Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 33 (2015) 1301 1316
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Dept. of Energy, Systems, Land and Constructions Engineering, University of Pisa, Largo Lucio Lazzarino, 1-56123 Pisa, Italy
Dept. of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 301 E. Dean Keeton St., Austin, TX 78712-1094, United States
Received 2 September 2014; received in revised form 25 March 2015; accepted 27 March 2015
Available online 11 April 2015
Abstract
An adequate identication of antecedents is recognized as fundamental in order to set the basis for connecting the inter-organizational networks
in a SCM perspective. This work aims to identify key antecedents of SCM in a project-based environment by using Interpretive Structural
Modelling (ISM). This is rstly useful in order to highlight the relationships among the antecedents and to deduce priority for their achievement.
The ndings provide a hierarchical perspective of the 16 identied antecedents. In particular, three macro-classes of prerequisites were dened:
cross-organizational cooperation, rules and procedures accessibility, and super-ordinate goals. Moreover, results from a longitudinal and
illustrative case study are also presented in order to compare the out-coming ISM model with evidence from a success case in the Yacht-building
context so offering interesting insights about the implementation process. From a managerial perspective, the proposed model offers a conceptual
path for SCM adoption, emphasizing most critical issues that have to be considered and organized in this complex and unpredictable setting.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: SCM antecedents; Project-based environments; Interpretive Structural Modelling; Case study; Adoption path
1. Introduction
The frequent over-time and over-budget activities and, more
widely, the lack of productivity affecting project-based industries
have been steadily discussed by academics and practitioners (e.g.
Ng et al., 2002; Vrijhoef and Koskela, 2000). The main causes of
such problems have been often identified at the interfaces of
different organizations (Xue et al., 2007) and several authors in
the last decade showed an increased interest about Supply Chain
Management (SCM) theories promoting a more efficient division
of labor with the objective to improve the project coordination
and the cooperation within and across companies (Das et al.,
2006). Despite claimed benefits, SCM practices did not find a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 30 050 2217088, fax: + 39 0502217333.
E-mail addresses: davide.aloini@dsea.unipi.it (D. Aloini),
Riccardo.dulmin@dsea.unipi.it (R. Dulmin), valeria.mininno@dsea.unipi.it
(V. Mininno), simone.ponticelli@utexas.edu (S. Ponticelli).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.013
0263-7863/00/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
1302
2. Theoretical background
Since the 90s, many scholars recognized the importance of
SCM to improve the performance of project-based industries
(e.g. construction, shipbuilding) at the strategic, tactical and
operational levels (Agapiou et al., 1998). The project
literature has been characterized by a growing interest about
SCM theories and an increased availability of empirical data
has highlighted the improvements that can be obtained with
such approach (Eriksson, 2010). The powerful pressures from
the external environment, as the increasing level of competition between companies and the harsher requirements of
clients in terms of cost, time, quality standards and more
reliable planning schedule, have in fact lead project-based
companies to extend the traditional intra-organizational
project activities (design and execution) to a network of
external companies thus making the adoption of a SCM
1303
1304
1305
Table 1
Description of companies and informants of the longitudinal case study.
Case company
Respondents
Company A
Main contractor
N1.000
Company G
Company H
Company I
Company J
Company K
Company L
Company M
Company N
Company O
Company P
Company Q
Company R
Company S
Company T
Company U
Company V
Company X
N50
N50
N50
N500
N50
N50
b25
b25
b25
2550
50100
2550
2550
100250
100250
50100
2550
Site Director
Technical Office Director
CEO
Technical Director
CEO
Production Director
CEO
CEO
CEO
CEO
CEO
CEO
Technical Director
Project Manager
CEO
Production Director
Technical Director
Production Director
CEO
1306
Table 2
Antecedents of SCM approaches in the yacht industry.
ID Antecedent
1
Adequate
working
skills and
capabilities
Description
They include the knowledge, the competence and the experience to execute a specified
course of action and the education on industry structure and stability. Project capabilities
represent a critical part of organizational capabilities that refer to the long-term feature of
the firm, extending the limits of the single project. The capabilities of all SC suppliers are
critical to achieve project goals and they contribute to both short-term and long-term
project success.
