This article was submitted to Construction Management, a section of the journal Frontiers in Built Environment
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Good Supply Chain Visibility (SCV) is vital for on-time delivery and installation of materials on industrial construction projects. SCV is possible via the exchange of information about materials in the supply chain. Prior academic research has highlighted the importance of SCV. However, the literature lacks the detailed definition of visibility that can be easily applied to projects. This research reviewed prior studies on SCV and adopted an appropriate definition that supports relevant decision-making on industrial construction projects. From this definition, the research objective is to develop detailed operational definitions of information needed to support supply chain decisions on industrial construction projects. The study employed mixed methods that consisted of interviews, review of mini-cases of industrial projects, procurement and material tracking tool assessment, and group discussions in structured workshops with a panel of subject matter experts. The research developed 79 detailed information needs and associated definitions that support ten key supply chain decision areas across detailed design, procurement, and construction phases of industrial construction projects. These definitions were evaluated by multiple means including an external team and a case study of an industrial construction project. The definitions developed by this research will enable both researchers and practitioners to invest in better measurements of visibility and support development of new tools and techniques.
Supply chain visibility (SCV) refers to making informed decisions using the timely and accurate exchange of information between the participants as the materials move in the supply chain (
The SCV of materials in industrial construction projects is reported to be low (
To improve information exchange in the supply chain, the practitioner-oriented and academic literature in construction, so far, have examined and invested in Information Technology (IT) solutions that enable a digital exchange of information between supply chain participants (
This study identified the key decision areas during detailed design, procurement, and construction phases of industrial construction projects. It also identified the information needs that support the key decision areas. Finally, the study developed detailed definitions of the identified information needs. To achieve these objectives, the study employed mixed methods that consisted of interviews, review of mini-cases of industrial projects, procurement and material tracking tool assessment, and group discussions in structured workshops with a panel of subject matter experts. The remaining sections of the paper are organized as follows. The literature review and research objectives are discussed in the following section. Next, the methodology section provides details on how the research was conducted. The results of the study and evaluation of the research findings are discussed in the results section. Finally, conclusions are drawn in the last section, including contributions and directions for future work.
Literature review involved understanding how supply chain visibility is defined in the broader business literature, followed by a review of information sharing and decision-making related research in the construction industry. The goal and research objectives which this research aims to fulfill is then presented.
SCV originated in the general supply chain management and logistics domain, and it has multi-disciplinary roots in literature. So, the theoretical basis and supporting research on the concept are broad (
SCV definitions.
Author | Definition |
---|---|
|
“Direct insight into the status of orders, inventory, and shipments across the supply chain” |
|
“Ability to access/share information across the supply chain” |
|
“The extent to which actors within a supply chain have access to or share the information which they consider as crucial or useful to their operations and which they consider will be of mutual benefit” |
|
“The ability to be alerted to exceptions in supply chain execution and to enable action based on this information” |
|
“Having access to relevant information that can be used for various supply chain related decision making” |
|
“Capturing and analyzing supply chain data that informs decision making, mitigates risk, and improves processes” |
|
“The capability of a supply chain player to have access to or to provide the required timely information/knowledge about the entities involved in the supply chain from/to relevant supply chain partners for better decision support” |
Visibility is closely related to information sharing. Therefore, some researchers use both the terms interchangeably (
The authors agree with the conceptualization of visibility by
A stream of research has been performed to examine the information about materials that need to be exchanged and tools to aid information transfer. An example of information research is the work of
The area of research on tools has used IT to automate the transaction process of materials and facilitate the sharing of information about materials digitally between supply chain participants. For example, authors have used Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) (
While the current research highlights information flows and tools to facilitate their efficient transfer, the information items in these studies are not in detail, limited to specific problems within functions (procurement, material tracking, quality control), or capture data at specific locations in the supply chain and of certain material type. Also, the data provided by these studies is not flexible to the needs of the participants in the supply chain and fails to account for the dynamic nature of the construction industry (
Decisions support an effective supply chain management of the flow of information, material, and funds. Previous research in construction (
Another body of research in construction focuses on decisions or a subset of decisions in the supply chain. Among such studies,
In summary, the review of visibility definitions revealed that SCV encompasses a broader scope and depends on the efficient exchange of information between participants that enables actionable decisions. The extant literature in construction establishes the need for visibility; however, a detailed definition of visibility for advancement is unclear. Specifically, they do not provide information that presents the overall picture on various elements of the supply chain and have not considered supply chain participants’ perspectives, which is useful for efficient decision-making. Furthermore, the decisions or decision areas supported by using the information provided by the tools and models are not well consolidated in literature. In other words, there is a need for systematic examination of the detailed information needs about materials and to link them to important decision areas in the supply chain to develop operational definitions of visibility. This study aims to achieve this goal by addressing the following objectives: • Identify key supply chain decision areas for construction projects in the industrial sector • Document, define and evaluate the detailed information needed to support the key supply chain decision areas
The research process for the study is illustrated in
Research process.
