fundamental element of SCM The degree and quality of the relationship between t he members of supply chain in construction sector, including contractors, suppliers and clients, is one of the main factors to determine the level of achievement of SCM. Thats why the questionnaire form was majorly based on the relationship among these pl ayers to measure the success of supply chain strategy of contractor firms. The questionnaire form was created based on the 5 -point Likert scale; 5 refers to very important or very strong or strongly agree or high extent and 1 refers to unimpor tant or very weak or strongly disagree or low extent The insights for mapping supply chain structure have three primary attributes: members of supply chain, structural dimensions, types of process links; indicating the structure of different supply chains and the interconnection between a number of focal organizations supply chains and th e resultant networks of supply (Obrien et al. 2002). The q uestionnaire form is based on the first attributes: members of supply chain; contractors, suppliers and clients. The questionnaire survey was divided into four subgroups, each including different numbers of questions. The first question was about the nature of companies participating in this study. In Section A and Section B, contractors relationships wit h their suppliers and clients were asked. Contractors were also asked about their collaboration with their suppliers/clients. Section C sought the degree of importance of functions of suppliers and clients to the contractors supply chain strategy to the a chievement of thei r company goals and objectives. Section D contains nine questions to explore supply chain strategy of contractor companies. Supply chain strategy

PAGE 21

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

PAGE 22

22 Sample Design This study details the results of a questionnaire survey of supply chain management applied to US construction industry contractors randomly selected among US const ruction industry contractors by value of project. The questionnaire forms sent to the contractors via e mail using online survey software program Each e -mail text included consent form explaining the reason of my survey study. If the receiver accepted to participate in this survey, start survey link was followed (Appendix -A ). Overall, 23 responds were received after a one -month deadline period for response. Data were sorted and ranked according to the mean values to be dealt with. In order to check the n ull hypothesis to see whether there were any differences among the views of the contractor groups classified in terms of companies total revenue in the year 2007, ANOVA method was used (Appendix B ). Group numbers, total revenue of companies number of com panies in each group and their distribution percentage within the group were depicted in Table 3 1. Table 3 1 Distribution of company groups Group Total Revenue in 2007 ($ M) Frequency Percentage Group 1 Less than 100 5 21.74% Group 2 100 500 12 52.17 % Group 3 More than 500 6 26.09% Total 23 100% Each set of question s was analyzed with its contribution to clarify the contractors opinions about SCM concept. Cronbachs Alpha approach was applied to check the reliability of a set of questi ons where necessary The Cronbachs Alpha test indicated that 5 -point Likert scale test analyzing the factors was reliable (AppendixC).

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 4 A NALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction Survey results were analyzed using Minitab statistical package and Analysis of varia nce (ANOVA) method. Data were sorted and ranked according to the mean values to be dealt with In order to check the null hypothesis to see whether there were any differences among the views of the contractor groups classified in terms of companies total revenue in the year 2007, ANOVA method was used. Group numbers, total revenue of companies, number of companies in each group and their distribution percentage within the group were depicted in Table 3 1 Answers for each question were analyzed with respec t to the null hypothesis to see whether all company groups have the same mean value Null hypothesis was tested as Ho and alternative hypothesis was tested as Ha: Ho = There is no significant evidence of a difference in the me an of responses among the thre e groups with respect to their approach to supply chain management concept (1=2= 3) Ha = At least one of the three types of companies differs from the others with respect to knowledge about supply chain management concept Test statistic: F = MST/ MSE MST= Mean Square for Treatments MSE= Mean Square for Error Rejection region: F > F (crit.) (k 1, n k) F critical = Probability of rejecting the null hypothesis k = sample size n = number of groups k 1 and n k were defined as degree of freedom (df) P value = Probability value (if P < 0.05, ther e is a high difference of views within groups in relation to that factor)

PAGE 24

24 Each set of question s was analyzed with its contribution to clarify the contractors opinions about SC M concept. Cronbachs Alpha approach was applied to check the reliability of a set of questions designed to test 5 point Likert s cale. Since summated scales are an assembly of interrelated items designed to measure underlying constructs, it is very import ant to know whether the same set of items would elicit the same responses if the same questions are recast and re administered to the same respondents (Reynaldo and Santos, 1999) Considering 0.7 as an acceptable reliability coefficien t for Cronbachs A lpha approach, the h igher the score, the more reliable the generated scale will be. It should also be noted that when small sample sizes exist, the normality condition and the equal variance condition become more critical. This situation might present a pr oblem because there were not enough observations from the individual group of companies to test validly whether the normality or equal variance condition was satisfied. Our study aimed to present the understanding and analyzing of SCM in the US constructi on industry regarding the relationship between major contractor companies and their suppliers and clients with a view to come up with certain implications for optimum construction performance. D etailed analy ses and explanation of each set of question s are shown in the section Analysis of Responses. Analysis of Responses F unctions A ffecting the C ontractors Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to Suppliers Inventory, Transportation, Lead Time Purchasing Planning and Production Planning are maj or functions affect ing the efficiency of supply chain relation. In this part contractors were asked to scale th e functions which were expected to influence their relationship with their suppliers. Figure 2 indicates the results of this question.

PAGE 25

25 Since sch eduling is one of the most significant factors for construction projects, 73.9 % of contractors put Lead Time function on Important -Very Important scale. The results of Purchasing (65.2%), Production Planning (47.8 %) and Inventory (34.8%) function s were as expected. However, Transportation (39.1%) function was disregarded by the contractors. According to ANOVA results (Table 4 1), there was an inverse proportion between total revenue of companies and effect of transportation function in relation to suppliers (even if the differences between variances are not significantly different). Higher -income causes less concern about transportation. Even if this result was reasonable with regards to the ratio of transportation cost on the companies budget, increasing fuel -oil prices recently should be taken into consideration, since it triggers transportation cost dramatically which increases the total cost of project. This function is expected to have a major role for the construction industry in the near f uture. There is no rejected null hypothesis for this case, since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.=3.49. Table 4 1. F unctions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F P value Total Less than 100 100 500 More than 500 Inventory 2.98 3.20 3.25 2.50 1.17 0.33 Transportation 3.31 3.60 3.50 2.83 1.68 0.21 Lead Time 3.95 3.60 4.42 3.83 2.63 0.10 Purchasing 3.82 3.80 4.00 3.67 0.39 0.68 Production Planning 3.71 3.80 3.33 4.00 1.15 0.34 Factors Affecting Contractors Organization w hen Considering Developing Supply Chain Collaboration Contractors should analyze their partners demand logically during the project which is essential for a successful collaboratio n between a contractor and its partners leading to a well established and developed SCM organization. Improved customer service, overall supply chain reduction, increased profitability, reducing bureaucracy/paper, increased market competitiveness

PAGE 26

26 cost redu ctions within the organization, benefits to client, benefits to supplier and improved quality assurance were listed as the most significant factors for an organization when considering developing a supply chain collaboration. The Cronbachs Alpha test indi cates that 5 -point Likert scale test analyzing the factors was reliable (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.8 > 0.7) Among these factors, the results of responses to Improved quality assurance (78.3 %), Benefits to the client (81.8 %), Improved customer service (87.0 %), Increased profitability (69.6 %), Cost reductions within the organization (69.6 %), Reducing bureaucracy/paper (43.5 %) and Increased market competitiveness (73.9 %) were as expected. On the other hand, the responses to Benefits to supplier (34.8 %) and Overall supply chain reduction (39.1 %) were lower than expected. Figure 3 indicates the distribution of responses. There was a major difference between responses to benefits to clients and benefits to supplier. In addition to this, the result of a question revealing the relationship between the contractor firms and the majority of their suppliers/clients is indicated in Figure 4 3. Figure 4 3 highlighted that all contractors relationship with their clients are strong/very strong (100 %). On the other hand, 65.2 % of them had strong relationship with their suppliers. Also there were no significant differences among the group members (Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3) (Table 4 2). There is no rejected null hypothesis for this case, since all F values are smaller than Fcrit. = 3.49. Table 4 2. R elationship between the contractors and the majority of suppliers/clients Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F P value Total Less than 100 100500 More than 500 Suppliers 3.73 3.60 3. 75 3.83 0.18 0.83 Clients 4.31 4.00 4.42 4.50 1.25 0.31