2 Commitment of It is a multidimensional element that offers sustainable competitive advantage in the
top-management long-term. It involves the identification of most strategic areas for the organization, the
resolution of conflicts among internal functions and the support to review plans and to
follow up on results. Reviewing extant literature, top-management commitment has been
reported as the most important antecedent to a successful project implementation and its
absence has been identified as the biggest barrier to implement successful relationships
with other SC actors.
3 Commitment of It refers to the motivations and the energy necessary to the SCM approach, which
SC
introduction represents an element of discomfort and risk for project companies.
Commitment among project stakeholders is an important precondition to ensure the
participants
competitive advantage of a greater individual effort for all the subjects involved.
4 Congruence of It is the extent to which SC participants have congruent goals about the introduction of SCM.
objectives
It refers to the endorsement of common values and beliefs between project actors in order to
promote a collective mind and obtain an active participation of users. A unified vision
represents a fundamental integrating mechanism that creates a common group identity and
encourages a mutual acceptance of the SCM concept among project companies.
5 Contractual
It is frequently used in the project environment to rigorously delineate relational terms
protection
and conditions. A proper use of contract clauses would result in significant savings for
project companies, improving the risk management process through the assessment and
the minimization of relational controversies.
6 Funds
It influences collaborative decisions and even compromise organizations' survival. The
availability
SCM approach can be undermined by financial issues, particularly in respect of late
payments that may compromise the financial stability of smaller organizations. The
minimization of possible threats related to fund shortages is fundamental to successfully
implement supply chain relationships, especially during the negotiation process.
7 Information
It should drive all the project phases and, thus, enhance the competitiveness of the whole
sharing
SC. The role of information assumes a critical and strategic connotation for project
supply chains, which are essentially information transaction processes. Information
sharing is required to make correct decision in time at both firm-level and SC-level. It is
influenced by the acquisition, the processing and the transfer practices within the SC and
the understanding of such practices represents the first step to manage information as a
strategic resource.
8 Internal
It includes a technical and a social dimension that are required to implement SCM efforts
integration
within teams and functional departments. The actors within organizational departments need
to integrate their activities in order to enhance flexibility, adaptation and coordination during
project execution. In particular, integration efforts in the early phases of project life-cycle
facilitate joint problem-solving, improve feasibility, and reduce rework activities.
9 IT integration
It is related to the effective data exchange at every project stage between SC participants.
Information Technology integration impacts on both technical and managerial sides and can
provide relevant improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of designing and
managing projects. In particular, emerging ICT provides impressive opportunities to
innovate project management practices, by exploiting the increased computational power
and the benefits of web-based paradigm, such as continuous access to information, minimal
software requirements and ease of use. Such IT-tools represent a powerful driver to improve
information sharing and communication across the multitude of SC participants but the
achievement of expected benefits requires first of all the minimization of the IT gap between
General Contractors and sub-contractors.
10 Long-term focus Long-term orientation is important to maximize the resource utilization of most
important SC participants and to achieve specific SCM objectives, such as improved
quality and flexibility of operations. It requires a combined effort from all parties
involved and is fundamental for complex project with a multi-year execution. Long-term
focus can provide higher value of cooperation in project teams and better exploration/
exploitation of knowledge.
11 Relational
It is related with the willingness to cooperate between SC participants and to solve litigation
behavior
without disputes. It deals with the relevance of collaborative activities instead of hierarchical
structures and it is based on the recognition of a winwin approach that turns away from
well-recognized adversarial exploitations of the project environment.
Main references
Biedenbach and Mller (2012), Brady and
Davies (2004), Bredin (2008), Kulatunga et al.
(2007)
1307
Table 2 (continued)
ID Antecedent
Description
Main references
12 Selection based It involves the procurement mechanisms to assess the resources and the capabilities of
on multi-criteria SC participants. Such mechanisms enable market responsiveness by avoiding, at the
same time, quality deficiencies and poor customer satisfaction during project execution.