The goal of this phase was two-fold: to identify the supply chain decision areas and; to document and define detailed information needs that support the identified decision areas. The identification of decision areas started with a review of literature and corporate practices. For the documentation of information needs, the authors used literature on information, data in current IT tools, and contextual mini-cases as the starting point. Next, the collected data for decision areas and the information needs were processed using structured workshops using a panel of subject matter experts. This sub-section provides details of the structured workshops and the assessment of current IT tools and mini-case investigation using the structured workshops.
Structured workshop is a useful method when the research involves multiple data collection strategies and the collected data needs to be expanded on using discussion between industry practitioners and academic researchers (
The industry practitioner’s panel was chosen since lack of visibility in the supply chain is a practical problem. Additionally, the development of operational definitions of the information needed items required the viewpoints of industry participants. The panel included eighteen industry practitioners from four stakeholder types: four owners, nine contractors, two designers, and three suppliers.
Expert panel background information.
Category | Sub-category | Value |
---|---|---|
Characteristics | Industry participants | 18 |
Academic participants | 4 | |
Years of construction industry experience | Total | 320 |
Average | 14.9 | |
Minimum | 5 | |
Maximum | 30 | |
Organizations represented | Owner | 4 |
Contractor | 9 | |
Supplier | 3 | |
Designer | 2 | |
Primary responsibilities or time spent (%) | Engineering (FEED, Detailed design) | 23.8 |
Supply Chain (Fabrication, Procurement) | 43.7 | |
Construction | 28.7 | |
Operations (Commissioning, Start-up) | 3.8 | |
Industry sector represented | Power-nuclear/non-nuclear | 5 |
Downstream and chemicals | 5 | |
Upstream, midstream & mining | 5 | |
Manufacturing | 3 |
The authors conducted the structured workshops using the protocol provided by
The tool assessment aimed to review contractors’ information tools (available commercially or developed in-house) to track materials in the supply chain and on the construction site. A structured questionnaire was used for the assessment. It consisted of questions that inquired about the tool’s integration capabilities, application area (engineering, procurement, construction), and the data exchanged using the tool.
On the other hand, the mini-cases were based on actual on-going or past projects in industrial construction from the expert panel’s organizations. The case selection depended on the representativeness and specificity of the case, which are good attributes to uncover more information and gather insights (
The analysis involved the examination of the individual mini-case writeups. First, these writeups were shared with the interviewees. This verification of the writeups by the interviewees supported in achieving construct validity (
This phase involved evaluation of the key supply chain decision areas, associated information needs, and definitions. The study used four ways to evaluate the research findings: internally by the expert panel, using an external team, assessing the level of agreement between the expert panel and external team, and using a case study.
The evaluation by experts was conducted to establish credibility, transferability, and dependability (
Next, the authors used an external team to evaluate the content and usability of the research findings. This was particularly important to check for transferability of the SCV definitions to other projects within the industrial construction sector. The external team included four owner, two contractor, and one supplier organization. Multiple participants within each organization participated in the evaluation. They had a total of 194 years of experience in the industrial construction (mean = 27.1 years) and expertise in various industrial sector projects, including petrochemical, pharmaceutical, power, and manufacturing. Also, the distribution of their area of experience included engineering, procurement/supply chain, and construction phases of projects. The evaluation process involved the individual team participant check the decisions, information needed items, and the definitions for their comprehensiveness, quality, and confirmability (
After the independent evaluation by the internal expert panel and external team, the authors evaluated the degree of consensus between the two groups. This assessment involved checking if there is an agreement among the two groups about the rankings of information needs and definitions. This process helped in evaluating the consistency of the research findings and to check if the findings are dependable (
The purpose of case study evaluation was to check the usability of the research findings (
This study’s first objective was to identify the key supply chain decision areas for construction projects in the industrial sector. The academic team provided a preliminary list of supply chain decisions identified by
Next, the team reduced and finalized the decisions during one of the structured workshops. The process involved several rounds of review and refinement (add, deduct, modify) until the team members collectively arrived at a consensus on the list of decisions. During the review, the team members systematically checked each decision for logic and relevance. To aid the process, the team focused on the most important decisions and limited the scope to tactical and operational decisions that needed to be taken during execution once the supply chain was configured. This process reduced the decisions to thirty across the detailed design, procurement, and construction phases.
