Interorganizational relationships in the Brazilian construction industry supply chain

Krainer, Christiane Wagner Mainardes; Krainer, Jefferson Augusto; Romano, Cezar Augusto

doi:10.1590/0103-6513.20170075

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Research Article • Prod. 28 • 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20170075 copy

Interorganizational relationships in the Brazilian construction industry supply chain

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Paper aims

This paper identifies variables that differentiate the relationship between small and medium-sized construction companies and suppliers; and impact the integration of the supply chain of the construction sector with the aim of obtaining performance gains.

Originality

The data was collected through a questionnaire to two specific groups of business: small and medium-sized construction and suppliers.

Research method

Survey with a sample of 50 construction companies and 50 suppliers. Through the discriminant analysis it was possible to identify the variables related to the relationship between construction companies and suppliers which distinguish more both groups of business.

Main findings

The biggest points of divergence are: operational relationship, degree of commitment with the product cycle, expectation of compliance with the agreement and pressure for a rise in quality.

Implications for theory and practice

The researched companies are not committed with the performance of the supply chain in the sector.

Keywords
Buyer-supplier relationships; Supply management; Providers; Construction companies

Factors	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	Frequency
Trust	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	12
Common Goals	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x	12
Equity or Equality		x	x	x	x		x	x		x	x		x	9
Performance assessment		x	x	x	x	x		x		x		x	x	9
Effective Communication			x			x	x		x	x	x	x	x	8
Engagement	x	x	x			x	x	x		x	x			8
Long-term Relationship		x				x			x		x	x	x	6
Integrated Team						x	x	x	x		x	x		6
Resolution of Problems/ Conflicts		x	x		x			x			x		x	6
Win-Win Philosophy	x				x			x					x	4
Shared Risk		x						x						2
Rewards and Mutual Benefits							x							1
Investments/ Incentives											x			1

⁽¹⁾
Cook & Hancher (1990) Cook, E. L., & Hancher, D. E. (1990). Partnering: contracting for the future. Journal of Management Engineering, 6(4), 431-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)9742-597X(1990)6:4(431).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)9742-59... ; (2) Bennett & Jayes (1995) Bennett, J., & Jayes, S. (1995). Trusting the team: the best practice guide to partnering in construction. London: Thomas Telford. ; (3) Lenard et al. (1996) Lenard, D. J., Bowen-James, A., Thompson, M., & Anderson, L. (1996). Partnering: models for success. Adelaide: Construction Industry Institute. ; (4) Hellard (1995) Hellard, R. B. (1995). Project partnering: principle and practice. London: Thomas Telford. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/pppap.20436.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/pppap.20436 ... ; (5) Matthews et al. (1996) Matthews, J., Tyler, A., & Thorpe, A. (1996). Pre-construction project partnering: developing the process. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management , 3(1-2), 117-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb021026.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb021026 ... ; (6) Black et al. (2000) Black, C., Akintoye, A., & Fitzgerald, E. (2000). An analysis of success factors and benefits of partnering in construction. International Journal of Project Management , 18(6), 423-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00046-0.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99... ; (7) Scott (2001) Scott, B. (2001). Partnering in Europe: incentive based alliancing for projects . London: Thomas Telford. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/pieibafp.29651.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/pieibafp.2965... ; (8) Kumaraswamy & Dissanayaka (2001) Kumaraswamy, M. M., & Dissanayaka, S. M. (2001). Developing a decision support system for building project procurement. Building and Environment, 36(3), 337-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(00)00011-1.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(00... ; (9) Cheng & Li (2002) Cheng, E. W. L., & Li, H. (2002). Construction partnering process and associated critical success factors: quantitative investigation. Journal of Management Engineering , 18(4), 194-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:4(194).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-59... ; (10) Ng et al. (2002) Ng, S. T., Rose, T. M., Mak, M., & Chen, S. E. (2002). Problematic issues associated with project partnering - the contractor perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 20(6), 437-449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00025-4.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01... ; (11) Tang et al. (2006) Tang, W., Duffield, C. F., & Young, D. M. (2006). Partnering mechanism in construction: an empirical study on the chinese construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(3), 217-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:3(217).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-93... ; (12) Chen & Chen (2007) Chen, W. T., & Chen, T. T. (2007). Critical success factors for construction partnering in Taiwan. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 475-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.12.003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.20... ; (13) Yeung et al. (2007) Yeung, J. F., Chan, A. P., & Chan, D. W. (2007). The definition of alliancing in construction as a Wittgenstein family-resemblance concept. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 219-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.10.003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.20... .