Hence, risks and uncertainty can be reduced by selecting the suitable subcontractor for
each project activity. Selection criteria should include the joint occurrence of relational
ability, technical competence and economic-based attributes.
13 Sharing of risks It incentives to widespread the awareness of SCM adoption. Risks and benefits of SCM need
and benefits
to be identified and managed in order to effectively and efficiently organize the supply
network. In particular, incentive-based systems are necessary to motivate actors to implement
a resource intensive approach such as SCM by rewarding innovative and effective solutions.
The incentive-based perspective is intensely related with the management of risks. For
complex projects, General Contractors can affect the level of risk by shifting it to the
subcontractors in exchange of a higher construction cost. At this purpose, the balance of this
trade-off requires a detailed classification of project risk factors in order to support managers
in achieving a more efficient use of company's limited resources.
14 Strategic
It refers to their ability to undertake strategic directions, by providing sound basis to
planning
introduce SCM approach. Most of project activities are performed by Small Medium
among SC
Enterprises (SMEs), which are responsible for their successful execution and for the
participants
management of material suppliers. Therefore, the implementation of SCM principles has to
be extended beyond General Contractors' organizational boundaries to reach other SC
participants, which require effective project planning to achieve high value generation.
15 SC performance It includes the proper settlement and monitoring of indicators for a multiple
measurements
interdependent objective system with a supply chain perspective. The focus on overall
performance reduces sub-optimizations by providing feedback for future projects and by
defining clear aims and objectives. The importance of achieving better SC performance
lies also in the related improvement of financial performance for the General Contractor.
SC performance can be evaluated through various techniques, such as simple weighted
rating or more complex fuzzy hybrid neural network.
16 Trust
It is related to the levels of faith, reliance, and confidence in other SC participants.
Project-based industries represent a small world and reputation is considered an important
intangible asset. Trust has been identified as one of the most important factors to modernize
complex and highly fragmented project industries. Also, high levels of trust among SC
members can improve project SC performance and can be built only with the willingness to
adapt to the changing and uncertain conditions of the project environment.
and
With this aim in the Final Reachability Matrix (Table 4), the
driving and the dependence power of each antecedent is
obtained summing the 1 and 0 values for each row and column
respectively. Then, power levels were used to place the
antecedents in a four-quadrants matrix (Mandal and Deshmukh,
1994) where each quadrant is associated with a cluster of
variables, as showed in the power-dependence matrix (see Fig. 2).
Table 3
Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM).
Antecedents
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
D
U
U
D
U
D
R
U
U
D
D
U
R
U
D
R
D
D
D
U
U
U
U
U
R
R
R
R
D
R
U
R
R
R
U
R
U
U
R
R
U
R
D
D
D
D
U
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
R
D
D
D
U
U
U
U
U
R
R
U
D
D
D
U
U
R
D
U
R
U
D
D
D
U
U
R
U
D
U
D
D
D
U
U
R
D
U
D
U
R
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
D
D
D
R
D
D
R
D
1308
Table 4
Final Reachability Matrix (RM).
Antecedents
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Driving power
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
14
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
10
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
8
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
7
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
6
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
13
4
14
12
11
1
4
2
12
5
4
5
7
1
13
6
3
1309
Table 5
First iteration of level partitioning.
Antecedent
Reachability set
Intersection set
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1,2,4,8,10,12,14,15
2
2,3,14
2,3,4,8,14
2,3,4,5,8,13,14
6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,15
2,8
2,3,4,8,9,14
2,3,4,8,9,10,11,14
2,3,4,8,11,12,14,15
2,3,4,8,12,14,15
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
14
2,3,4,8,14,15
1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11,14,15,16
1,7,13,16
1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16
1,3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,13,15,16
1,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,13,15,16
5
6,7,13,16
7,13
1,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16
7,9,10,13,16
7,10,13,16
7,10,11,13,16
1,7,10,11,12,13,16
13
1,3,4,5,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
1,7,10,12,13,15,16
7,13,16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1310
1311
1312
capability/skill gaps and facilitated the development of trustbased relationships (variable 16) between the participants.