Furthermore, the team identified that some of the decisions were milestones (define products), processes (construction schedule logic), information (design information) within decisions. This led to combining many decisions and further reduced the list of decisions into ten key decision areas.
Project phases and key supply chain decision areas within each phase.
Phases | Key supply chain decision areas | Definition | KSCDA |
---|---|---|---|
Detailed Design | Detailing the construction sequence to get materials on site | The ability to accelerate/decelerate the path of construction to ensure the right materials are onsite at the required time | D1 |
Reviewing long lead items and need dates | This determines if the engineering sequence of critical components/long lead items is compatible with the schedule | D2 | |
Identify materials/equipment requiring higher visibility | The critical components/long lead items that need additional visibility based on the nature of the material, confidence in delivery, and critical path | D3 | |
Establish supplier quality surveillance program and plan | Supplier progress, quality assurance, and control, schedule and performance | D4 | |
Use of catalog vs. custom | The decision regarding standardized and customized materials to be used and associated planning | D5 | |
Procurement | Order long lead time products | Ordering decision of critical materials that are long-lead items; the time to design and fabricate is the longest | P1 |
Supplier selection | The selection of suppliers considering their location, organizational design, handover, and interface management required | P2 | |
Expediting decisions considering overall project picture | The acceleration, recovery, re-sequencing by monitoring materials/equipment requiring high visibility | P3 | |
Order commodities/bulk | Ordering decision of non-critical items that have a relatively shorter supply chain period since they have a shorter lead time compared to critical items | P4 | |
Construction | Adjustment in schedule and supply chain to accommodate materials flow disruption | The decision during scope/design change that requires acceleration/deceleration/re-sequencing/recovery; starts with constraint management (reviewing lookaheads), followed by expediting and recovery if constraints not met | C1 |
The second objective required developing and defining the detailed information needs that support the ten key decision areas. The team used findings from the literature, tool assessment, and mini-case studies to achieve this objective. First, the academic team shared and presented relevant studies in construction that examined information about materials generated or tracked in the supply chain. The studies by
Next, the assessment of tools of industry practitioners provided information in their in-house procurement and material tracking tools. The authors interviewed five software vendors and seven contractor organizations. As part of the assessment, the participants also demonstrated their respective tools, contributed screenshots and relevant documents. This exercise informed the data fields about materials currently tracked as the material moves in the supply chain.
The results of the tool assessment revealed the following. First, there is a lack of standardization among the tools and inconsistency in material data tracked by companies over the material lifecycle. Second, neither the reviewed procurement tools nor the material tracking software has independent capabilities to cover the entire supply chain or to track all the functions. For example, some are efficient at tracking procurement at the head office while not tracking data at construction sites. As such, almost all of these tools have isolated system capabilities (procurement, cost management, scheduling, material tracking) that do not exchange data smoothly, and also their integration process is challenging. As a result, much data is transmitted manually, which is prone to error. Third, the data tracked by the tools are static and not updated synchronously based on the changes on the construction site or in the supply chain. Therefore, the data is not always as per user requirement, which affects decision-making. These findings are in line with
Finally, the mini-cases also supported the deliberations during the structured workshops. The expert panel contributed nine cases (CS1-CS9) around the ten key supply chain decision areas; some cases related to more than one decision area.
Summary of case studies supporting information needed for key supply chain decisions.