PAGE 27

27 Most contractors almost neglected the contribution of suppliers to the SCM organization, although they were aware of the clients importance for supply chain collaboration. Since, contractors, suppl iers and customers are very significant elements for the implementation of SCM tools collaboration among them is very essential. There should be a centralized supply chain among those players. Only trying to optimize the local aims causes lack of coordina tion and hurts the efficiency of supply chain (Chopra & Meindl 2007). Total management of the supply chain enhances the competitive edge of all players therein (Berry et at, 1994). Companies must balance the needs of customers with those of suppliers and partners to achieve the high levels of collaboration required to synchronize the supply chain. Table 4 3. F actors developing supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F P value Total Less than 100 100 500 More than 500 Improved customer service 4.19 4.40 4.17 4.00 0.49 0.62 Overall supply chain reduction 3.92 4.00 3.75 4.00 0.08 0.93 Increased profitability 3.88 3.80 4.00 3.83 0.70 0.51 Reducing bureaucracy/paper 4.23 4.20 4.33 4.17 0 .01 0.99 Increased market competitiveness 3.41 3.40 3.50 3.33 0.29 0.75 Cost reductions within your organization 3.93 4.20 3.92 3.67 0.12 0.88 Benefits to the client 3.36 3.40 3.33 3.33 0.09 0.91 Benefits to your supplier 3.27 2.80 3.33 3.67 1.23 0.31 Improved quality assurance 4.06 4.00 4.17 4.00 0.14 0.87 Benefits to your supplier 3.27 2.80 3.33 3.67 1.23 0.31 Improved quality assurance 4.06 4.00 4.17 4.00 0.14 0.87 Keeping in mind the significant differences between the responses to benefits to clients and benefits to suppliers, the value of partnership with client and suppliers were inspected. The existence of partnership agreement of contractors with clients and suppliers were sought to clarify if they were intended to establish standards for consistent environment (Figure 44).

PAGE 28

28 Even if there was no significant difference between percentage rates of existing partnership agreements with clients and suppliers, the duration of these agreements had to be investigated (Figure 4 5). In Figure 4 5, it can be seen that there was a great difference between the average duration of partnership agreements with suppliers (12.6 year) and clients (29.6 year). The controversial situation between the existence of partnership agreement and its average durati on can be explained that the contractors have started to be aware of the importance of suppliers for their companies in the last decade. Furthermore, when contractors were asked how they value their partnership with suppliers and clients, 76.2 % of contrac tors responded that their partnership with clients were on the important -very important scale and 60.9 % of them value partnering with suppliers important -very important (Figure 4 6). On the contrary to low response rate to benefits to supplier factors, high response rate to partnering with suppliers pointed out that contractors are intended to make mutual agreements with the suppliers. It was observed that Group 1 had higher averages (4.2 on the Likert scale) to value of partnership with suppliers (Ta ble 4 4). This result could be analyzed that this type of companies are ready for mutual collaboration with suppliers to increase their budget. However, when it comes to the Group 2 and Group 3, averages of between benefits to supplier and value of part nership were no differences. With the comparison of Table 4 3 and Table 4 4, these should be highlighted; Benefits to supplier: Group 3 (3.6), Group 2 (3.4); Value of partnership with supplier: Group 3 (3.6), Group 2 (3.3)).

PAGE 29

29 Table 4 4 C ompani es in terms of their revenue with regards to value of partnership with clients and suppliers Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F P value Total Less than 100 100500 More than 500 Suppliers 3.76 4.20 3.42 3.67 0.75 0.49 Clients 4.13 3.80 4.08 4.50 0.55 0.58 At the warm up phase of companies, partnering with supplier helps to increase the profit. When the company grows, the importance of supplier is disregarded. The advantages of p artnership with suppliers and customers are always taken into c onsideration, since it has tremendous effect on l ong term association, encouraging mutual planning and problem solving efforts (Maloni and Benton, 1997). The adoption of partnering into the construction industries of the USA can also reduce the common cons truction industry problems such as lacking trust, respect and honesty between professionals (Matthews et al ., 2000) Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply Cha in Relationship with a Supplier To improve coordination among players, contractors relationships with suppliers are very necessary. Mutual relationship with supplier leads to reliable environment, with higher efficiency level and higher profits. At this part, contractors were asked to scale the given factors when developing a successful supply chain relationship with a supplier. Factors were listed as; reliable delivery time, accurate order fulfillment, level of complaints/returns, delivery at specified time, flexibility, fast order cycle time, h andling of complaints, added value, quality of materials, quality of service, trust and simplifying the whole construction process. The results are shown at Figure 4 7. The Cronbachs Alpha test indicates that 5 -point Likert scale test analyzing t he factors was reliable (Cronbach's Alpha = 0. 9 > 0.7) Since scheduling process is one of the most important elements for the construction projects, reliable delivery time and delivery at specified time were asked to reveal

PAGE 30

30 effectiveness of those f actors for contractors when developing a supply chain relation with suppliers. Even if the responses to figure out the importance of reliable delivery date (95.7 %) were as expected, the degree of importance of delivery at specified time factor has chang ed according to the size of companies. ANOVA results were helped to make these comparisons (Table 4 5). Table 4 5. D eveloping SC relationship with a supplier Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F P value Total Less than 100 100 500 More than 500 Reliable delivery date 4.55 4.40 4.58 4.67 0.27 0.77 Accurate order fulfillment 4.37 4.20 4.25 4.67 0.99 0.39 Level of complaints/ returns 3.83 3.40 3.75 4.33 3.72 0.04 Delivery at specified time 4.27 3.80 4.17 4.83 3.37 0.05 Flexibility 3.81 4 .00 3.58 3.83 0.88 0.43 Fast order cycle time 3.91 3.80 3.92 4.00 0.09 0.91 Handling of complaints 3.89 4.00 3.50 4.17 1.76 0.20 Added value 3.89 3.60 3.75 4.33 1.69 0.21 Quality of materials 4.32 4.20 4.25 4.50 0.30 0.74 Quality of service 4.28 4. 00 4.33 4.50 0.86 0.44 Trust 4.32 4.20 4.58 4.17 0.74 0.49 Simplifying the whole construction process 4.19 4.00 4.25 4.33 0.28 0.76 There was a controversial relationship between the size of the company and their sensitiveness to delivery at specifi ed time. The range of averages was between 3.8 and 4.8, increased dramatically from Group 1 to Group 3. Larger companies were more concerned delivery at specified time than smaller ones, since liquidated damages provisions in construction contracts are not very restricted for companies with lower income. Higher budget increases the responsibilities should be taken during the project, so companies belong to Group 3 should be more precise for the project completion time. Companies had high interest to T rust factor (86.4 %) as expected. Wong and Cheung (2004) pinpointed that successful partnering depends on trust, an element that is difficult to be

PAGE 31

31 implied on the construction industry, because of its fragmented and contentious structure. This nature in hibits the engagement of construction partners. So, it is necessary to understand importance of trust for successful partnering. Responses to Level of complaints/returns factor had significant differences within the group of companies which were class ified as their annual revenue (F=3.72 > F crit.=3.49, Ho is rejected). The averages of responses of Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 were individually, 3.4, 3.7 and 4.3. It was a good indication that the responsibilities of bigger companies encouraged them to align their organizations with respect to the complaints. The results from rest of factors listed for developing a successful relationship with a supplier had no significant differences within the group of companies. There is no rejected null hypothesis e xcept for Level of complaints/returns for this case, since F values are smaller than Fcrit.=3.49. F actors Affect ing the Development o f a Succes sful Supply Chain Relationship between Contractors and Clients It was analyzed that contractors were aware of i mportance of clients for developing a successful supply chain relationship. This question was asked to reveal the degree of importance of which factors were more important for them. Factors were listed as reliability of supply, top management support, tru st, mutual interest, integrated information systems, more frequent meetings, joint business planning, simplifying the whole business construction process, manpower development, closer links between demand/supply, free flow of information, creating standardization of processes and simplifying the bidding process. The Cronbachs Alpha test indicates that 5 -point Likert scale test analyzing the factors was reliable (Cronbach's Alpha = 0. 9 > 0.7) The results of factors are shown at Figure 48.

