Supply Chain Management
Supply Chain Management
Supply Chain Management
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549055 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Exploring
Exploring change in construction: change in
supply chain management construction
Scott Fernie
School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, and 319
Anthony Thorpe
Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK
Abstract
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to explore the process of change within organisations in the
construction sector related to the content of change called for by reformers such as Egan, Latham,
Constructing Excellence and the “rethinking construction” movement. The concept of supply chain
management is used within the research to facilitate this kind of exploration.
Design/methodology/approach – The broad framework adopted in the paper is contextual in
nature and informed by structuration theory and new institutionalism. The approach followed is a
case study method that looks for literal replication across a number of cases.
Findings – Supply chain management is found to be both synonymous with the concept of
partnering and particularly problematic for organisations to implement within the construction sector
due to specific contextual factors.
Research limitations/implications – All methodological positions have limitations. Like all
research this piece of work is the product of choices that could have been different and achieved
different outcomes.
Originality/value – The findings support a view that contextual approaches provide greater insight
into the problematic nature of change in the construction sector and concerns regarding the
development of a robust, relevant and sustainable agenda for change within the sector.
Keywords Supply chain management, Change management, Construction industry, United Kingdom
Paper type Case study
Introduction
There are a number of substantial contributions within the supply chain management
literature that make explicit and implicit reference to the importance of context in
generating theory and understanding the practice of supply chain management
(Mouritsen et al., 2003; Cox et al., 2002). Some also reject what is termed the tyranny of
best practice that prescribes one best way to characterise buyer and seller
relationships – collaborative working (Cox, 2001) or integration (Mouritsen et al.,
2003). Such contextual thinking is also grounded within Porter’s (1985) wider grasp of
contextual sensitivity, rationalised as the five forces that shape organisational
strategy. This point is neatly summed up by Mouritsen et al. (2003) with respect to
supply chain management (SCM):
Engineering, Construction and
. . . ‘best practice’ in SCM should only be copied and implemented if the objective situational Architectural Management
factors are exactly the same, which is very seldom the case. (Mouritsen et al., 2003) Vol. 14 No. 4, 2007
pp. 319-333
Notably, Porter’s (1985) five forces relate to institutional structures and contextual q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
factors that cannot be presumed to be consistent across industries. In turning their DOI 10.1108/09699980710760649
ECAM attention to the construction sector, Cox and Ireland (2002) criticised the dominant
14,4 thinking within the sector for lacking an understanding of similar contextual factors
(Ireland, 2004). Some of this criticism was argued to be based on the sectors allegiance
to notions of best practice and a failure to understand the dynamics of industry
structure. Such contextual insensitivity to the unique structure of industries and the
relationship between industry structures and managerial practice is also reinforced
320 and outlined in Fernie et al. (2003) and Green et al. (2004).
Intriguingly, the idea that disintegration and arms-length contractual relations may
be appropriate characteristics for managing supply chains in specific circumstances is
posited as the basis of future research by Mouritsen et al. (2003). Such a position
sharply contrasts with the dominant discourse of change (see Fernie et al., 2006) within
the construction sector. The current discourse of change proposes the need for a
journey away from adversarial attitudes towards enlightened co-operative relations
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
Contextual sensitivity
There are many examples of contextual approaches underpinning studies of change in
organisations (see for example Bloodgood and Morrow, 2003; Cooper et al., 1996; Staber
and Sydow, 2002; Sturdy and Grey, 2003). This body of literature is highly critical of
contemporary organisation change literature describing it as for example: ahistoric,
acontextual and aprocessual (Pettigrew, 2001). The view of such researchers follows a
pattern that posits organisations as social systems where practices or processes are
constantly being transformed, discarded or reinforced through the actions of
knowledgeable and reflexive practitioners (Fernie et al., 2006). What these frameworks
all have in common is that they all draw on, to a greater or lesser extent, structuration
theory.