KSCDA | Case number | Project context | Problem | Information visibility needed |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
CS1 | Mid-life refurbishment of large power generation facility—replacement of feeder pipes, fittings, and tubes | Material shortages, late deliveries, quality issues affecting the critical path. Tracking procurement and deliveries were challenging since numerous contractors were working on the project | Information about materials on the critical path; procurement and delivery information of materials by the individual contractor; supplier information; schedule information |
|
CS2 | Petrochemical project in the gulf coast of USA. Total procurement spends: over 200 million on national and international. Commodities included fabricated equipment, piping, structural steel (long lead items). Material needed to be ordered according to the project schedule agreed with the client and engineering progress | Detailed construction schedule was not ready; initial required-on-site (ROS) dates were estimated to drive bids and purchase orders (POs) of long-lead items; Additional labor costs in purchasing and expediting due to renegotiation with suppliers to revise |
Early information about construction work packages (CWP) and required-on-site (ROS) dates; transparency in production schedule and progress at suppliers |
|
CS3 | Pipeline integrity program (6–36-inch pipeline and valves) for a natural gas service provider. Valves were sourced internationally from a pre-qualified supplier list for pipes fabricated within the USA. Outage dates drive fabrication and installation | Uncertainty in need dates due to non-defined outage dates; long lead times of valves challenged the fabrication of pipes and installation schedule; changed valve source (more expensive) for specific valves due to altered need dates; original valve supplier failed to deliver as promise | Defined outage information; detailed vendor reports; status and progress of valves in production, logistics, and inventory |
|
CS4 | Alloy fabrication for 1000 MW combined cycle power plant in North America. The supplier was a domestic fabricator whose scope involved the fabrication and supply of pipe spools post-weld heat treatment as per specifications. A third-party inspection was required, and no material from East Asia was allowed | A large number of non-conformances identified at job-site due to material supply from East Asia; schedule deviations and subsequent quality issues to make up the schedule by the supplier | Actual status and progress information from the supplier including early quality check information |
|
CS5 | $3 billion petrochemical project in the Gulf Coast. European engineering and design firm had some procurement scope. U.S.- based contractor, had a lump-sum procurement and construction contract with the client. Grating fasteners initially furnished required substantial installation time and had high failure and rework rates. A new grating fastener system was introduced to mitigate the problems | Quantity breakdowns and corresponding required-on-site (ROS) dates of new fasteners were not provided to the supplier. Material stock for the product in the U.S. was zero when the first PO and ROS date were finally provided to supplier. Quantity requested in the PO was the full order amount—200,000 fasteners. This required special production runs and air freight of products from Europe | Updated construction schedule information facilitates better material planning and deliveries. Improved detail and accuracy of component/material specifications eliminate ambiguous descriptions of “commodity” items |
|
CS6 | Final commissioning phase for an offshore production unit. A change in schedule made a piece of non-critical equipment into a critical package. The previous order was ineffective in meeting the requirements. The project technical team did not consult with the supply chain team (which had the global visibility of pre-approved and pre-qualified vendors) and engaged with non-qualified supplier | Non-compliance of vendor prequalification during the selection process; engaged vendor without going through the process due to lack of internal visibility (silo problem) within the organization; non-involvement of the supply chain, and accelerating order placement without prequalification | Internal collaboration and visibility: access to database of approved vendors; new vendor information and capabilities; schedule information |
|
CS7 | Custom colored couplings required by the client in Asia for 3000 MV power plant project for pulverized coal piping | Schedule constraints since the piping system was installed and were waiting on couplings; the EPC shared style and quantity of couplings with the supplier but not specialty paint information despite it specified by the owner; increased lead times due to late information of custom work | Project and paint specifications shared earlier from EPC’s engineering team |
|
CS8 | Time and material contract - approximately 200 million. Milestone dates with incentives and liquidated damages. Extremely schedule-sensitive project since it was one phase of a multi-phase project. The owner controlled the material flow process. The decision was made by management to bulk issue all materials to the field to expedite the start of a project, meet schedule and early milestones | Bulk and inefficient distribution of materials to the field resulted in unaccountability and loss of materials. The productivity on the field was impacted as workers were spending time searching for materials | Status, location, ownership of materials that were bulk issued |
|
CS9 | Turnaround project - Increasing approximately 4,000 ft of overhead piping from 24″ 5CR to 30″ 9CR. The schedule was extremely critical since the replacement had to be completed within the turnaround schedule | The client wanted specialty alloy for the 9CR piping, which had a lead time of 7 months. The compressed schedule of the turnaround project as well as the specialty material requirement made vendor selection and meeting project requirements very challenging | Design detail and dependencies for the engineering team; potential suppliers and lead time for procurement team; handling and installation expertise for the construction team |
The project pertains to the mid-life refurbishment of an enormous power generating facility based in North America. The project’s scope included the replacement of feeder pipes, end fittings, pressure tubes, and calandria tubes.
Previous projects on refurbishment had revealed that the factors for poor project performance were a shortage, late deliveries, and quality issues of materials. Thus, it was imperative to drive the procurement of materials early; the process required setting milestone dates for items that are on the critical path far ahead of the installation dates so that these items are received and inspected onsite. This would remove a significant amount of risk of critical path items. However, numerous contractors were working on multiple projects across the nuclear refurbishment portfolio. The need to drive the procurement of materials meant having visibility into all the contractors’ procurement and deliveries.