PAGE 32

32 Table 4 6. D eveloping a SC relationship with client Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F P value Total Less than 100 100 500 More than 500 Reliability of supply 4.00 4.00 3.67 4.33 1.83 0.19 Top management support 3.94 3.40 4.08 4.33 1.65 0.22 Trus t 4.13 3.80 4.25 4.33 0.74 0.49 Mutual interest 3.80 3.40 3.83 4.17 1.17 0.33 Manpower development 3.44 3.40 3.42 3.50 0.02 0.98 Closer links between demand/ supply 3.61 3.40 3.58 3.83 0.41 0.67 Free flow of information 3.98 3.60 3.83 4.50 2.09 0.15 Integrated information systems (e.g. EDI) 3.44 3.40 3.08 3.83 2.07 0.15 More frequent meetings 2.68 2.80 2.42 2.83 0.56 0.58 Joint business planning 3.14 3.00 2.75 3.67 2.48 0.11 Simplifying the whole construction process 3.14 3.00 2.75 3.66 0.24 0.79 Creating standardization of processes 3.57 3.20 3.67 3.83 0.72 0.50 Simplifying the bidding process 3.63 3.40 3.67 3.83 0.41 0.67 The quality of communication and sharing information among the contractor companies, their suppliers and clients, determin e the degree of achievement of the key principles. So, it was sought that where more frequent meetings were essential to develop a supply chain collaboration with clients. Responses to more frequent meetings were lower than predicted (13.6 %). Lacking of c ommunication between the partners inhibits the improvement of supply chain collaboration. Contractors might interpret more frequent meeting factor as face to -face meetings which causes time consuming. New developments on technology provide many advantage s for communication. Instead of old-fashioned information management which relies on time consuming manual processes, multiple handoffs, and error prone data reentry implementation of recent technological improvements i.e. XML, E -commerce on the constru ction industry enable convenient environment for free flow of information (68.2%). Additionally, especially companies in Group 3 which have more complicated supply chain organization value free flow

PAGE 33

33 information more than the others to avoid cross -company p rocesses (Table 4 6). Information flow has a direct impact on the scheduling, inventory control and delivery plans which are fundamental elements for the coordinati on of members in a supply chain (Lee et al. 1997) Integrated information systems (36. 4 %) had lower response rate than expected. Implementation of information technology (IT) to the company reduces the levels of supply chain and simplifying the processes. All players should be consisted in the echelon to increase the overall effectiveness. Without integration of information systems, the same information is entered repeatedly into different systems, the same forms are filled out and passed around multiple times, the same checks and certifications are done over and over. This cumbersome struc ture causes jumping of activities and data between companies, inconsistencies, errors, and misunderstandings routinely arise, leading to even more wasted work. Even if implementation of IT is a troublesome and expensive strategy which might discourage companies, its long -term benefits to the companies are very important. Besides of those factors explained and discussed in detail, the response rates to the others were as predicted and there were no significant differences within the group of companies. Ther e is no rejected null hypothesis for this case, since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.=3.49. F actors which are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its C lients/S uppliers It was pointed out that improved communication with clients and suppliers are very essential. So, the next question is; at which consulting stages contractors are concerned communicating with their suppliers and clients; being consulted in deciding which new products to develop or being consulted in deciding the production s chedule. It was also sought that whether there was any difference between communication preferences with clients and supplier at these stages. The percentage rates of responses were as predicted. Contractors prefer being consulted by suppliers (69.6 %) than clients (65.2 %) when deciding the production schedule. On

PAGE 34

34 the other hand, contractors prefer being consulted by clients (87.0 %) than suppliers (82.6 %) in deciding which new products to develop (Figure 4 9). There were unexpected ANOVA results i.e. averages of results which might be caused by low number of participants (Table 4 7), since there was an irregular distribution among the mean values of company groups. But, there is no rejected null hypothesis for this case, since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.=3.49. Table 4 7. F actor effecting the communication with suppliers and clients Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F P value Clients Total Less than 100 100500 More than 500 Being consulted in deciding the production schedule 4.27 3.80 4.50 4.50 1.44 0.26 Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop 3.97 4.00 3.58 4.33 0.30 3.49 Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F P value Supplier Total Less than 100 100 500 Mo re than 500 Being consulted in deciding the production schedule 4.09 3.60 4.33 4.33 1.59 0.23 Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop 3.78 3.60 3.58 4.17 1.15 0.34 F actors which are B arrier s to Supply C h ain Integration for Contractors S ince the nature of construction industry thwarts the proper implementation of supply chain and inhibits developing of SCM organization in construction industry barriers existing during enhancing the industry w ere asked to figure out the common problems of the constructors. Determination of common problems might provide taking precautions on the whole sector, because o nly focusing on local aims instead of concerning the whole chain cause s the lack of coordination between the parties (Latham 1994) Factors which might be potential barriers were listed as; late and incorrect payments, bidding process, retention, unrealistic

PAGE 35

35 program times, traditional contracts do not endanger good working relationships, estimators are too demanding on small organizations, companies do not understand other business within supply chain, some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons (Figure 4 10). Cronbach's Alpha proofs that 5 -point Likert scale of factors are reli able (0.8 > 0.7). The biggest barrier preventing the developing of SCM integration was bidding process (65.2 %). Late and incorrect payment (60.9 %), traditional contracts (52.2 %), unrealistic program times (52.2 %) followed the biggest barrier. Misunderstanding of SC concept (17.4 %), executing of some partnering relationships for the wrong reasons (17.4 %), excessive demanding of estimators on small organizations (26.1 %) and retention (34.8 %) factors did not exceed the mean value (3.0 0). Hence, those factors were not considered as the vital ones. ANOVA test showed significant difference at bidding process factor (F=3.59 > Fcrit .=3.49) (Table 4 8). It was observed that Group 1 and Group 3 were concerned bidding process as barrier more than Group 2. But this might be biased, because of irregular distribution of companies for each group. There is no rejected null hypothesis except for bidding process in this case, since all F values are smaller than Fcrit.=3.49. Table 4 8. B arriers to supply chain integration for contractors Average Total Revenue ($ Millions) F P value Total Less than 100 100 500 More than 500 Late and incorrect payments 3.63 3.80 3.58 3.50 0.11 0.89 Bidding process 3.87 4.20 3.25 4.17 3.59 0.05 Re tention 3.12 3.20 3.00 3.17 0.08 0.93 Unrealistic program times 3.62 4.20 3.33 3.33 1.44 0.26 Traditional contracts don engender good working relationships 3.43 3.20 3.25 3.83 0.50 0.61 Estimators are too demanding on small organizations 2.69 2.40 3.00 2.67 0.52 0.60 Companies do not understand other business within supply chain 2.96 2.80 3.08 3.00 0.24 0.79 Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons 2.95 2.60 3.08 3.17 0.81 0.46

PAGE 36

36 34.80% 39.10% 47.80% 65.20% 73.90% Inventory Transportation Production Planning Pruchasing Lead Time Figure 4 1. Functions affecting the efficiency of SC in relation to the suppliers 34.8% 39.1% 43.5% 69.6% 69.6% 73.9% 78.3% 81.8% 87.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Benefits to your supplier Overall supply chain reduction Reducing bureaucracy/paper Increased profitability Cost reductions within your organization Increased market competitiveness Improved quality assurance Benefits to the client Improved customer service Figure 4 2. Factors developing a supply chain collaboration with clients and suppliers