Structuration theory argues that the duality of human agency and structure are Exploring
inseparable (Berends et al., 2003). Thus, it challenges the dualism of structure and change in
action. What is presented in the theory is a duality of structure that is highly sensitive
to social structures being constituted by human agency but also, the very medium of construction
this constitution (Giddens, 1993). Importantly, whilst it is argued that the analytic
separation of structure and action is possible, the duality of structure argument
concedes that they cannot be separated in practice (Pozzebon, 2004). It is this idea of a 321
duality that has been picked up by some organisation study scholars and used to
develop contextual research frameworks.
A significant contributor to the development of contextual frameworks has been
Andrew Pettigrew’s work (for example Massini et al., 2002; Pettigrew and Whipp, 1993;
Pettigrew, 1985; Webb and Pettigrew, 1999; Pettigrew, 1990; 1992;, 1997). This body of
work is very much related to Pettigrew’s (2001) call for a greater degree of engagement
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
with social scientists and users in developing more contextualist and dynamic views of
knowing (see also a similar argument put forward by Bachmann, 2003). Other
organisation studies scholars have significantly drawn on and developed Pettigrew’s
work (see Bloodgood and Morrow, 2003; Staber and Sydow, 2002; Sturdy and Grey,
2003). Pettigrew’s contextualist approach involves the interconnection between three
analytical domains related to change called context, content of change and the process
of change.
The content of change refers to the areas of change (transformation) under
examination such as aspects of managerial practice. Context is related to two separate
domains that include outer and inner. The outer refers to the competitive environment
of the firm – political, social and economic (see also Linstead, 1997). The inner refers to
the structure, culture and political context of the firm through which change has to
proceed. Process is understood to be the process of change that relates to action,
interactions and reactions of organisational members as they interpret and in turn,
shape context and legitimise change/transformation or continuity. Pettigrew’s
contextualist approach rejects dominant views of change that treat the process of
change as a simplistic, rational, linear problem. Indeed change is considered to be
messy, iterative and emergent where due to the unintended consequences of action,
change is not entirely programmable or predictable. This messiness leads Pettigrew
(1987) to the conclusion that:
Explanations of change have to be able to deal with continuity and change, actions and
structures, endogenous and exogenous factors, as well as the role of chance and surprise.
(Pettigrew, 1987)
The approach adopted for the research described in this paper is heavily informed by
this framework. The content of change will therefore be informed by a review of supply
chain management theory. The process of change and context will be analysed by
exploring the interpretations and actions of practitioners. In doing so, a contextual
understanding of supply chain management that engages with existing rules,
resources and typifications derived from a cumulative history of action and interaction
will emerge. This understanding will ultimately be instrumental in explaining whether
supply chain management makes sense for industry practitioners embedded within the
context of construction organisations. It will also be instrumental in highlighting and
providing explanations for the legitimacy of current practice.
ECAM Discourse and theory of supply chain management
14,4 The perceived underperformance of the UK construction sector has been a central theme
running through contemporary government sponsored reviews and reports (e.g. Latham,
1994; DETR, 1998; NAO, 2001; Rethinking Construction, 2002; Strategic Forum for
Construction, 2002; NAO, 2005). Indeed, the perceived underperformance of the UK
construction sector has been highlighted in Government sponsored reviews for decades
322 (see Murray and Langford, 2003). In contemporary reports, this perception is in part
related to an assumption of consistently higher performance in other sectors (notably the
automobile sector) and pockets of higher project performance within the construction
sector. The use of innovative managerial concepts is argued to make such sectors and
particular projects in the construction sector higher performers (Fernie et al., 2006). One of
these concepts is supply chain management which has been extensively advocated and
promoted throughout the sector through many initiatives and networks. There is also a
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
plethora of documents, reports and toolkits on and relating to supply chain management
within the sector. Notably, in this period, the discourse mobilised by these organisations
has largely been prescriptive of a need for supply chain management (including training)
and less informative and descriptive of supply chain management in practice. Such
discourse is also considerably light on reflection of supply chain management theory.
Despite this, supply chain management is assumed by such organisations to be highly
relevant to the sector and remains central to arguments for efficiency gains.