The key supply chain decisions that can be induced from the project context are: to “identify materials and equipment requiring high visibility” since it was vital to document the items that are on the critical path for the project; and “order long-lead items and products” and “order commodity and bulks” to track the procurement and delivery of the items by the portfolio of projects and by contractors.
The information needs to support the three decision areas is depicted in
Process of finding the detailed information needs to support key decision areas for mini-case CS1.
Following the mini-cases analysis, the academic team presented the results to the industry expert panel during the structured workshops. In the workshops, the panel systematically reviewed each information need, modified it, and developed a detailed definition. This process involved checking the following: 1) if the information needed was indeed due to lack of visibility and not a project constraint/condition (e.g., country of origin requirements), or benefit/outcome of having good visibility (e.g., transparency using near-real-time access); 2) if the information needs were not broad or unclear (e.g., quality performance of suppliers); 3) if the decisions of the specific mini-case were supported by other information needs that were not apparent in the case; 4) if the information needs supported multiple decision areas; and 5) the definitions of the information needs were detailed and included perspectives from all: the owner, engineer, contractor, supplier, and technology vendor.
The entire process included multiple rounds of review and refinement. The reduction and finalizing of information needs and definitions took several workshops until there was collective consensus by the entire team. In the end, the team identified seventy-nine information needs across the ten key supply chain areas.
Information needed items and definitions for order commodities and bulk of Procurement phase (additional definitions for each phase in the
Procurement | |
---|---|
P4. Order commodities and bulk | |
Bill of Material (BOM) quantities by CWP/IWP | Detailed BOM quantities including systems and associated assemblies, components, sub-components, consumables as per Construction Work Package and Installation Work Package |
Shipment quantities and composition - bulks (gaskets, pipes, bolts, etc.) | Visibility into shipment quantities and how suppliers (and sub-suppliers) ship materials like pipes, gaskets, boltsetc. |
Required-onsite/Required-at-site dates | The date needed onsite (or laydown/receiving yard) derived from the construction needed date plus the time needed to receive materials (including testing or assurance). May include a buffer between construction need date and date need to deliver to site (e.g., regulations may require a buffer) |
Warehouse space availability over time | Allocation of warehouse space over time according to planned deliveries and installation of materials onsite that releases space |
Delivery rates for bulks | Valuation of delivery rate for bulks to validate work package/work plans and receiving requirements |
Regional inventories of common/commodity items | Information about the availability of regional inventories for common/commodity items. Used to assess the impact of a large order for bulk type materials that may exceed the suppliers’ standard production capacity or stocking levels. It may be in conjunction with a frame agreement between contractor and supplier for delivery of bulk items. The availability of substitutes may also be monitored |
Expediting costs related to transport/logistics | Transpiration and related costs to speed delivery of materials. This augments the cost/ability of the supplier to accelerate production |
Availability level/options of alternate supply source for common parts/consumables | Alternate supply of common parts that can substitute for parts that are ordered (i.e., can substitute an alternate if the desired is unavailable) |
Materials handling costs offsite | Costs for materials handling, including storage costs offsite |
Materials handling costs onsite | Costs for materials handling, including storage, re-handling, and maintenance costs onsite |
The next phase of the research process comprises evaluating the credibility, transferability, dependability, and applicability of the decision areas, associated information needs, and definitions. The evaluation was conducted using the internal team, an external expert team, agreement between internal and external team, and case studies.
Team evaluation included both the internal and external team evaluating the results of the study. This process involved checking each decision area, information needs, and definitions for quality, usability, and confirmability. This step also increased the content and construct validity of the research results. Five of the external participants also pointed out that the information needs and definitions can be used to audit their respective firms to get a snapshot of their current level of visibility on projects. Some of the external team members were curious about the research process that led to the identification and definitions of the information needed items. When explained, all of the seven external teams agreed that the use of multiple case studies as beneficial. As per them, the nine cases being complex in nature produces insights that can be applied to projects of equivalent and lesser complexity. Overall, the participants (internal and external) indicated that the research findings to be of high quality, complete in terms of information content required to support decision making on projects, and applicable in practical contexts within the industrial construction sector.