PAGE 37

37 65.2% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Suppliers Clients Figure 4 3. R elationship between the contractor s and the majority of suppliers/clients 43.5% 52.2% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Supplier Client Figure 4 4. Partnership agreements with suppliers and clients 12.6 yr 29.6 yr 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Supplier Client Figure 4 5. A verage duration for partnership agreements with clients and suppliers 60.9% 76.2% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% suppliers clients Figure 4 6 Results indicate how the contractors value partner ship with clients and suppliers

PAGE 38

38 56.5% 65.2% 65.2% 69.6% 69.6% 82.6% 82.6% 86.4% 87.0% 91.3% 91.3% 95.7% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Handling of complaints Flexibility Added value Level of complaints/ returns Fast order cycle time Delivery at specified time Simplifying the whole construction process Trust Quality of materials Accurate order fulfilment Quality of service Reliable delivery date Figure 4 7. Developing a SC relationship with a supplie r

PAGE 39

39 13.6% 31.8% 36.4% 50.0% 50.0% 54.5% 54.5% 59.1% 68.2% 68.2% 72.7% 72.7% 81.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% More frequent meetings Joint business planning Integrated information systems (e.g. EDI) Manpower development Simplifying the bidding process Closer links between demand/ supply Creating standardisation of processes Simplifying the whole construction process Mutual interest Free flow of information Reliability of supply Top management support Trust Figure 4 8. Developing a SC relationship with clien t

PAGE 40

40 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Being consulted in deciding the production schedule Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop Being consulted in deciding the production schedule Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop Clients 87.0% 65.2% Suppliers 82.6% 69.6% Figure 4 9. Factors affec ting the communication with the suppliers and clients

PAGE 41

41 17.4% 17.4% 26.1% 34.8% 52.2% 52.2% 60.9% 65.2% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Companies do not understand other business within supply chain Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons Estimators are too demanding on small organizations Retention Unrealistic program times Traditional contracts do not engender good working relationships Late and incorrect payments Bidding process Figure 4 10. Barriers to supply chain integration for contractor

PAGE 42

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

PAGE 43

43 problem solving efforts (Maloni and Benton, 1997). It should be regarded that companies must balance the needs of customers with those of suppliers and partners to achieve the high levels of collaboration required to synchronize the supply chain. Comparing three different types of contractors which were classified as Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 (Table 3 1), there are some difference s between their approaches to the factors enabling successful environment for supply chain. It was observed that higher budget of a company increases the responsibilities should be taken during the project. So, these companies have become more sensitive on the specified time completion of the project, this may result because of liquated damages provision in construction contracts. Additionally, especially companies in Group 3 which have more complicated supply chain organization value free flow information more than the others to avoid cross -company processes (Table 4 6). Information flow has a direct impact on the scheduling, inventory control and delivery plans which are fundamental elements for the coordination of members in a supply chain. Each player of construction industry should concern adapting to their individual strategy to the whole supply chain organization instead of optimizing their own aims which brings to the lack of coordination between the players. Since the nature of construction industr y (its fragmented and adversarial structure) prevents the suitable implementation of supply chain and inhibits developing of SCM organization in construction industry, barriers existing during enhancing the industry were asked to figure out the common problems of the constructors. Bidding process Late and incorrect payment traditional contracts unrealistic program times were ranked as the biggest barriers. These are all caused by traditional management method which causes cumbersome structur e and stimulate the unreliable environment for the construction industry. Determination

PAGE 44

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

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS This study consists of a survey of supply chain management as perceived by the US construction industry with a special emphasis on the relationship between contractors, suppliers and clients. Even if contractors pivot al role is depended on for this study, it can be extended by involving more sector players, i.e. owners, building product manufacturers in the future research. The analysis in this thesis is based on the 23 responses from the US contractors. More data may help to get more accurate results and give more precise information about this subject. That amount of responses might cause some biased results, and this situation will be prevented by obtaining more data from the companies. More contractors should be mot ivated to participate in the survey study. In conclusion, participation of different kinds of construction sectors players and also conducting the survey on more companies will be helpful to enrich the data result and get more specific and proper informa tion about the SCM in construction industry.

PAGE 46

46 APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM Informed Consent Form Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry Dear Participant, I am a graduate student in the Civil and Coastal Engineering Depa rtment at the University of Florida. As part of my course work I am conducting a survey, the purpose of which is to identify and discuss the views of US contractors on supply chain collaboration and management I am asking you to participate in the survey because of your close connection with these issues, as a participant in the construction industry. Participants will be asked to fill out a survey lasting no longer than 20 minutes. You will not have to answer any question(s) you do not wish to answer. You r survey will be conducted in your workplace, after you have read this informed consent. Only I will have access to the survey that you fill out. The statistical data collected from your survey and others will be documented in my thesis. Although, your ide ntity (if you choose to reveal it) will be kept confidential to the extent provided by the law and your identity will not be revealed in the final manuscript. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this survey. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (352) 346 6021 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Ralph D. Ellis, at (352) 3929537. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; Ph: (352) 392 0433. By filling out the provided survey, you give me the permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my facult y supervisor as part of my course work. Sincerely, Aslihan Karatas I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the research study and I have received a copy of this description. Please you use the following link: I agree, Start Survey

PAGE 47

47 Questionnaire Form Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry This survey has been designed to find out the views of main contractors on supply chain management. Please take a few minutes from your busy schedule and participate in the survey. Upon completion, please send an e mail it to us at: aslihan1@ufl.edu 1 What was your companys revenue in the year 2007, in US dollars? (PLEASE CHECK ONLY O NE) $1 to $49.9 Million $300 to $499.9 Million $50 to $99.9 Million $500 Million to $1 Billion $100 to $299.9 Million $1 Billion + Section A 1. Do you have any partnership agreements with any of your suppliers? (yes / no ) If yes, how long has it been in existence? _________ 2. Do these partnerships include any contractual agreements? ( yes / no ) 3 How d o you value partnership with your suppliers? (Please circle your choice) Unimportant____ Less Important_____ Normal____ Important____ Very important_____ Section B. 1. Do you have any partnership agreements with any of your clients? ( yes / no ) If yes, how long has it been in existence? _________ 2. Are these partnerships contractual agreements? ( yes / no ) 3 How do you value partnership with your clients? (Please circle your choice) Unimportant____ Less Important_____ Normal____ Important____ Very important_____ Section C. (please mark your choice) How important is supply chain m anagement concepts with clients and suppliers to the achievement of your company goals and objectives? Un important____ L ess importance____ Normal____ Important____ Very Important _____ Section D. (please circle chosen response) 1 To what extent do you consider that the following functions affect your efficiency of supply chain organization ? Low Extent High Extent 1 2 3 4 5 Inventory Transportation Lead Time Purchasing Production Planning

PAGE 48

48 2. How important are the following factors to your organization when considering developing a supply chain collaboration? Unimportant Very important 1 2 3 4 5 Improved customer service Overall supply chain reduction Increased profitability Reducing bureaucracy/ paperwork Increased market competitiveness Cost reductions within your organisation Benefits to the client Benefits to your supplier Improved quality assurance 3. How important are the following factors when developing a successful supply chain relationship with a supplier? Unimpor tant Very important 1 2 3 4 5 Reliable delivery date Accurate order fulfilment Level of complaints/ returns Delivery at specified time Flexibility Fast order cycle time Handling of complaints Added value Quality of materials Quality of service Trust Simplifying the whole construction process 4. To w hat extent do the following factors affect the development of a successful supply chain relationship between your organization and clients? Low Extent High Extent 1 2 3 4 5 Reliability of supply Top management support Trust Mutual interest Manpower development Closer links betw een demand/ supply

PAGE 49

49 Question 4. Continued Fre e flow of information Integrated information systems (e.g. EDI) More freque nt meetings Joint business planning Simplifying the whole construction process Creating standardisation of processes Simplifying the bidding process 5. How much do you agree with the following factors when s haring information with your clients or suppliers? Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Competitive advantage is sought by sharing information with our suppliers or customers Competitive a dvantage is sought by production planning or inventory decisions for your suppliers or clients Competitive advantage is sought by performing some of your suppliers or customers work for them Proportion of overall production process subcontracted to outside fi rms 6. How important are the following factors when you communicate with your clients? Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Being consulted in deciding the production schedule Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop 7. How much do you agree with the following factors when communicating with your suppliers? Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Being consulted in deciding the production schedule Being consulted in deciding which new products to develop