Research in construction
Through the auspices of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC) and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)
support for the discourse of supply chain management outlined above is reflected by
the commissioning of research concerned with implementing supply chain
management in the UK construction sector (see Evans and Towill, 1997; Holti et al.,
2000; Fernie et al., 2000; Naim, 1997; Sarshar et al., 2000; Austin et al., 2001) for an
outline of such research). McGeorge and Palmer (2002) have also added a new chapter
dedicated to supply chain management in the second edition (first edition was
published in 1997) of “Construction Management: new directions” reflecting its
growing stature as a topical and relevant concept for the construction sector
These research projects however tend to be informed by an assumption and indeed
objectives related to the need for the implementation of supply chain management. They
are therefore less reflective on questions challenging its relevance as a managerial
concept to the construction sector or indeed its best practice label. Dissenting voices such
as Green et al. (2004; 2005) in the construction sector are a notable exception. Their work is
rather more reflective on supply chain management and how it is interpreted by
practitioners in the construction and aerospace sectors. The paper presented here follows
a similar path to Green et al. (2005) but draws on a separate body of empirical evidence.
The aim is not to present a comparative analysis but to remain within the confines of the
construction sector in determining how contextually sensitive, knowledgeable and
reflexive practitioners attempt to make sense of supply chain management.
Theory
As with most management concepts, supply chain management has many definitions
rooted in the literature. Authors such as Croom et al. (2000) and Vrijhoef (1998) have
explored and condensed many of these in their respective reviews on supply chain Exploring
management. What becomes apparent from these explorations is recognition of the change in
many disparate foci regarding the content and scope of supply chain management. For
example, the optimisation or efficient use of information and material “flows” (Jones construction
and Riley, 1985; Houlihan, 1987; Ellram, 1991; Tan et al., 1998), developing
collaborative relationships, process integration (Tan et al., 1998; Morgan, 1999; Ayers,
2002) networks (Gadde and Håkansson, 2001), core competencies (Prahalad and Hamel, 323
1990) and, power (Cox and Ireland, 2002). Underlying all these definitions is however
the assumption that developing and understanding relationships within and between
organisations underpins an ability to: optimise “flows”; break down process
discontinuities; develop networks; make decisions about managing competencies
and; optimise the use of power. Relationships, and the distribution and use of power
however do not develop in a context free environment. Indeed they reflect and reinforce
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
situational factors. Despite the many disparate aspects to supply chain management, it
is possible to broadly describe two distinct perspectives within the literature.
Supply chain management is frequently viewed from a perspective that seeks to
strategically manage and strongly position a firm within particular markets (Ellram,
1991; Cox et al., 2002; Moncza et al., 2002; Cox, 2004). It is therefore primarily concerned
with understanding markets and what is required to compete in these markets. Indeed,
as Tan et al. (1999) observe:
Supply Chain Management provides a framework within which to implement a
well-conceived market strategy. (Tan et al., 1999)
The strategic view is therefore concerned with strategically manoeuvring an
organisation within a marketplace based on the relative importance, ownership and
management of assets within this market. Strategy is therefore heavily rooted in
understanding the marketplace (and its structure and contours) and refining and
executing a strategy to exploit current and future opportunities to better position the
organisation. This includes the use of relational forms of contract to achieve the
strategy of bettering or maintaining positions in the market. It is also heavily linked to
calls for procurement professionals to take a more strategic view of relationships with
this objective in mind (Spekman et al., 2002, Moncza et al., 2002).
The operational view however is less concerned with market positioning and more
concerned with efficiencies in operational activities within and across organisational
boundaries. It does however draw upon the use of relationships and relational forms as
requisite in achieving and facilitating the objective of efficiency gains in transactions
costs, problem solving and, logistic and inventory management.
The strategic and operational supply chain management views however cannot
be assumed to be separate since they share similar activities to achieve their
arguably separate objectives. Disconnected from context, operational arguments for
the adoption of supply chain management cannot be countered. Connected to
context however, arguments for the adoption of supply chain management only
make sense if they resonate with the concerns and interests of practitioners
operating within organisations competing in that context. This point is rather
fundamental in challenging the ideas of supply chain management or collaboration
as best practice since organisations develop disparate strategies to compete in
disparate contexts. Supply chain management cannot therefore be a sensible
ECAM strategy for organisations regardless of sector. It cannot be a universal panacea.