In addition, both groups also rated the importance of the information needs and definitions using the 4-point Likert scale. The Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance results indicates a high level of agreement between the two groups on the rankings of the information needs (W = 0.885, Chi-Square = 137.986, df = 78,
The project investigated is a multi-billion-dollar oil and gas project in Canada. The case starts with the project background and an overview of the supply chain. Next, the visibility measures that were put in place are discussed. The analysis starts with identifying the decision area(s) critical to the case and the available supporting information, as well as comparing the identified decision area(s) and the information of the case with the set of decision area(s) and information needs from the research findings.
The goal of the project was to boost the oil production in a region. The project involved the mining and extraction process of bitumen and scope of work included mine and site development, ore preparation plant, extraction, tailing and froth treatment facilities. The project had a cost-plus contract and an engineer-procure-construct (EPC) project delivery method. The supply chain of the project is depicted in
Overview of the supply chain.
Since the supply chain included multiple fabricators, ports, staging yard, laydown facilities, and warehouses (some even share between contractors), the information exchange process required a lot of cross-scope coordination involving the EPC, multiple contractors, and fabricators. The EPC’s material management system lacked consistent and accurate data since there were at times voids of information material due to the unavailability of timely and accurate information from international vendors in the supply chain. There was missing information related to pipe supports and other bulk materials since the EPC did not load and track the relevant data in their material management system. In addition, it was a challenge to aggregate all the data and compile them for reporting purposes since all these stakeholders (five fabricators and four modular yards) had their own material management system and process. Next, the project included numerous heavy haul shipment coordination. Heavy haul items are materials that require a specialized over-sized trailer to transport materials that exceed certain dimension—length, width, height, or weight – or involves non-typical loading pattern. Each heavy haul shipment requires special coordination and permitting actions both on-site and throughout the supply chain process. The logistics carrier has to adhere to the regulations of any port of call, municipality, and transit authority involved in the transportation of the heavy-haul item. For example, small towns might have to close off their main streets or temporary closure of roads and bridges for a large heavy haul item to pass through. Last but not the least, the complex international supply chain made it difficult to track the disruptions of steel and pipe in the supply chain. All these highlighted problems resulted in an inefficient and cumbersome data-exchange. This, in turn, led to reactive decision-making based on outdated and static material information. In other words, there was a lack of visibility regarding materials at different points across the supply chain. For example, there was lack of owner visibility into challenges of materials readiness and workface planning across the multiple contractors giving rise to cost and schedule uncertainty.
Owing to the criticality of the modular assembly program, the owner mandated that the project pipe spools and steel piece-marks be barcoded and tagged using RFID. The application of these material tracking technologies was conducted at the port in Asia. The supply chain was also adjusted to enable a smooth material flow. In fact, the central staging yard was constructed in Canada to support the module assembly program. The project’s supply chain process involved loading materials in removable racks in Asia by grouping them by modules. The packing list of the racks of materials were digitally created after physically scanning the materials into shipping containers, and the packing was done by work packages. After arrival in Canada, the racks were stored in the staging yard in Canada and shipped to the modular yards based on the material withdrawal request by the respective yards.
The expert panel reviewed the case study. The panel agreed that the module assembly installation could impact the schedule due to disruption of materials in the complex international supply chain. As such, the application of material tracking technologies was warranted. The system provided shipment data at the item and tag level to account for material flow disruption. Nevertheless, the panel perceived that the project needed more information about the following aspects.
First, there was no information about the modules after they were issued to construction. It would be helpful to know when and how many of the modules were installed in comparison to the construction need dates and purchase order (PO) quantities or bill of material (BOM) quantities. The construction need dates depend on the path of construction and differ by material types (long lead vs. bulks). Thus, identifying the long-lead items, the path of construction, shipment quantities and composition for engineered materials and major equipment packages is vital. Furthermore, information about constraint-free installation of the modules would provide visibility into quantities installed. These can be compared with either the PO or BOM information.
Second, the pipe supports and some bulks were not tracked using the materials management system. As per the panel members, pipe supports and bulks play an essential role in module installation. Therefore, visibility into shipment quantities and composition, warehouse space, delivery rates, and regional inventories, and expediting costs for bulks was required. This is especially important to plan for unplanned rush order of bulks if required at the later part of the project.
Third, the panel recognized that any delays in the project’s progress and communications in the supply chain could result in unplanned stockpiles of materials. Therefore, visibility into orders at offsite and onsite location, checking the ability of supplier/fabricator to delay deliveries and/or of storage spaces (laydown, warehouses) if they can hold additional inventories is essential for effective inventory management. Fabricator’s/supplier’s ability to delay or hold deliveries, in turn, require information about upstream constraints, lead times, and production schedule of fabricators/suppliers.