PAGE 50

50 8. How is the relationship between your firm and the majority of your (Please circle your choice) Very Weak Weak Normal Strong Very strong Suppliers? Clients? 9. To what extent do you believe the following factors are a barrier to supply chain integration for contractors? Low Extent High Extent 1 2 3 4 5 Late and incorrect payments Bidding process Retention Unrealistic program times Tradition al contracts do not engender good working relationships Estimators are too demanding on small organizations Companies do not understand other business within supply chain Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons 10. Please add any personal comments on the subject of supply chain management within the construction industry and how it can be improved in the future. __________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 51

51 APPENDIX B CRONBACHS ALPHA TES T RESULTS Factors Affecting Contractors Organization w hen Consi dering Developing SC Collaboration Item Analysis of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9 Where C1: Improved customer service C2: Overall supply chain reduction C3: Increased profitability C4: Reducing bureaucracy/pap er C5: Increased market competitiveness C6: Cost reductions within your organization C7: Benefits to the client C8: Benefits to your supplier C9: Improved quality assurance Raw Data (5 point Likert Scale) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 2 4 4 4 2 3 5 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 2 2 2 5 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 3 5 2 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 2 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 5 3 5 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 2 5 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 4

PAGE 52

52 Cor relation Matrix C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C2 0.519 C3 0.510 0.505 C4 0.048 0.336 0.259 C5 0.325 0.164 0.552 0.207 C6 0.276 0.309 0.426 0.466 0.548 C7 0.773 0.425 0.346 0.248 0.206 0.498 C8 0.285 0.172 0.175 0.420 0.254 0.267 0.313 C9 0.539 0.377 0.438 0.372 0.267 0.671 0.802 0.495 Cell Contents: Pearson correlation Item and Total Statistics Total Variable Count Mean StDev C1 23 4.174 0.650 C2 23 3.435 0.843 C3 23 3.913 0.733 C4 23 3.348 0.885 C5 23 3.870 0.757 C6 23 3.913 0.848 C7 23 4.261 0.810 C8 23 3.304 0.926 C9 23 4.087 0.733 Total 23 34.304 4. 800 Cronbach's Alpha = 0.8419

PAGE 53

53 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5 C 6 C 7 C 8 C 1C 9 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5 C 6 C 7 C 8M a t r i x P l o t o f C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 Figure B 1. Matrix plot of factors affecting contractors organization when considering developing a SC collaboration

PAGE 54

54 Factors Necessary for Contractors when Developing Successful SC Rel ationship with a Supplier Item Analysis of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12 Where C1 : Reliable delivery date C2 : Accurate order fulfillment C3 : Level of complaints/ returns C4 : Delivery at speci fied time C5 : Flexibility C6 : Fast order cycle time C7 : Handling of complaints C8 : Added value C9 : Quality of materials C10: Quality of service C11: Trust C12: Simplifying the whole construction process Raw Data (5 point Likert Scale) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 5 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4

PAGE 55

55 Correlation Matrix C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C2 0.771 C3 0.386 0.582 C4 0.575 0.739 0.562 C5 0.422 0.350 0.108 0.153 C6 0.539 0.546 0.158 0.373 0.649 C7 0.371 0.507 0.627 0.403 0.433 0.278 C8 0.376 0.375 0.506 0.382 0.118 0.061 0.630 C9 0.553 0.656 0.519 0.531 0.191 0.230 0.449 0.505 C10 0.612 0.615 0.464 0.493 0.327 0.352 0.317 0.370 0.903 C11 0.681 0.616 0.408 0.282 0.408 0.458 0.508 0.397 0.683 0.756 C12 0.647 0.788 0.368 0.468 0.529 0.711 0.395 0.216 0.569 0.630 C11 C12 0.714 Cell Contents: Pearson correlation Item and Total Statistics Total Variable Count Mean StDev C1 23 4.565 0.590 C2 23 4.348 0.647 C3 23 3.826 0.650 C4 23 4.261 0.752 C5 23 3.739 0.619 C6 23 3.913 0.733 C7 23 3.783 0.795 C8 23 3.870 0.757 C9 23 4.304 0.703 C10 23 4.304 0.635 C11 23 4.391 0.783 C12 23 4.217 0.736 Total 23 49.522 6.037 Cronbach's Alpha = 0.9133

PAGE 56

56 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C1 0 C1 1 C1C1 2 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C1 0 C1 1M a t r i x P l o t o f C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C1 0 C1 1 C1 2 Figure B 2. Matrix plot of factors which are necessary for contractors when developing a successful SC relationship with a supplier

PAGE 57

57 F actors Affect ing the Development o f a Succe s sful Supply Chain Relationship between Contractors and Clients Item Analysis of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C13 Where C1 : Reliability of supply C2 : Top management support C3 : Trust C4 : Mu tual interest C5 : Manpower development C6 : Closer links between demand/ supply C7 : Free flow of information C8 : Integrated information systems (e.g. EDI) C9 : More frequent meetings C10: Joint business planning C11: Simplifying the whole construction process C12: Creating standardization of processes C13: Simplifying the bidding process Raw Data (5 point Likert Scale) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 3 3 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 3 5 3 3 1 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 2 3 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3

PAGE 58

58 Correlation Matrix C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C2 0.411 C3 0.506 0.646 C4 0.420 0.723 0.469 C5 0.505 0.417 0.365 0.565 C6 0.492 0.642 0.490 0.587 0.751 C7 0.595 0.609 0.579 0.649 0.617 0.536 C8 0.616 0.454 0.498 0.590 0.662 0.609 0.736 C9 0.224 0.056 0.103 0.088 0.237 0.031 0.347 0.338 C10 0.571 0.515 0.388 0.507 0.464 0.423 0.693 0.645 0.371 C11 0.420 0.482 0.679 0.477 0.629 0.587 0.649 0.660 0.210 C12 0.432 0.564 0.431 0.577 0.478 0.552 0.594 0.535 0.027 C13 0.424 0.583 0.633 0.676 0.450 0.590 0.615 0.664 0.009 C10 C11 C12 C11 0.445 C12 0.604 0.760 C13 0.424 0.816 0.781 Cell Contents: Pearson correlation Item and Total Statistics Total Variable Count Mean StDev C1 23 3.913 0.733 C2 23 4.000 0.905 C3 23 4.174 0.778 C4 23 3.826 0.834 C5 23 3.435 0.843 C6 23 3.609 0.783 C7 23 3.957 0.825 C8 23 3.348 0.775 C9 23 2.609 0.891 C10 23 3.043 0.878 C11 23 3.826 0.834 C12 23 3.609 0.891 C13 23 3.652 0.775 Total 23 47.000 7.862 Cronbach's Alpha = 0.9271

PAGE 59

59 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 0 1 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 4 5 3 0 1 5 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 5 2 5 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C1 0 C1 1 C1 2 C1C1 3 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C1 0 C1 1 C1 2M a t r i x P l o t o f C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C1 0 C1 1 C1 2 C1 3 Figure B 3. Matrix plot of factors affecting the development of a successful SC relationship between contractors and client

PAGE 60

60 F actors which are B arrier s to S upply C h ain Integration for Contractors Item Analysis of C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 Where C1: Late and incorrect pa yments C2: Bidding process C3: Retention C4: Unrealistic program times C5: Traditional contracts do not engender good working relationships C6: Estimators are too demanding on smal l organizations C7: Companies do not understand other business within supply chain C8: Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons Raw Data (5 point Likert Scale) C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 1 3 4 1 2 2 5 4 3 3 2 1 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 5 5 2 2 3 4 3 2 5 5 4 3 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 5 5 2 5 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 NOTE 23 cases used, 1 cases contain missing values

