the survey in this study, along with the 11 main vulnerability factors previously identified in Figure 2.9. The following section describes the pathogenic influences that affect the supply chain resilience.
2.7 Pathogenic Influences
In addition to the supply chain vulnerability factors discussed in Section 2.5, it is important to consider the underlying reasons as to why a supply chain member might be more vulnerable in certain areas than others. Previous studies on supply chain resilience tend to look at vulnerability as a static condition without considering the latent conditions, thus missing some of the key driving forces that influence the dynamics of supply chain vulnerability. These latent conditions have been referred to as ‘pathogens’ in previous studies (Busby and Hughes, 2004; Busby and Zhang, 2008; Love et al., 2008) and identified as the key factors that set the conditions for disruptions such as errors, failure and disputes to occur in construction projects. The characteristics of pathogens in construction and their applicability to this study are further discussed in the following sections.
2.7.1 Pathogens in Construction Projects
In studying the latent conditions in projects, Busby and Hughes (2004) found that earlier studies on error, accidents and failure in projects have traditionally concentrated on individuals’ errors rather than considering team errors (Reason, 1990). Furthermore, most studies assessed the relationship between the general qualities of the project organisation and its success or failure overall (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996), without considering the mechanisms that produce such specific errors and failures in the first place (Busby and Hughes, 2004). Busby and Hughes (2004) attempted to address this issue by taking into account Reason’s (1990) and Turner’s (1978) work, which they provided a distinctly systemic way of thinking about error and failure; they introduced the term ‘pathogens’, whose greatest conceptual value is that they remain dormant in the system until an actual failure occurs. This term originated in the field of biology as an analogy for the development of disease in natural organisms. Pathogens were defined by Busby and Hughes (2004, p. 428) by the following qualities:
• They are relatively stable phenomena that have been in existence for a substantial time before the problem occurs.
• Before the problem occurs, they would not have been seen as obvious stages in an identifiable sequence failure.
• They are strongly connected to the problem, and are identifiable as principal causes of the problem once it occurs.
Subsequently, through interviews conducted with 22 staff in a UK engineering firm, they identified eight main categories of pathogen that had caused significant problems in large- scale engineering projects, as listed in Table 2.5. They include pathogens arising from an organisation’s or individual’s ‘practice’, such as reusing existing design solutions without considering the distinct nature of the project, causing substantial rework; and pathogens arising from ‘convention’ where standard routines have been used in projects, overlooking the fact that the standard task is inappropriate until disruptions occur.
Table 2.5: The main categories of pathogen (Busby and Hughes, 2004)
Category Description
Practice Pathogens arising from people’s deliberate practices
Task Pathogens arising from the nature of the task being performed Circumstance Pathogens arising from the situation or environment the project was
operating in
Convention Pathogens arising from conventions, standards, routines and codes of practice
Organisation Pathogens arising from organisational structure or operation System Pathogens arising from an organisational system
Industry Pathogens arising from the structural property of the industry Tool Pathogens arising from the technical characteristic of the tool
It can be seen that many of the pathogens involve practices or strategic decisions that have been deliberately adopted as a way of dealing with disruptions, and that until the practices or decisions are shown to be faulty, they remain a fundamental part of the organisation’s day- to-day practice (Busby and Hughes, 2004; Love et al., 2008). This ultimately results in the increasing probability of a problem occurring over time in subsequent projects. It is therefore important to identify and mitigate these pathogens before a disruptive event occurs, to ensure projects are not repeatedly exposed to the same risk.
The same pathogen metaphor was used in a subsequent study by Busby and Zhang (2008) to emphasise the causes of organisational breakdown that are built into projects at their inception. The study found that project participants sometimes have different interpretations
procedures to limit risk might be seen as a pathogen by another person for the inflexibility and limited possible lines of action it imposes in tackling problems during project delivery. Busby and Zhang (2008) believe that this kind of discrepancy could become problematic during project delivery. Despite identifying the pathogens and their effect on project performance, neither study addressed the managerial actions that should be taken to mitigate such pathogens in projects.