V	Construction Company				Supplier
V	Mean	Mode	Median	Standard Deviation	Mean	Mode	Median	Standard Deviation
1	4.76	5	5	1.41	6.10	7	6.5	1.23
2	3.54	3	3.5	1.54	5.34	7	6	1.57
3	5.72	6	6	0.83	6.36	7	7	0.85
4	5.88	6	6	0.96	6.52	7	7	0.89
5	5.66	6	6	1.26	6.28	7	7	0.96
6	4.22	6	5	2.19	4.62	7	5.5	2.49
7	5.50	6	6	1.15	5.84	7	6	1.30
8	4.70	5	5	1.45	4.90	6	5	1.58
9	2.88	1	2.5	1.77	2.52	1	1	2.16
10	5.30	6	6	1.54	3.72	1	3	2.08
11	4.80	6	5	1.23	4.40	4	4	1.48
12	5.16	6	5	1.09	6.06	7	7	1.41
13	3.32	2	3	1.79	3.42	1	4	2.08
14	2.84	1	2	2.06	2.76	1	2	2.22
15	3.54	1	4	2.22	3.70	1	3.5	2.36
16	4.74	5	5	1.59	4.42	7	5	2.04
17	1.48	1	1	1.07	2.48	1	1	2.15
18	3.18	1	3	1.83	4.04	5	4	1.86
19	4.04	5	4	1.69	4.26	5	4	1.85
20	4.46	6	5	1.74	4.80	5	5	1.74

V	Wilks' Lambda	F	df1	df2	Sig.	V	Wilks' Lambda	F	df1	df2	Sig.
V1	0.795	23.960	1	93	0.000	V11	0.974	2.448	1	93	0.121
V2	0.776	26.865	1	93	0.000	V12	0.898	10.599	1	93	0.002
V3	0.873	13.534	1	93	0.000	V13	0.995	0.446	1	93	0.506
V4	0.847	16.772	1	93	0.000	V14	1.000	0.002	1	93	0.964
V5	0.916	8.567	1	93	0.004	V15	0.999	0.134	1	93	0.715
V6	0.987	1.262	1	93	0.264	V16	1.000	0.011	1	93	0.915
V7	0.984	1.559	1	93	0.215	V17	0.916	8.501	1	93	0.004
V8	0.999	0.047	1	93	0.829	V18	0.948	5.090	1	93	0.026
V9	0.990	0.935	1	93	0.336	V19	0.990	0.900	1	93	0.345
V10	0.861	15.004	1	93	0.000	V20	0.976	2.307	1	93	0.132

			Eigenvalues
Test Result		363.081	Function	Eigenvalue	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Canonical Correlation
F	Approx.	1.333	1	1.423a	100.0	100.0	0.766
	df1	210	Wilks' Lamba
	df2	25831.29	Test of Function(s)	Wilks' Lambda	Chi-square	df	Sig.
	Sig.	0.001	1	0.13	73.465	20	0.000