PAGE 61

61 Correlation Matrix C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C10 0.297 C11 0.641 0.390 C12 0.594 0.505 0.478 C13 0.054 0.268 0.381 0.435 C14 0.275 0.066 0.575 0.285 0.555 C15 0.417 0.199 0.682 0.240 0.349 0.765 C16 0.221 0.000 0.631 0.055 0.416 0.607 0.772 Cell Contents: Pea rson correlation Item and Total Statistics Total Variable Count Mean StDev C9 23 3.609 1.033 C10 23 3.696 0.926 C11 23 3.087 1.083 C12 23 3.652 1.027 C13 23 3.391 1.234 C14 23 2.783 1.126 C15 23 3.000 0.739 C16 23 3.000 0.798 Total 23 26.217 5.460 Cronbach's Alpha = 0.8

PAGE 62

62 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 3 1 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 3 1 5 3 1 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 3 1 5 3 1 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 3 1 4 5 3 5 2 5 5 3 1 5 3 1 4 5 3 5 2 5 C 1 0 C 1 1 C 1 2 C 1 3 C 1 4 C 1 5 C 9C 1 6 C 1 0 C 1 1 C 1 2 C 1 3 C 1 4 C 1 5M a t r i x P l o t o f C9 C1 0 C1 1 C1 2 C1 3 C1 4 C1 5 C1 6 Figure B 4. Matrix plot of fa ctors which are barriers to supply c hain integration for contractor

PAGE 63

63 APPENDIX C ANOVA RESULTS Functions Affecting the Contractors Efficiency of Supply Chain in Relation to Suppliers Table C 1. Functions affecting the contractors efficiency of SC in relat ion to suppliers Inventory SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 16 3.2 1.2 Group 2 12 39 3.25 0.75 Group 3 6 15 2.5 1.5 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.40652 2 1.20326 1.17106 0.33041 3.49283 Within Groups 20.55 20 1.0275 Total 22.9565 22 Transportation SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 18 3.6 1.3 Group 2 12 42 3.5 0.45455 Group 3 6 17 2.83333 0.56667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.18406 2 1.09203 1.67575 0.2124 3.49283 Within Groups 13.0333 20 0.65167 Total 15.2174 22 Lead Time SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 18 3.6 0.3 Group 2 12 53 4.41667 0.44697 Group 3 6 23 3.83333 0.96667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.87609 2 1.43804 2.62656 0.09708 3.49283 Within Groups 10.95 20 0.5475 Total 13.8261 22

PAGE 64

64 Table C 1. Continued Purchasing SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 19 3.8 0.7 Group 2 12 48 4 0.54545 Group 3 6 22 3.66667 0.66667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.47536 2 0.23768 0.39178 0.68093 3.49283 Within Groups 12.1333 20 0.60667 Total 12.6087 22 Production Planning SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 19 3.8 0.7 Group 2 12 40 3.33333 0.9697 Group 3 6 24 4 0.8 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.01159 2 1.0058 1.15168 0.3362 3.49283 Within Groups 17.4667 20 0.87333 Total 19.4783 22 Factors for Developing SC Col laboration Table C 2. Factors for developing a supply chain collaboration SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 22 4.4 0.3 Column 2 12 50 4.166667 0.333333 Column 3 6 24 4 0.8 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P va lue F crit Between Groups 0.437681 2 0.218841 0.493625 0.617652844 3.492828

PAGE 65

65 Table C 2. Continued Within Groups Total 9.304348 22 Overall supply chain reduction SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Varianc e Column 1 5 17 3.4 0.8 Column 2 12 42 3.5 0.454545 Column 3 6 20 3.333333 1.466667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.118841 2 0.05942 0.076507 0.926616378 3.492828 Within Groups 15.53333 20 0.776667 Total 15.65217 22 Increased profitability SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 21 4.2 0.7 Column 2 12 47 3.916667 0.44697 Column 3 6 22 3.666667 0.666667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P val ue F crit Between Groups 0.776087 2 0.388043 0.702341 0.507238372 3.492828 Within Groups 11.05 20 0.5525 Total 11.82609 22 Reducing bureaucracy/paper SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 17 3.4 1.3 Column 2 12 40 3.333333 0.606061 Column 3 6 20 3.333333 1.066667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.017391 2 0.008696 0.010111 0.98994478 3.492828 Within Groups 17.2 20 0.86 Total 17.21739 22 Cost reducti ons within your organization SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 19 3.8 0.7

PAGE 66

66 Table C 2 Continued C olumn 2 12 48 4 0.909091 C olumn 3 6 23 3.833333 0.566667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.192754 2 0.096377 0.123297 0.884668174 3.492828 Within Groups 15.63333 20 0.781667 Total 15.82609 22 Benefits to the client SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 21 4.2 0.7 Column 2 12 52 4.333333 0.606061 Column 3 6 25 4.166667 0.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.134783 2 0.067391 0.094254 0.910453768 3 .492828 Within Groups 14.3 20 0.715 Total 14.43478 22 Benefits to the supplier SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 14 2.8 0.7 Column 2 12 40 3.333333 0.606061 Column 3 6 22 3.666667 1.466667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.069565 2 1.034783 1.231884 0.312949226 3.492828 Within Groups 16.8 20 0.84 Total 18.86957 22 Improved quality assurance SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 20 4 0.5 Column 2 12 50 4.166667 0.515152 Column 3 6 24 4 0.8 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.15942 2 0.07971 0.136646 0.873086386 3.492828 Within Groups 11.66667 20 0.583333 Total 11.82609 22

PAGE 67

67 Companies value partnership with their suppliers/clients Table C 3. Detailed results for companies value partnership with their suppliers/clients Suppliers SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 21 4.2 0.7 Group 2 12 41 3.416667 2.265152 Group 3 6 22 3.666667 0.266667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.167391 2 1.083696 0.74609 0.486962 3.492828 Within Groups 29.05 20 1.4525 Total 31.21739 22 Clients SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 19 3.8 0.7 Group 2 12 49 4.083333 1.719697 Group 3 6 27 4.5 0.7 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 1.392029 2 0.696014 0.552027 0.584307 3.492828 Within Groups 25.21667 20 1.260833 Total 26.6087 22 Factors which are Necessary for Contractors when Developing a Successful Supply Cha in Relationship with a Supplier Table C 4. Detailed results f or factors which are necessary for contractors when developing a successful supply chain relationship with a supplier Reliable delivery date SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 22 4.4 0.3 Column 2 12 55 4.583333 0.446 97 Column 3 6 28 4.666667 0.266667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.202174 2 0.101087 0.271374 0.765093 3.492828 Within Groups 7.45 20 0.3725

PAGE 68

68 Table C 4. Continued Total 7.652174 22 Accurate o rder fulfillment SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 21 4.2 0.7 Column 2 12 51 4.25 0.386364 Column 3 6 28 4.666667 0.266667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.834058 2 0.417029 0.9949 0.387335 3.492828 Within Groups 8.383333 20 0.419167 Total 9.217391 22 Level of complaints/ returns SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 17 3.4 0.3 Column 2 12 45 3.75 0.386364 Column 3 6 26 4.333333 0.266667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.521014 2 1.260507 3.716483 0.04242 3.492828 Within Groups 6.783333 20 0.339167 Total 9.304348 22 Delivery at specified time SUMMARY Grou ps Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 19 3.8 0.2 Column 2 12 50 4.166667 0.69697 Column 3 6 29 4.833333 0.166667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 3.134783 2 1.567391 3.370734 0.054758 3.492828 Withi n Groups 9.3 20 0.465 Total 12.43478 22 Flexibility SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 20 4 0.5 Column 2 12 43 3.583333 0.44697 Column 3 6 23 3.833333 0.166667