The improved working capability together with the new
emerging long term focus and trust contributed to enlarge
information sharing (variable 7) at both operational and design
level. E.g. the Main Contractor has started to exchange project
files with suppliers of different systems through the WEA.
Finally, in order to effectively introduce SCM practices,
network participants have paid a lot of attention to convert the
common objectives into shared risks and benefits (variable 13).
With this aim, in the last phase of the project, Main
Contractor's effort was directed to define adequate incentives
and rewarding systems (see Fig. 4). Cost reductions obtained
by the implementation of SCM practices are in some cases
experienced only by the Main Contractor directly, but not by
the other network participants which may also presume an
overall reduction of profits (e.g. when agreements assess that
the work is paid according to the number of worked hours).
As an addition, the increase of productivity involving the
design offices and the decreased number of reworks could
paradoxically negatively affect turnover of suppliers and subcontractors, hence also their commitment to the project. To
avoid such an undesirable phenomenon, the Main Contractor
increased the wage of direct work-labor by 5%, thus to
explicitly remunerate the efforts for developing standards and
modules. As an addition, incentives to SCM practices adoption
and sharing of benefits have also involved the procurement
process, as the Main Contractor has allowed suppliers and
sub-contractors using its frame-agreements with major suppliers of materials thus obtaining higher discount rate. This
practice enabled suppliers to increase the profit margin due to
the lower cost of purchased materials; moreover, the resulting
pooling of purchasing also reduced the risk of material
shortages in the next production phase.
6.4. Experienced operational benefits of SCM adoption
The companies of the network (A.Net), in accordance with
the emergent SCM adoption path, have successfully introduced
a number of selected SCM practices and experienced large
operational benefits due to the increased integration. The
standardization of coordination and manufacturing activities,
the increased modularity in system design, the postponement of
some critical activities and the spatial integration were pursued
by A.Net in order to realize a customized leagile SC mostly
oriented toward the increase of productivity and the reduction
of reworks and waste. In this aim, the Principal Contractor also
reduced the number of critical suppliers with long-term
perspective and augmented the level of process formalization
and centralization.
The primary experienced benefits can be summarized as
follows:
increased customer responsiveness resulting from shorter
time-to-react and information lead-time which are recognized as one of the most effective improvements to achieve
project success;
1313
1314
Ahuja, V., Yang, J., Shankar, R., 2009. Benefits of collaborative ICT adoption
for building project management. Constr. Innov. 9 (3), 323340.
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G., Fitzgerald, E., 2000. A survey of supply chain
collaboration and management in the UK construction industry. Eur.
J. Purch. Supply Manag. 6, 159168.
Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., Mininno, V., Ponticelli, S., 2012. Supply chain
management: a review of implementation risks in the construction industry.
Bus. Process. Manag. J. 18 (5), 735761.
Artto, K., Kujala, J., Dietrich, P., Martinsuo, M., 2008. What is project strategy?
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 412.
Attri, R., Dev, N., Sharma, V., 2013. Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM)
approach: an overview. Res. J. Manag. Sci. 2 (2), 38.
Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D.F., Dainty, A.R.J., 2006. The extent of team
integration within construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 24 (1), 1323.
Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D.F., 2011. The effect of integration on project delivery
team effectiveness. International Journal of Project Management 29 (2),
129136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.01.016 (ISSN 02637863).
Beath, C.M., 1991. Supporting the information technology champion. MIS Q.
15 (3), 355372.
Biedenbach, T., Mller, R., 2012. Absorptive, innovative and adaptive
capabilities and their impact on project and project portfolio performance.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (5), 621635.
Brady, T., Davies, A., 2004. Building project capabilities: from exploratory to
exploitative learning. Organ. Stud. 25 (9), 16011621.
Bredin, K., 2008. People capability of project-based organisations: a conceptual
framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (5), 566576.
Briscoe, G., Dainty, A.R.J., Millett, S., 2001. Construction supply chain
partnerships: skills, knowledge and attitudinal requirements. Eur. J. Purch.
Supply Manag. 7, 243255.
Burgess, R., Turner, S., 2000. Seven key features for creating and sustaining
commitment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 18 (4), 225233.