In a different context, Love et al. (2008) adopted the pathogen metaphor to address the underlying conditions that contribute to project disputes. Although they did not sub- categorise the pathogens like Busby and Hughes (2004) did, they made an attempt to find the interrelated connections between these pathogens as they discovered that the combination of a number of pathogens could lead to disruptive events, such as disputes in construction projects. Ultimately, Love et al. (2011) supported the view of Busby and Hughes (2004) that, essentially, before the problem becomes apparent, project participants often remain unaware of the impact upon project performance that particular decisions, practices or procedures can have. Furthermore, similar to Reason’s (2000) point of view, Love et al. (2011) believe that these pathogens, once combined with active failures (inappropriate acts by people who are in direct contact with the system) could cause significant problems and have an adverse impact on project performance. While their study was able to provide some useful links between the pathogens, the researchers did not look into other parties in the supply chain; only the client and contracting groups were assessed. A more comprehensive study would look into other members of the supply chain, such as consultants and sub-contractors, to obtain a more balanced perspective of the pathogenic influences. Nor were the inherent vulnerability and capability factors of the organisation and supply chain considered in any of the studies reviewed, which this study aims to assess.
2.7.2 Integration of Pathogens in Resilience Studies
Thus, past studies have adopted the concept of pathogens in various contexts: Reason (1990) addressed them in relation to human errors in the medical sector, Busby and Hughes (2004) in relation to error in construction projects and Busby and Zhang (2008) in organisational breakdown, while Love et al. (2008) conducted a series of studies evaluating the pathogens of project disputes. Although no studies relating to pathogens in supply chain resilience exist, their use by previous researchers suggests that the concept can be adopted in other areas of
research, especially research relating to failure. In this study, failure generally means failure to achieve project objectives due to a foreseeable or unforeseeable disruptive event that affects the usual operation and stability of an organisation or supply chain (Barroso et al., 2008).
Identifying the pathogens in the resilience context will also help address the research gap in previous resilience studies, which tended to overlook the latent conditions that made an organisation vulnerable to disruptive events in the first place. Researchers have focused on the performance and capability of organisations to survive, adapt and grow in the face of disruptions (Pettit et al, 2013; McManus et al, 2007; Sheffi, 2005), without addressing the root cause or inherent pathogens that reside in the system. However, implementing resilience strategies without considering pathogens means that organisations will make the same mistakes repeatedly, making them more vulnerable to disruptive events. Considering the increasing complexity of construction projects and the uncertain environment, there is need for a clear understanding of the pathogens listed in Table 2.5 that influence the vulnerability of the supply chain. While disruptions in construction projects are often difficult to foresee and to eliminate entirely, pathogens can be identified and mitigated before a disruptive event occurs. This further supports the possibility of adopting pathogens in this supply chain resilience context.
Overall, the identification of the pathogens in this study will help the researcher systematically to assess how vulnerable the public sector supply chain members are to making significant errors, thus providing the foundation to build appropriate strategies for their prevention. Indeed, it is difficult for public organisations to see the whole of their supply chain operations, given the large scale of public projects (Section 2.2) and the extent of their supply chain network (Figure 2.4). This makes it harder for the public organisations to detect any hidden pathogens that lie within their supply chain network, and they tend to be overlooked in current risk management practice. Although the pathogens are hidden and may not be causing any problem at the moment, they might be triggered later and manifest themselves in catastrophic disruptions (Busby and Hughes, 2004) if they are not identified and mitigated much earlier in the project. The pathogens can also undermine the supply chain’s capabilities, as discussed in Section 2.6, making further analysis important. In short,
and the risk of disruptions avoided in the first place. This also allows the researcher to obtain a holistic view in assessing and building resilience in the construction supply chain.