Modeling relational performance of the supply chains for prefabricated housebuilding in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Prefabricated construction has proven to be superior in terms of affordability and sustainability over the years. As a result of sustainable production, prefabricated housebuilding has evolved into a distinct industry reliant on supplier companies acting as supply chains (SCs) for housing projects. These companies' performance is critical to the successful implementation of prefabricated housebuilding technologies. However, in comparison to those choosing manufacturing as a strategy in other industries, the life span of these companies, providing innovative housing solutions, is relatively short. This is due to critical factors influencing the performance, but the inter-relationship of the performance dimensions is more significant. This study establishes the inter-relationship of the companies involved in house building with steel prefabricated housebuilding technologies. Design/methodology/approach The most recent factors were extracted from the literature. The relationships were developed using the interpretive structural modeling (ISM) method with the input from industry experts, and the driving factors were determined using the Matrice d'Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliqués à un Classement (MICMAC) technique. Findings Critical performance factors were classified according to performance dimensions, ranked and classified based on driving and dependence power. The inter-relationships among the performance dimensions of time, quality, cost, delivery, features and innovation were determined. Key performance strategies were proposed for prefabricated housebuilding companies involved in manufacturing and/or assembly of steel products. Originality/value This study established the interrelationship of performance dimensions for prefabricated house building (PHB) companies to develop strategies against critical challenges to remain competitive in the housing market. Previous research had not looked into interrelationship among the performance dimensions. The proposed performance strategies are applicable to supplier organizations using steel prefabricated technologies in similar markets around the world.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".