V	Variable description	Function	V	Function
V	Variable description	1	V	1
V2	Operational Relationship	0.451	V20	0.132
V1	Degree of commitment with the product cycle	0.425	V7	0.109
V4	Compliance with the agreement	0.356	V6	0.098
V10	Pressure for increase in quality	-0.337	V9	-0.084
V3	Trust level	0.320	V19	0.082
V12	Differentiated pricing policy	0.283	V13	0.058
V5	Long-term relationship	0.254	V15	0.032
V17	Autonomy to deliver without ordering	0.253	V8	0.019
V18	Participation in meetings	0.196	V16	-0.009
V11		-0.136	V14	0.004

	V21		*Predicted Group Membership*		Total
	V21		1	2	Total
Original	Count	1	45	5	50
		2	4	41	45
	%	1	90.0	10.0	100.0
		2	8.9	91.1	100.0

Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, Travessa 2, 128 - 2º andar - Room 231, 05508-900 São Paulo - SP - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: production@editoracubo.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * chriswmk70@gmail.com

Slightly committed	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Yes, strongly committed
No relationship	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Intense relationship
Low confidence	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	High confidence

V	Construction Company	Supplier	R
1	What is the degree of commitment of the supplier in the participation and contribution in the cycle of development of your own products?	What is the degree of commitment of the company in the participation and contribution towards the product development cycle of your clients/construction companies?	1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8
2	Is there an operational relationship with your suppliers?	Is there an operational relationship with your clients/construction companies?	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
3	What is the level of trust of the company regarding the suppliers?	What is the level of trust of the company regarding the clients/construction companies?	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
4	What are your expectations that the suppliers will fulfill the agreement?	What are your expectations that the clients/construction companies will fulfill the agreement?	1, 3
5	Is the relationship between the company and the suppliers a longstanding one?	Is the relationship between the company and the clients/construction companies a longstanding one?	1, 2, 3, 6, 8
6	Is the contract renewed automatically when the desired performance and objective are met?	Is the contract renewed automatically when the desired performance and objective are met?	1, 3
7	Are there expectations of new contracts with your current suppliers?	Are there expectations of new contracts with your current partners?	3, 4
V	Construction Company	Supplier	R
8	Do your suppliers encourage and invest in the development of new technologies?	Do your partners encourage and invest in the development of new technologies?	1, 2, 3
9	Do the suppliers have access to the composition of costs of your products (ventures)?	Do the clients have access to the composition of costs of your products?	1, 3, 4
10	Does the company pressure the suppliers so there is a rise in quality?	Does the company pressure the clients/construction companies so there is a rise in quality?	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
11	How does the company perceive itself regarding its bargaining power towards its suppliers?	How does the company perceive itself regarding its bargaining power towards its clients (buyers)?	1, 4, 6, 8
12	Does the supplier offer its differentiated pricing policy to your company?	E Is there a differentiated pricing policy for clients/construction companies that maintain a partnership with the company?	1, 2, 6, 8
13	Do your suppliers interfere in the production programs?	Do your partners interfere in the production programs?	2, 3, 6
14	Does the company have exclusive supply deals on your ventures?	Does the company have exclusive supply deals on the ventures of its clients/construction companies?	2, 5, 6, 7, 8
15	Does the company have suppliers that represent 50% or more of the costs of supply to the company?	Does the company have partners that represent 50% or more of the profit of the company?	2, 4
16	Does the company demand certificates of quality on its products and/or processes?	Do your partners demand certificates of quality of your company?	1, 2, 5
17	Do the suppliers have autonomy to deliver materials without orders?	Does the company have autonomy to deliver materials without orders?	3, 4, 6
18	Does the supplier participate in the meetings with the technical staff and the supply sector of the company?	Does the company participate in the meetings with the technical staff and the supply sector of the client/construction company?	1, 2, 3, 7, 8
19	Does the company carry out recruitment processes for choosing its suppliers?	Does the company participate in recruitment processes carried out by its clients/construction companies?	2, 4, 6,7
20	Does the company carry out an evaluation process to measure the performance of its suppliers (inputs)?	Does the client/construction company evaluate the performance of the company?	2, 4, 6, 7, 8