PAGE 69

69 Table C 4. Continued ANOVA Sourc e of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.684783 2 0.342391 0.88359 0.428823 3.492828 Within Groups 7.75 20 0.3875 Total 8.434783 22 Fast order cycle time SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 19 3.8 0.7 Column 2 12 47 3.916667 0.810606 Column 3 6 24 4 0 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.10942 2 0.05471 0.093389 0.911234 3.492828 Within Groups 11.71667 20 0.585833 Total 11.82609 22 H andling of complaints SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 20 4 0.5 Column 2 12 42 3.5 0.454545 Column 3 6 25 4.166667 0.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.07971 2 1.039855 1.757502 0.198084 3.492828 Within Groups 11.83333 20 0.591667 Total 13.91304 22 Added value SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 18 3.6 0.8 Column 2 12 45 3.75 0.386364 Column 3 6 26 4.333333 0.666667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 1.825362 2 0.912681 1.692763 0.209329 3.492828 Within Groups 10.78333 20 0.539167 Total 12.6087 22

PAGE 70

70 Table C 4. Continued Quality of materials SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 21 4.2 0.7 Column 2 12 51 4.25 0.568182 Column 3 6 27 4.5 0.3 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.319565 2 0.159783 0.302905 0.741998 3.492828 Within Groups 10.55 20 0.5275 Total 10.86957 22 Quality of service SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 20 4 0.5 Column 2 12 52 4.333333 0.424242 Column 3 6 27 4.5 0.3 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.702899 2 0.351449 0.860692 0.43795 3.492828 Within Groups 8.166667 20 0.408333 Total 8.869565 22 Trust SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 21 4.2 0.7 Column 2 12 55 4.583333 0.44697 Column 3 6 25 4.166667 0.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.928261 2 0.46413 0.73965 0.48989 3.492828 Within Groups 12.55 20 0.6275 Total 13.47826 22 Simplifying the whole constr uction process SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 20 4 1 Column 2 12 51 4.25 0.568182 Column 3 6 26 4.333333 0.266667

PAGE 71

71 Table C 4. Continued ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.32971 2 0.164855 0.284642 0.755281 3.492828 Within Groups 11.58333 20 0.579167 Total 11.91304 22 F actors Affect ing the Development o f a Succes sful Supply Chain Relationship between Contractors and Clients Table C 5. Detail results for fact ors affecting the development of a successful SC relationship between contractors and clients Reliability of supply SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 20 4 0.5 Column 2 12 44 3.666667 0.424242 Column 3 6 26 4.333333 0 .666667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 1.826087 2 0.913043 1.826087 0.186891 3.492828 Within Groups 10 20 0.5 Total 11.82609 22 Top management support SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 17 3.4 1.3 Column 2 12 49 4.083333 0.628788 Column 3 6 26 4.333333 0.666667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.55 2 1.275 1.650485 0.21705 3.492828 Within Groups 15.45 20 0.7725 Total 18 22 Trust SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 19 3.8 0.7 Column 2 12 51 4.25 0.568182 Column 3 6 26 4.333333 0.666667

PAGE 72

72 Table C 5. Continued ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.921014 2 0.460507 0.743753 0.488022 3.492828 Within Groups 12.38333 20 0.619167 Total 13.30435 22 Mutual interest SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 17 3.4 1.3 Column 2 12 46 3.83333 3 0.515152 Column 3 6 25 4.166667 0.566667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 1.604348 2 0.802174 1.171057 0.330413 3.492828 Within Groups 13.7 20 0.685 Total 15.30435 22 Manpower development SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 17 3.4 1.3 Column 2 12 41 3.416667 0.44697 Column 3 6 21 3.5 1.1 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.035507 2 0.017754 0.022737 0.977545 3.492828 Within Groups 15.61667 20 0.780833 Total 15.65217 22 Closer links between demand/ supply SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 17 3.4 1.3 Column 2 12 43 3.583333 0.44697 Column 3 6 23 3.833333 0.566667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.528261 2 0.26413 0.407923 0.670439 3.492828 Within Groups 12.95 20 0.6475 Total 13.47826 22

PAGE 73

73 Table C 5. Continued Free flow of information SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 18 3.6 0.8 Column 2 12 46 3.833333 0.515152 Column 3 6 27 4.5 0.7 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.589855 2 1.294928 2.094222 0.149355 3.492828 Within Groups 12.36667 20 0.618333 Total 14.95652 22 Integrated information systems (e.g. EDI) SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 17 3.4 0.3 Column 2 12 37 3.083333 0.265152 Column 3 6 23 3.833333 1.366667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.267391 2 1.133696 2.070677 0.152294 3.492828 Within Groups 10.95 20 0.5475 Total 13.21739 22 More frequent meetings SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Colum n 1 5 14 2.8 0.2 Column 2 12 29 2.416667 0.810606 Column 3 6 17 2.833333 1.366667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.928261 2 0.46413 0.560883 0.579426 3.492828 Within Groups 16.55 20 0.8275 Total 17.47826 22 Joint business planning SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 15 3 0.5 Column 2 12 33 2.75 0.568182 Column 3 6 22 3.666667 1.066667

PAGE 74

74 Table C 5. Continued ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 3.373188 2 1.686594 2.483329 0.108817 3.492828 Within Groups 13.58333 20 0.679167 Total 16.95652 22 Simplifying the whole construction process SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 18 3.6 0.8 Column 2 12 47 3.916667 0.628788 Column 3 6 23 3.833333 0.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.354348 2 0.177174 0.237022 0.791159 3.492828 Within Groups 14.95 20 0.7475 Total 15.30435 22 Creating standardization of processes SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 16 3.2 1.2 Column 2 12 44 3.666667 0.606061 Column 3 6 23 3.833333 0.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F cr it Between Groups 1.178261 2 0.58913 0.722859 0.497615 3.492828 Within Groups 16.3 20 0.815 Total 17.47826 22 Simplifying the bidding process SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 17 3.4 0.8 Column 2 12 44 3.666667 0.424242 Column 3 6 23 3.833333 0.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.517391 2 0.258696 0.407395 0.670779 3.492828 Within Groups 12.7 20 0.635 Total 13.21739 22

PAGE 75

75 F actors whi ch are Necessary when a Contractor Communicates with its C lients/S uppliers Table C 6. Detailed results for factors necessary when a contractor communicates with its clients/suppliers Being consulted by clients in deciding the production schedule SUM MARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 19 3.8 1.7 Group 2 12 54 4.5 0.272727 Group 3 6 27 4.5 0.7 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 1.917391 2 0.958696 1.441648 0.260084 3.492828 Within Groups 13.3 20 0.665 Total 15.21739 22 Being consulted by clients in deciding which new products to develop SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 20 4 1.5 Group 2 12 43 3.583333 0.810606 Group 3 6 26 4.333333 0.666667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.358696 2 1.179348 1.292436 0.296568 3.492828 Within Groups 18.25 20 0.9125 Total 20.6087 22 Being consulted by suppliers in deciding the production schedule SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 18 3.6 1.3 Group 2 12 52 4.333333 0.424242 Group 3 6 26 4.333333 0.666667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.104348 2 1.052174 1.594203 0.22782 3.492828 Within Groups 13.2 20 0.66 Total 15.30435 22

PAGE 76

76 Table C 6 Continued Being consulted by suppliers in deciding which new products to develop SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 18 3.6 0.8 Group 2 12 43 3.583333 0.628788 Group 3 6 25 4.166667 0.566667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 1.484783 2 0.742391 1.14655 0.33775 3.492828 Within Groups 12.95 20 0.6475 Total 14.43478 22 R elationship betwe en contractor and the majority of their suppliers/clients Table C 7. Detailed result for relationship between contractor and the majority of their suppliers/clients Suppliers SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 18 3.6 0.8 Group 2 12 45 3.75 0.386364 Group 3 6 23 3.833333 0.166667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.151449 2 0.075725 0.182836 0.834281 3.492828 Within Groups 8.283333 20 0.414167 Total 8.434783 22 Clients SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Group 1 5 20 4 0.5 Group 2 12 53 4.416667 0.265152 Group 3 6 27 4.5 0.3 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.800725 2 0.400362 1.247883 0.308526 3.492828 Within Groups 6.416667 20 0.320833 Total 7.217391 22