Chen, H.L., 2011. An empirical examination of project contractors' supplychain cash flow performance and owners' payment patterns. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29 (5), 604614.
Chen, I.J., 2004. A. Paulraj. Towards a theory of supply chain management: the
constructs and measurements Journal of Operations Management 22,
119150.
Chen, W.T., Chen, T.-T., 2007. Critical success factors for construction
partnering in Taiwan. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25 (5), 475484.
Cheng, M., Tsai, H., Sudjono, E., 2011. Evaluating subcontractor performance
using evolutionary fuzzy hybrid neural network. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (3),
349356.
Chow, P.T., Cheung, S.O., Chan, K.Y., 2012. Trust-building in construction
contracting: mechanism and expectation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (8),
927937.
Crespin-Mazet, F., Ghauri, P., 2007. Co-development as a marketing strategy in
the construction industry. Industrial Marketing Management 36 (2),
158172.
Creswell, J.W., 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Sage
Publications, Pearson, NJ.
Croom, S.R., Romano, P., Giannakis, M., 2000. Supply chain management: an
analytical framework for critical literature review. European Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management 6, 6783.
Custer, R.L., Scarcella, J.A., Stewart, B.R., 1999. The modified Delphi
technique: a rotational modification. J. Vocat. Tech. Educ. 15 (2), 110.
Das, A., Narasimhan, R., Talluri, S., 2006. Supplier integrationfinding an
optimal configuration. J. Oper. Manag. 24 (5), 563582.
Dietrich, P., Eskerod, P., Dalcher, D., Sandhawalia, B., 2010. The dynamics of
collaboration in multipartner projects. Proj. Manag. J. 41, 5978.
Duarte, S., Cruz-Machado, V., 2015. Investigating lean and green supply chain
linkages through a balanced scorecard framework. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng.
Manag. 10 (1), 2029.
Edum-Fotwe, F.T., Thorpe, A., McCaffer, R., 2001. Information procurement
practices of key actors in construction supply chains. Eur. J. Purch. Supply
Manag. 7 (3), 155164.
Eisendhart, K.M., 1989. Building theory from case study research. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 14 (4), 93138.
1315
Kotzab, H., Teller, C., Grant, D.B., Sparks, L., 2011. Antecedents for the
adoption and execution of supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag.
16 (4), 231245.
Kozek, J., Hebberd, C., 1998. Contracts: share the risk. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.
111 (2), 356361.
Kulatunga, U., Amaratunga, D., Haigh, R., 2007. Performance measurement in
the construction research and development. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag.
56 (8), 673688.
Lambert, D.M., 2004. The eight essential supply chain managament processes.
Supply Chain Management Review 8 (6), 1826 :ILL.
Lambert, D.M., Knemeyer, A.M., 2004. "We're in This Together". Harvard
Business Review 82 (12), 114122.
Leufkens, A.S., Noorderhaven, N.G., 2011. Learning to collaborate in multiorganizational projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (4), 432441.
Linstone, H., Turoff, M., 2002. The Delphi Method: Techniques and
Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Love, P.E., Irani, Z., Edwards, D.J., 2004. A seamless supply chain
management model for construction. Supply Chain Manag. 9 (1), 4356.
Maleki, M., Cruz-Machado, V., 2015. Integration of practices and customer
values in a supply chain. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 10 (1), 919.
Malone, D.W., 1975. An introduction to the application of interpretive
structural modeling ISM. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 14 (6), 5259.
Mandal, A., Deshmukh, S.G., 1994. Vendor selection using interpretive
structural modeling ISM. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 14 (6), 5259.
Meng, X., Gallagher, B., 2012. The impact of incentive mechanisms on project
performance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (3), 352362.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D.,
Zacharia, Z.G., 2001. Defining supply chain management. Journal of
Business Logistics 22, 125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.
tb00001.x.
Mitchell, V., McGoldrick, P., 1994. The role of geodemographics in
segmenting and targeting consumer markets: a Delphi study. Eur. J. Mark.
28, 5472.
Ng, T., Rose, T., Mak, M., Chen, S.E., 2002. Problematic issues associated with
project partnering the contractor perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 20 (6),
437449.