14,4 Undoubtedly, the structural characteristics of industry sectors reflect and reinforce
how practitioners make sense of strategies and associated managerial practice
(Green et al., 2004). The question in this paper is therefore concerned with exploring
whether, and how, supply chain management is interpreted and acted upon by
practitioners in the construction sector.
324
Research strategy
A case study research strategy was followed for this research that involved developing
and testing two theoretical propositions, based upon a guiding theory. Literal
replication within data collected from five case studies was sought during analysis.
The research strategy drew heavily upon Yin (1994) in designing a multiple case study
research design outlined in Figure 1.
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
Data from five separate case studies was collected to test propositions and to look
for literal replication to support the findings of the research. The propositions directed
and shaped the collection and analysis of data in each case study. These propositions
were dominantly developed from an interpretation of supply chain management and
contextual theories. Indeed, the propositions took the form of theoretical statement (s)
that provide an explanation of the phenomena of interest (Leiringer, 2003). The first
proposition was grounded in an understanding of contextual sensitivity and drew on
Pettigrew (1997; 2001). In this sense, practitioners within organisations operating and
competing in the construction sector are undeniably treated as knowledgeable and
reflexive with respect to both content and context simultaneously.
P1. Practitioners interpret and draw upon specific aspects of context that shape
and are shaped by how they make sense of the content of change.
Figure 1.
Multiple case study design
This understanding of the dominant and influential aspects of context drawn upon by Exploring
practitioners informed the basis of P2, which sets out to explain how practitioners change in
make sense of supply chain management in context and how they use context to
inform their interpretations of supply chain management. This proposition also draws construction
on the dominant theoretical perspectives of supply chain management and whether
practitioners make sense of supply chain management as a strategic or more
operational concern. The proposition was also informed by an interest in whether 325
practitioners make sense of supply chain management as a concept that has an internal
and external focus. One of the last and perhaps most important key aspects of supply
chain management that the proposition attempted to test were relationships and trust.
P2. Practitioners interpretations of context and content contribute to an
explanation of how they make sense of supply chain management.
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
The underlying logic of multiple-case studies is similar to that of, but not the same, as
multiple experiments (Yin, 1994). Experiments/case studies are undertaken separately
and replication argued to be established if the results from each experiment or case
favourably compare. The basis of such a comparison in case studies is based on the
development and use of an explicit theoretical framework. The research therefore
draws on Yin’s (1994) analytic generalisation approach where the previously
developed theoretical propositions are used as a template with which to compare the
results of each case study. Similar results from individual cases are argued to reflect
some form of replication.
Relationships
Aspirations to collaborate under the label of supply chain management differ little
from failed attempts to adopt and sustain collaborative relationships under the label of
partnering. Indeed, the case study organisations provide little confidence that project Exploring
partnering is proving sustainable let alone evolving generations of partnering such as change in
that described by Bennett and Jayes (1998). Thus, competing supply chains (Spekman
et al., 2002; Vokurka et al., 2002) and optimisation of flows across a number of construction
organisations through time over numerous projects, strategically and operationally
aligned, remain an aspiration despite partnering or supply chain management. Indeed,
these aspirations do not make sense to practitioners embedded within construction 327
organisations.
Informants fully understand that collaboration without workload continuity does
not make sense. Secondly, the collaboration is good and arms-length contractual
relationships are bad argument makes little sense when connected to how practitioners
understand cross organisational relationships. The legitimacy of the argument falls
apart when related to how organisations structure themselves and set strategy in
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
of current practice as the basis of developing an agenda for change in the future.
References
Austin, S., Baldwin, A., Hammond, J., Murray, M., Root, D., Thomson, D. and Thorpe, A. (2001),
Design Chains: A Handbook for Integrated Collaborative Design, Thomas Telford,
Tonbridge.
Ayers, J.B. (2002), “A primer on supply chain management”, in Ayers, J.B. (Ed.), Making Supply
Chain Management Work: Design, Implementation, Partnerships, Technology, and Profits,
Auerbach Publications, London.