PAGE 77

77 F actors which are B arrier s to S upply C h ain Integration for Contractors Table C 8 Detailed results for factors which are barriers to supply chain integration for contractors Late and incorrect payments SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 19 3.8 0.7 Column 2 12 43 3.583333 0.628788 Column 3 6 21 3.5 2.7 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.261594 2 0.130797 0.112675 0.894004 3.492828 Within Groups 23.21667 20 1.160833 Total 23.47826 22 Bidding process SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 21 4.2 0.2 Column 2 12 39 3.25 0.75 Column 3 6 25 4.166667 0.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 4.986232 2 2.493116 3.591524 0.046486 3.492828 Within Groups 13.88333 20 0.694167 Total 18.86957 22 Retention SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Var iance Column 1 5 16 3.2 0.7 Column 2 12 36 3 0.545455 Column 3 6 19 3.166667 3.366667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.192754 2 0.096377 0.075196 0.927822 3.492828 Within Groups 25.63333 20 1.281667 Total 25.82609 22

PAGE 78

78 Table C 8 Continued Unrealistic program times SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 21 4.2 0.7 Column 2 12 40 3.333333 0.787879 Column 3 6 23 3.833333 1.766667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 2.917391 2 1.458696 1.437139 0.261112 3.492828 Within Groups 20.3 20 1.015 Total 23.21739 22 Traditional contracts do not engender good working relationships SUMMARY Groups Count S um Average Variance Column 1 5 16 3.2 2.2 Column 2 12 39 3.25 1.477273 Column 3 6 23 3.833333 1.366667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 1.594928 2 0.797464 0.500239 0.613774 3.492828 Within Groups 31.88333 20 1.594167 Total 33.47826 22 Estimators are too demanding on small organizations SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 12 2.4 0.8 Column 2 12 36 3 0.909091 Column 3 6 16 2.666667 2.666667 ANOVA S ource of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 1.37971 2 0.689855 0.519991 0.602346 3.492828 Within Groups 26.53333 20 1.326667 Total 27.91304 22 Companies do not understand other business within supply chain SUMMARY Grou ps Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 14 2.8 0.7 Column 2 12 37 3.083333 0.265152 Column 3 6 18 3 1.2

PAGE 79

79 Table C 8. Continued ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 0.283333 2 0.141667 0.241821 0.78746 3.492828 Within Groups 11.71667 20 0.585833 Total 12 22 Some partnering relationships are executed for the wrong reasons SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Column 1 5 13 2.6 0.8 Column 2 12 37 3.083333 0.44697 Column 3 6 1 9 3.166667 0.966667 ANOVA Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Between Groups 1.05 2 0.525 0.810811 0.458582 3.492828 Within Groups 12.95 20 0.6475 Total 14 22

PAGE 80

80 LIST OF REFERENCES Akintoye, A., Mc Intosh, G. and Fitzgerald, E. (2000). A Survey o f Supply Chain Collaboration a nd Management i n t he UK Construction Industry. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 6(3 4), 159168. Berry, D., Towill, D.R., and Wadsley, N. (1994). Supply Chain Mana gement in the Electronics Products Industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 24(10), 2032. Chinowsky, P., Molenaar K., and Realph A (2007). Learning Organizations in Construction. Journal of Management in Engineerin g 23(1), 2734. Chopra, S., and Meindl, P. (2007). Supply Chain Management: strategy, planning, a nd operation, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, NJ. Cox, A., and Townsend, M. (1998). Strategic Procurement in Construction, Thomas Telford, London. Dainty, A. R. J, Millett, S.J., and Briscoe, G.H. 2001. New Perspectives on Construction Supply Chain Integration. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 6(4), 163173. Dubois, A. and Gadde, L. (2000). Supply Strategy a nd Network Effects -Purchasing Behavior i n t he Construction Industry. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 6(3 4), 207215. Elliman, T., and Orange, G. (2000). Electronic Commerce to Support Construction Design and Supply-Chain Management: A Research Note. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 30(3/4), 345360. Fisher, M.L. (1997). What i s the Right Supply Chain for Your Product? Harvard Business Review 75(2), 105116. La Londe, B. J., and Masters, J. M. (1994). Emerging Logistics Strate gies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 24(7), 3547. Lee, H. (2004), The Triple -A Supply Chain, Harvard Business Review 82(10), 102157. Lee, H., Padmanabhan, V., and Whang, S. (2004), Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect Management Science 50(12), 18751886. Maloni, M.J. and Benton, W.C. (1997). Supply Chain Partnerships: Opportunities for Operati ons Research. European Journal of Operational Research, 101(3), 419429.

PAGE 81

81 Martella B. (2000). Enabling Supply Chain Automation T hrough Information Synchronization. Achieving Supply Chain Excellenc e T hrough Technology (ASCET) 7(1), 109113. Matthews, J., Pellew, L., Phua, F., and Rowlinson, S. (2000). Quality Relationships: Partnering i n the Construction Supply Chain. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(45), 493510. Mentzer, J. T, DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S, Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D. and Zacharia, Z. G. (2001). Defining Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics 22(2), 125. OBrien, W. J., London, K. and Vrijhoef, R. (2002). Construction Suppl y Chain Modeling: A Research Review a nd Interdisciplinary Research Agenda Proceedings, 10th Annual Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 10, Gramado, Brazil. Pyke, D., Robb, D., and Farley, J. (2000). Manufacturing and Supply Chain Management in China: A Survey of State -, Collective and Privately -Owned Enterprises. European Management Journal 18(6), 577589. Rernaldo, J., and Santos, A. (1999). Cronbach's Alpha: A Tool for Assessing the Reliability of Scales. Journal of Extension [On lin e], 37(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1999April/ tt3.html Saada, M., Jones, M., and James, P. 2002. A Review of the Progress Towards t he Adoption o f Supply Chain Management (SCM) Relationships i n Construction. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 8(3 ), 173183. Scheuren, F. (2008). What is a Survey? < http://www .whatisasurvey.info > (Oct. 23, 2008) Sheehan, K. B. (2006). E -mail Survey Response Rates: A Review. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(2), 0 0. Simatupang, T.M., Wright, A.C. and Sridharan, R. (2002). The Knowledge of Coordination for Sup ply Chain. Integration Business Process Management Journal, 8(3) 289308. Spekman, R. E., Kamauff Jr., J. W., and Myhr, N. (1998). An Empirical Investigation into Supply Chain Management: A Perspective on Partnerships. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 28(8), 630650. Thomas, D. J., and Griffin, P. M. (1996). Coordinated Supply Chai n Management. European Journal of Operational Research, 94(1), 1 15. Vrijhoef, R., Koskela, L., and Howell, G. (2003). Understanding Construction Supply Chains: A Multiple Theor etical Approach to Inter Organizational Relationships. Proceedings, 11th Annual Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 11, Singapore.

PAGE 82

82 Vrijhoef, R., Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2001). Understanding Construction Supply Chains: An Alternative Inte rpretation. Proceedings, 9th Annual Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, IGLC 9, Blacksburg, USA. Vrijhoef, R., and Ridder, H. (2007). A Systems Approach for Developing a Model o f Construction Supply Chain Integration. Proceedings, 4th Nordi c Conference On Construction Economics And Organization, Development Processes In Construction Management, Sweden, 6 17. Wong, P. S., and Cheung, S. (2004). Trust i n Construction Partnering: Views From Parties o f t he Partnering Dance. International Journal of Project Management 22(6) 437446.

PAGE 83

83 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Asl She obtained her Bachelor of Scienc e degree in civil engin eering from Bogazici University in the spring of 2007. In August 2007, she entered the Civil and Coastal Engineering Master of Science program and specialized in construction engineering and management in the University of Florida un der the supervision of Dr. Ralph Ellis. She worked as a graduate research assistant of Dr. Ralph Ellis from fall 2007 to fall 2008. Then, s he worked as a graduate teaching assistant of Dr. Zohar Herbsman for fall 2008 and spring 2009. She received her MSc from the University of Florida in the spring of 2009.