Identifying enablers for coordination across construction supply chain processes: a systematic literature review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose Managing stakeholders' reciprocal interdependencies is always a challenging issue. Stakeholders need to find out different ways to communicate information and coordinate material flows during the supply chain processes. Many recent studies have advanced construction supply chain coordination from multiple perspectives. However, the field still lacks a comprehensive analysis to summarize existing research, to explicitly identify all the possible enablers for coordination and to investigate how the enablers can be carried out at the supply chain interfaces. To fill the gap, this study aims to conduct a systematic review in order to examine the relevant literature. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review process was conducted to identify and synthesize relevant publications (published in the past 20 years) concerning the coordination of construction supply chain functions. These publications were coded to link main research findings with specific enabler categories. In addition, how these enablers can be used at the interfaces across supply chain processes was reviewed with an in-depth analysis of reciprocal communications between stakeholders at design-to-production, production-to-logistics and production-to-site-assembly phases. Findings The coordination enablers were classified into three categories: (1) contractual enablers (including subtopics on relational contracts and incentive models), (2) procedural enablers (including subtopics on multiagent knowledge sharing systems and the last planner system) and (3) technological enablers (including subtopics on linked databases for design coordination, design for manufacturing software platforms and automated monitoring technologies). It was found that interfacing different functions requires a certain level of integration of stakeholders for quick response and feedback processes. The integration of novel contractual forms with digital technologies, such as smart contracts, however, was not adequately addressed in the state of the art. Research limitations/implications The scope of the systematic review is limited to the static analysis of selected publications. Longitudinal studies should be further included to sharpen the inductions of enablers considering organizational changes and process dynamics in construction projects. Practical implications Different enablers for coordination were summarized in a concise manner, which provides researchers and project stakeholders with a reinforced understanding of various ways to manage reciprocal interdependencies at different supply chain interfaces. Originality/value This study constitutes an important input for research on the construction supply chain by illuminating the thematic topic of coordination from inductively developed review processes, which included a holistic framing of the emerging coordination enablers and their use across supply chain functions. Consequently, it closes some identified knowledge gaps and offers additional insights to improve the supply chain performance of construction projects.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,105 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,035 | 0,023 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».