Bachmann, R. (2003), “The coordination of reactions across organizational boundaries”,
International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 7-21.
Bennett, J. and Jayes, S. (1998), The Seven Pillars of Partnering – A Guide to Second Generation
Partnering, Thomas Telford, London.
Berends, H., Boersma, K. and Weggeman, M. (2003), “The structuration of organizational
learning”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 9, pp. 1035-56.
Bloodgood, J.M. and Morrow, J.L. (2003), “Strategic organizational change: exploring the roles of
environmental structure, internal conscious awareness and knowledge”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1761-82.
Cooper, D.J., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R. and Brown, J.L. (1996), “Sedimentation and
transformation in organizational change: the case of Canadian law firms”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 621-47.
Cox, A. (1996), “Relational competence and strategic procurement management”, European
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 57-70.
Cox, A. (2001), “Managing with power: strategies for improving value appropriation from supply
relationships”, The Journal of Supply Chain Management: A Global Review of Purchasing
and Supply, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 42-7.
Cox, A. (2004), “The art of the possible: relationship management in power regimes and supply
chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 346-56.
Cox, A. and Ireland, P. (2002), “Managing construction supply chains: the common sense
approach”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 9 Nos 5/6,
pp. 409-18.
ECAM Cox, A., Ireland, P., Lonsdale, C., Sanderson, J. and Watson, G. (2002), Supply Chains, Markets
and Power, Routledge, London.
14,4
Croom, S., Romano, P. and Giannakis, M. (2000), “Supply chain management: an analytical
framework for critical literature review”, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 6, pp. 67-83.
DETR (1998), Rethinking Construction, Department of Environment Transport and the Regions,
330 London.
Ellram, L.M. (1991), “Supply chain management: the industrial organisations perspective”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 13-22.
Evans, G.N. and Towill, D. (1997), “Construction alliances for accelerated project improvements:
a systems based industrial case study”, ESA/INCOSE Conference on Systems
Engineering: The Future, Noordwijk, November, pp. 41-9.
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
Fernie, S., Leiringer, R. and Thorpe, A. (2006), “Rethinking change in construction: a critical
perspective”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 91-103.
Fernie, S., Root, D. and Thorpe, T. (2000), “Supply chain management: theoretical constructs for
construction, information and communication in construction procurement”, Proceedings
of CIB W-92 Procurement Systems Symposium, Santiago, Chile, pp. 541-56.
Fernie, S., Green, S., Weller, S. and Newcombe, R. (2003), “Knowledge sharing: context, confusion
and controversy”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, special
issue, pp. 177-88.
Gadde, L.-E. and Håkansson, H. (2001), Supply Network Strategies, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Giddens, A. (1993), New Rules of Sociological Method, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Green, S. (2002), “The human resource management implications of lean construction: critical
perspectives and conceptual chasms”, Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 147-65.
Green, S.D. and May, S.C. (2003), “Re-engineering construction: going against the grain”, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 97-106.
Green, S.D., Fernie, S. and Weller, S.J. (2005), “Making sense of supply chain management:
a comparative study of aerospace and construction”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 23 No. 6.
Green, S.D., Newcombe, R., Fernie, S. and Weller, S. (2004), Learning across Business Sectors:
Knowledge Sharing between Aerospace and Construction, BAE Systems, Warton.
Harrison, A. (1998), “Horses for courses: human aspects of different logistics systems”,
International Journal of Logistics, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 247-61.
Hodder, I. (1998), “Creative thought: a long term perspective”, in Mithen, S. (Ed.), Creativity in
Human Evolution and Prehistory, Routledge, London.
Holti, R., Nicolini, D. and Smalley, M. (2000), The Handbook of Supply Chain Management:
The Essentials, CIRIA, London.
Houlihan, J. (1987), “International supply chain management”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 51-66.
Ireland, P. (2004), “Managing appropriately in construction power regimes: understanding the
impact of regularity in the project environment”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 372-82.
