4.5 Article

A relationship approach to construction supply chains

期刊

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS
卷 108, 期 3-4, 页码 310-327

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/02635570810858741

关键词

supply chain management; relationship marketing; construction industry; Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to establish the influence that relationship variables have on construction supply chains. The objective is to show where thoughtful use of relationship marketing (RM) techniques can benefit construction supply chains. Design/methodology/approach - A questionnaire developed from a focus group outcome and literature concerning RM was used to extract information about commitment, trust and satisfaction in upstream and downstream construction supply chain relationships. A cohort of 898 construction industry managers developed from several comprehensive sample frames responded to the questionnaire. Data was analysed using exploratory and non-parametric confirmatory statistical techniques, including Spearman's p non-parametric correlation matrix, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test and principal axis factor analysis. Findings - The results indicate that construction actors differentiate between relationship and traditional marketing factors in their supply chain activities. It is shown they engender specific RM techniques in their construction project environment. Practical implications - RM has the potential to provide organisations with significant supply chain benefits, particularly long-term value to clients. Benefit may manifest from commitment, trust and satisfaction. These three variables are all fundamental to supply chain activities. Originality/value - The paper uses a RM knowledge base to develop an increased understanding of supply chain benefit variables. The value of the paper is that it enables construction stakeholders with the tools to develop long-term relationships in their heterogeneous construction environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据