A case study of multi‐team communications in construction design under supply chain partnering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The increasing “globalisation” and complexity of construction design implies that the project team may involve subcontractors in the construction supply chain from widely distributed geographic areas. Thus communication is a vital process for the design. The aim of the present work is to investigate how construction design under supply chain partnering can be improved through a study of communication issues and problems. Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire survey is initially conducted to investigate communication issues and problems in construction design. Based on the survey results, a case study is carried out to gain further insights into these issues and problems, exploring how the procurement like supply chain partnering influences the multi‐team communications in construction design. Findings The paper finds that partnering can eliminate many communication barriers and has a positive impact on social collaboration in the design process. It could have a negative impact on the team communications if proper procedures have not been put in place. In addition, co‐location can increase the degree of interaction, communication and technical collaboration in the partnership. Originality/value This paper may help construction project practitioners to focus their attention on the necessary respects of multi‐team communications between supply chain partners in construction design, leading to high cooperation and ultimately improving the quality of the design outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it