Jones, T.C. and Riley, D.W. (1985), “Using inventory for competitive advantage through supply Exploring
chain management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials
Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 16-26.
change in
Korczynski, M. (2000), “The political economy of trust”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37
construction
No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team: Joint Review of Procurement and Contractual
Arrangements in the United Kingdom Construction Industry, HMSO, London. 331
Leiringer, R. (2003), “Technological innovations in the context of public-private partnership
projects”, doctoral thesis, KTH, Stockholm.
Linstead, S. (1997), “The social anthropology of management”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
MacBeth, D.K. and Ferguson, N. (1994), Partnership Sourcing: An Integrated Supply Chain
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 79-91.
Purcell, J. (1999), “Best practice and best fit: chimera or cul-de-sac?”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 26-41.
Ramsay, J. (2004), “Serendipity and the realpolitik of negotiations in supply chains”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 219-29.
Rethinking Construction (2002), 2002 Achievements, Next Steps and Getting Involved, Rethinking
Construction, London.
Sarshar, M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, P., Baldry, D. and Sexton, M. (2000),
“SPICE: a business process diagnostic tool for construction projects”, Journal of
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 7 No. 3.
Spekman, R.E., Spear, J. and Kamauff, J. (2002), “Supply chain competency: learning as a key
component”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 41-55.
Staber, U. and Sydow, J. (2002), “Organizational adaptive capacity: a structuration perspective”,
Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 408-24.
Strategic Forum for Construction (2002), Accelerating Change, Rethinking Construction, London.
Stuart, I.F. and McCutcheon, D.M. (2000), “The manager’s guide to supply chain management”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 35-44.
Sturdy, A. and Grey, C. (2003), “Beneath and beyond organisational change management:
exploring alternatives”, Organization, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 651-2.
Swan, J., Newell, S. and Robertson, M. (1999), “The illusion of ‘best practice’ in information
systems for operations management”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 8,
pp. 284-93.
Tan, K.-C., Kannan, V.R. and Hadfield, R.B. (1998), “Supply chain management: supplier
performance and firm performance”, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 2-9.
Tan, K.-C., Kannan, V.R., Hadfield, R.B. and Ghosh, S. (1999), “Supply chain management:
an empirical study of its impact on performance”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1034-52.
Vokurka, R.J., Zank, G.M. and Lund, C.M. III (2002), “Improving competitiveness through supply
chain management: a cumulative improvement approach”, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 14-25.
Vrijhoef, R. (1998), “Co-makership in construction: towards construction supply chain Exploring
management”, doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft-VTT Building
Technology, Espoo. change in
Webb, D. and Pettigrew, A. (1999), “The temporal development of strategy: patterns in the UK construction
insurance industry”, Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 601-21.
Wood, S. and de Menezes, L. (1998), “High commitment management in the UK: evidence from
the workplace industrial relations survey and employers’ manpower and skills survey”, 333
Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 485-515.
Woudhuysen, J. and Abley, I. (2004), Why Is Construction so Backward?, Wiley-Academy,
Chichester.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Corresponding author
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)
1. Micael Thunberg, Fredrik Persson. 2014. Using the SCOR model’s performance measurements to improve
construction logistics. Production Planning & Control 25, 1065-1078. [CrossRef]
2. G.R.W. Mills, S.A. Austin. 2014. Making sense of stakeholder values emergence. Engineering Project
Organization Journal 4, 65-88. [CrossRef]
3. Ikechukwu A. Diugwu, Dorothy L. Baba. 2014. A Health and Safety Improvement Roadmap for the
Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management 4:1, 37-44. [CrossRef]
4. Louise Bildsten. 2014. Buyer-supplier relationships in industrialized building. Construction Management
and Economics 32:1-2, 146-159. [CrossRef]
5. Stuart Tennant, Scott Fernie. 2014. Theory to practice: A typology of supply chain management in
construction. International Journal of Construction Management 14, 56-66. [CrossRef]
6. Per-Erik Josephson, Mao Chao. 2014. Use and non-use of time in construction of new multi-dwelling
Downloaded by GAZI UNIVERSITY At 02:18 04 November 2014 (PT)