Lastly, the panel commented that scope changes or change orders could impact the project. So, for the module program’s success, the panel recognized that the project needed to manage constraints by continuously reviewing look-ahead schedules. Incase constraints are not met, then the project will have to expedite, recover the schedule, and readjust sequence to ensure timely and accurate delivery of materials. Constraint management, expediting, recovery, and re-sequencing are all part of the decision area C1- ‘adjustment in schedule and/or supply chain to accommodate the material flow disruptions. The information required to support this decision area include readiness of installation packages, client milestones, status and location of modules and materials in the supply chain, BOM quantities, and supply chain’s ability to hold or delay inventories. The above discussed information needs, their definitions, and the relevant decision area(s) are provided in
Information available/needed for the project and associated decision areas.
KSCDA | The information needed for the project | Definitions |
---|---|---|
D1 | Upstream constraints at fabrication facilities | Visibility into constraints in the fabrication yard release dates, modular yard schedule, fabrication yard, and tier-2 supplier contractual milestones |
Construction sequence/path of construction | The general plan for construction sequencing, including work areas that supports plan for Construction work packages (CWPs)/Installation work packages (IWPs) | |
Current fabricator lead times for early planning | Current windows between ordering and delivery for components. May include sub-tiers of suppliers (upstream) for clarity | |
Logistics availability windows | Shipping window/logistics constraint; e.g., limited availability of the heavy-lift capability | |
D2 | Identification of critical components/long lead time items | Critical/long-lead components are identified through a review of Required-at-site (RAS) dates against purchase order (PO) lead times; such components require early ordering to assure timely delivery to site. Critical/long-lead components set key procurement dates and may require extra monitoring. Critical components may also be identified as ones that have specific site installation dates that come from contractual milestones or key constraints such as limited availability of installation/expertise providers, weather windowsetc. |
D3 | Shipment quantities and composition - engineered materials, major equipment packages | Visibility into shipment quantities as well as how suppliers (and sub suppliers) ship materials (e.g., major equipment, packages of equipment including sub-assemblies and parts. Also, loose components, spares, etc. of equipment that is designed and shipped by vendor) |
P1 | Required onsite dates | The date needed on site (or laydown/receiving yard) derived from the construction needed date plus the time needed to receive materials (including testing or assurance). May include a buffer between construction need date and date need to deliver to site (e.g., regulations may require a buffer) |
Logistics availability windows | Shipping window/logistics constraint; e.g., limited availability of the heavy-lift capability | |
P3 | Construction need dates | Installation date for materials on-site based on current information (Path of construction, schedule level of detail) |
Supplier production schedule | Supplier production plan and schedule (including incremental milestones) - constraints; cutting, welding, fit up, inspection etc. | |
Finished goods inventory levels offsite | Stock level of finished goods off-site at various supply chain nodes | |
Finished goods inventory levels onsite | Costs for materials handling, including storage, re-handling, and maintenance costs on-site | |
Logistics availability windows | Shipping window/logistics constraint; e.g., limited availability of the heavy-lift capability | |
Delivery rates for bulks | Valuation of delivery rate for bulks to validate work package/work plans and receiving requirements | |
Regional inventories of common/commodity items | Information about availability of regional inventories for common/commodity items. Used to assess the impact of a large order for bulk type materials that may exceed standard production capacity or stocking levels of the suppliers. May be in conjunction with a frame agreement between contractor and supplier for delivery of bulk items. Availability of substitutes may also be monitored | |
Expediting costs related to transport/logistics | Transpiration and related costs to speed delivery of materials. This augments cost/ability of supplier to accelerate production | |
C1 | Status and location of modules/materials in the supply chain at the tag and item level | Near real time transactional information (status and location) of physical material as it traverses through different supply chain nodes as appropriately planned for the project (includes desired upstream nodes such as fabrication shops and 2nd tier suppliers; specification of extent of tracking is part of project planning). Must include BOM information for parent-child assemblies. Tags may need to be assigned upon receiving if common parts are shipped in quantity (bag and tag) |
Laydown space availability in staging yard, modular yards, warehouse over time | Allocation of laydown/warehouse space over time according to planned deliveries and installation of materials on-site that releases space | |
Supply chain’s ability to hold inventory and delay deliveries | Ability of a supplier or logistics yard to hold additional inventory or delay deliveries. This can relieve the pressure on site storage needs. May be contractual | |
Client milestones | The dates set by client for key activities (e.g., start dates, turnaround windows, and required completions) | |
Bill of material quantities | Detailed bill of material quantities including systems and associated assemblies, components, sub-components, consumables as per CWP and IWP. | |
IWP readiness including design, materials, labor, equipment etc. | Visibility into IWP readiness to assure they are constraint free |
The internal expert panel discussion revealed that the research findings provide a set of information needs and definitions which can be used in determining the information that is possible from the available data or the data conversion required using definitions that can facilitate a more efficient data exchange process. In other words, it can aid information to support decision making. For example, the material arrival and departure times (commonly tracked) can be used to calculate the inventory level of materials and space availability at supply chain locations. This information can be used to plan the delivery of modules from the Asia port as well as to ensure an effective inventory management in the staging area. This, in turn, can improve productivity in laydown yards and during installation and reduce both procurement and inventory costs. Thus, the applicability of the research findings in a real-world context indicates the practical value and use of decision areas and information needs.