Nikas, A., Poulymenakou, A., Kriaris, P., 2006. Investigating antecedents and
drivers affecting the adoption of collaboration technologies in the
construction industry. Autom. Constr. 16 (5), 632641.
O'Brien, W., 2000. Implementation Issues In Project Web Sites: a Practioner's
Viewpoint. J. Manage. Eng. 16 (3), 3439.
O'Brien, W.J., London, K., Vrijhoef, R., 2002. Construction supply chain
modeling: a research review and interdisciplinary research agenda.
Proceedings IGLC 10, pp. 119.
Olsen, T.E., Osmundsen, P., 2005. Sharing of endogenous risk in construction.
J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 58 (4), 511526.
Palaneeswaran, E., Kumaraswamy, M.M., Rahman, M., Ng, T., 2003. Curing
congenital construction industry disorders through relationally integrated
supply chains. Build. Environ. 38, 571582.
Pesmaa, O., Eriksson, P.E., Hair, J.F., 2009. Validating a model of cooperative
procurement in the construction industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 27 (6),
552559.
Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K., Prescott, J.E., 1993. Antecedents and consequences of
project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Sci 39 (10),
12811297.
Samaddar, S., Nargundkar, S., Daley, M., 2006. Inter-organizational information sharing: the role of supply network configuration and partner goal
congruence. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 174 (2), 744765.
Shahabadkar, P., Hebbal, S.S., Prashant, S., 2012. Deployment of Interpretive
Structural Modeling Methodology in Supply Chain Management An
Overview. International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production
Research 23 (3), 195205.
Smyth, H., Gustafsson, M., Ganskau, E., 2010. The value of trust in project
business. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28 (2), 117129.
Sderlund, J., 2004. On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a
review and a model for analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 655667.
Stock, J.R., Boyer, S.L., Harmon, T., 2010. Research opportunities in supply
chain management. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38 (1), 3241.
1316
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A., Deshmukh, S.G., 2008. Interpretive structural modeling
(ISM) of IT-enablers for Indian manufacturing SMEs. Inf. Manag. Comput.
Secur. 16 (2), 113136.
Tommelein, I.D., Akel, N., Boyers, J.C., 2003. Capital projects supply chain
management: SC tactics of a supplier organisation. Construction Research
120 (44), 17.
Tserng, H.P., Lin, P.H., 2002. An accelerated subcontracting and procuring
model for construction projects. Autom. Constr. 11, 105125.
Turner, J.R., Mller, R., 2003. On the nature of the project as a temporary
organization. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (1), 18.
Voss, C., Frohlich, N., Tsikriktsis, M., 2002. Case research in operations
management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (2), 195219.
Vrijhoef, R., Koskela, L., 2000. The four roles of supply chain management in
construction. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 6, 169178.
Walker, D.H.T., Hampson, K.D., 2003. Procurement Strategies: A Relationshipbased Approach. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Warfield, J.W., 1974. Developing interconnected matrices in structural
modeling. IEEE Trans. Syst. Men Cybern. 4 (1), 5181.
Wong, C.W.Y., Lai, K.H., Lun, Y.H.V., Cheng, T.C.E., 2012. A study on the
antecedents of supplier commitment in support of logistics operations.
International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics 4 (1), 516.
Xue, X., Wang, Y., Shen, Q., Li, X., 2005. An agent-based framework for
supply chain coordination in construction. Autom. Constr. 14, 413430.
Xue, X., Wang, Y., Shen, Q., Yu, X., 2007. Coordination mechanisms for
construction supply chain management in the Internet environment. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 25 (2), 150157.
Xue, X., Shen, Q., Tan, Y., Zhang, Y., Fan, H., 2011. Comparing the value of
information sharing under different inventory policies in construction
supply chain. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29 (7), 867876.
Yin, R., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Sage, London.
Young, R., Jordan, E., 2008. Top management support: mantra or necessity?
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (7), 713725.
Zaghloul, R., Hartman, F., 2003. Construction contracts: the cost of mistrust.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 21 (6), 419424.