Having visibility into the supply chain can result in more effective management and improved project performance. However, the construction literature lacks the definition of the detailed information needs in the supply chain that supports decision-making and enables visibility. This study developed and defined the detailed information to support key supply chain decision areas during detailed design, procurement, and construction phases for a typical industrial construction project.
The study contributes to the body of knowledge in two ways. First, the study defines ten key decision areas and 79 detailed information needed items, representing a significant advance to our understanding of information. This work was undertaken from the perspective of supporting decision making; development was performed by knowledgeable professionals as well as academics. The definitions are considerably more detailed and comprehensive than prior work in the area, whether from the perspective of academic literature or embodied in industry information tools. The input of multiple stakeholder types (owner, contractor, designer, supplier/technology provider) contributed to the quality of the definitions. Thus, the definitions collectively provide a unifying framework with a common vocabulary in the construction supply chain domain.
The second intellectual contribution is methodological. The study describes a rigorous process that can be used to develop detailed definitions of visibility. Many prior definitions of visibility in the general supply chain management and logistics literature have been conceptual. Other efforts are typically inductive from limited cases or deductive from first principals, but not both. This study describes both a deductive and inductive approach that uses the expertise of both academics and industry subject matter experts. While all of these elements have been seen in prior research, combining them to develop not just research findings but also practical definitions represent an advance for construction and related applied research.
The study also has practical implications. The set of information needs and definitions contributed by the study represents the user’s desired information that is not fully available today. Therefore, the set of decision areas and information needs can be used by practitioners to augment their tools and procedures to better support projects. For example, the identified information needs and their definitions can be used to draft contracts along the lines of information needs on projects; this inclusion can help set expectations regarding information exchange between project participants early on during projects. Also, the information definitions can be used as a starting point to develop standardized definitions and needs statements that can help drive technology vendor implementations. Furthermore, practitioners can use the definitions as a common language to communicate with other stakeholders in the supply chain. The case study of industrial project used for evaluation in the current study gives some insight into how the definitions could be used in a real-world context.
This study provides an advance to our understanding and provides the groundwork for further research. One limitation of the current study is that the group of subject matter experts is based in North America and evaluation in other locations would help to generalize the findings. Similarly, the findings are centered in industrial construction and expansion to other sectors would be a worthwhile endeavor. That said, a focus on supporting decisions likely drives a set of information needs that is broadly applicable, particular for projects with complex supply chains as in the industrial sector. Second, while nine industrial construction project case studies contributed to the development of the research results, the study used a single case project to evaluate the research findings. Future research should investigate multiple case projects within industrial construction sector under different conditions to improve generalization and validation of the research findings. Another avenue of future work is using the defined information needs and supported decision areas as an evaluation framework of the SCV process. To achieve this, one way would be to identify the relevant SCV measurement variables for construction and using them to quantify the information needed items and decision areas. Quantification of the information items can also help in assessing the contribution of the individual information needs to the respective decision areas and to the overall SCV process. Beyond further expansion and validation of the findings, future research can utilize the definitions for more detailed assessment of supply chain visibility as well as a foundation for technical development. Similarly, practitioners can use the research to assess the limitations of their existing systems and prioritize augmentation using the research. Overall, the authors expect this research will be foundational in the development of more capable construction supply chains.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Texas at Austin. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
This research was funded by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) and is based on the project titled Improved Integration of the Supply Chain in Materials Planning and Work Packaging—Research Team (RT) 344.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the industry expert panel members of RT 344, and the other firms that participated in the study.
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: