2.- ORDENACIÓN DETALLADA

It is widely recognised that one of the building blocks of cSCM is the degree of integration between the supply chain firms (Bankvall et al. 2010; Kannan and Tan 2010; Vrijhoef 2011). Supply Chain Integration (SCI) takes place at a variety of contextual conditions, levels and intensities; hence it is defined, operationalized, and measured in many different ways (Betts et al. 1995; Eriksson 2015; van der Vaart and van Donk 2008; Vrijhoef 2011). In its simplest form, integration encompass coordination of material, information and financial flows within an organisation and at the interface with external supply firms. The literature also conceptualise integration from a broader organisational perspective to reveal its distinct yet overly complex features in AEC supply chain context (for example, in the form of partnering, integrated project

delivery and strategic alliancing) (Lahdenperä 2012). The focus of the current study is on firm- to-firm integration which is usually depicted along the continuum of loose co-operation (operational integration) to a higher level of inter-organisational alignment (strategic partnership) involving greater optimisation and synchronisation of supply chain operations between two or more firms.

The core dimensions of SCI can be described as actor, process and technology integration (Goulding and Lou 2013). Based on review of literature, these three inter-related and inter-dependent components are further broken down into six elements illustrated in Figure 2:2. It is generally accepted that these six constituents are crucial in any type of integration implementation; be it project, organisational or industry level (Betts et al. 1995).

The term ‘actor’ refers to individuals who participate in range of activities (or functions) in construction projects and organisations. The major task in actor integration is to strengthen and support the work/role related activities of individuals during design and construction phase of a project. However, there is also the social dimension of actor integration which plays a critical role in bringing together and functioning of inter-firm interactions. Chinowsky et al., (2008) referred to these two components in actor integration as the ‘mechanics’ and ‘dynamics’ of actor integration. The objective in the former is to integrate the ideas, knowledge and perspectives of the actors for the successful execution of a project or organisational activity (Chinowsky et al. 2008; Pryke 2005). The social aspect of actor integration is regarded as one of the most important factors in team bonding in project environments. As reported by Chinowsky et al., (2008) social connectivity is the key motivator for building formal and informal relationships in intra and inter-firm networks. Although there has been a number of studies about inter-personal relationships between project participants, social integration of actors across supply networks remains a largely unchartered territory in the construction research domain (Pryke 2005).

In terms of process integration there are two contexts where firms become inter- connected. On the one hand, integration may concern functional processes across organisational boundaries such as flow of goods, planning and control, and organisation and information flow (van der Vaart and van Donk 2008). On the other hand, process integration may refer to the integrated, interdependent, and concurrent chain of processes in the design and construction interface of a project where individuals, teams and firms collaborate to eliminate inefficiencies, reduce lead times, and improve quality and cost (Evbuomwan and Anumba 1998; Shelbourn et al. 2006). The former emphasises the physical, temporal, and economic elements of business interaction. In this respect, the integration enhances automation of certain supply chain activities wherein the quality and timely sharing of information with the supply chain firms (especially the lower supply chain tiers) is one of the key facets of integration (Titus and Bröchner 2005). The latter type is mostly concerned with the behavioural, communicational and collaborative processes in design, construction and facilities management phase of a project to enable a more effective and efficient interaction between an array of disciplines and supply chain firms (Evbuomwan and Anumba 1998; Morash and Clinton 1998; Owen et al. 2010; Shelbourn et al. 2006). Drawing a distinction between these two types of process integration is important because of the differences in integration goals and operationalisation across multiple projects.

Technology has a critical attribute in terms of providing the infrastructure and the tools for closely knitted supply chain interactions (Benton and McHenry 2010; McCrea and Peat 2009). There is a unanimous agreement in the literature that the efforts to integrate without considering the technology dimension will fail to deliver the aspired benefits of SCI (Gunasekaran and Ngai 2004; Power 2005; van der Vaart and van Donk 2008; Xu 2015). A key criterion in technology integration is to make use of both intra-firm and inter-firm technological capabilities (Xu 2015). The intra-firm technological integration is required for

effective and efficient conduct of in-house business operations whereas the latter is needed for facilitating the automation, co-ordination, and collaboration of cross-organisational work processes (Gunasekaran and Ngai 2004). Prior literature mention a wide range of inter and intra-firm systems and technologies including: Building Information Modelling (BIM) for generation of an ‘intelligent’ building model; Project Extranets for collaborating on a common platform; Integrated Databases for storage, transfer and retrieval of information; Electronic Data Interchange systems and ERP technologies to automate a wide range of inter-enterprise operations such as ordering, payments, invoicing logistics, inventory, planning and scheduling operations. Literature does not, however, make a clear distinction on the extent of use of inter- firm technologies in supply chain integration context; that is, their extent of use by contractors with the suppliers in downstream tiers.

The literature is abundant with studies that provide a long list of benefits of the SCI practices— most notable being the partnering and collaborative arrangements. Although the majority of the claims are yet to be fully supported by empirical evidence, some of the key benefits and advantages of SCI as a primary expected outcome include the following:

• achieving significant operational efficiencies through streamlining operations within vertical business functions or horizontally across the entire construction project (Bankvall et al. 2010; Eriksson 2010; Gosling et al. 2015a).

• competitive advantage which can be difficult to imitate by competitors; for example competition through superior value rather than lower margins (Benton and McHenry 2010; Holti et al. 1999).

• integrating with suppliers (especially the primary supply chain firms which deliver production related materials) can reduce information lag and maximise the efficiency of conducting activities as well as minimising inventories and cycle times (Benton and McHenry 2010).

• minimise both transaction and production related costs (Benton and McHenry 2010). • it can foster early engagement, innovation, client satisfaction, long-term relationships,

and mutual trust which can lead to profitable outcome for all (Akintoye et al. 2003; Mosey n.d.).

• it can provide a better guard against organisational and project related risks (Aloini et al. 2012).

The execution of SCI does not come without problems too. Akin to the challenges posed by the inherent structure of the industry, there are several difficulties encountered by each party

involved in the integration process (see, for example, the SfFC (2007) report for the case studies). Some of the challenges cited by main contractors include lack of trust, lack of collaborative experience and business fit, fear of being in locked-in relationships, reduced competition, high switching-costs between suppliers and increased dependency (Akintoye and Main 2007; Briscoe and Dainty 2005; Broft et al. 2016; Cox and Ireland 2006; Fulford and Standing 2014). Suppliers on the other hand, commonly blame main contractors for lack of trust, unfair treatment during supplier selection, evaluation, payments and disputes, lack of transparency and visibility of information (Broft et al. 2016; Dainty et al. 2001; EC Harris 2013; White and Marasini 2014), cost-driven agendas (Wood and Ellis 2005) and, prevailing adversarial conditions (for example focus on reducing cost rather than inefficiencies) associated with some integrated practices (such as strategic partnering arrangements) (Business Vantage 2009; Fulford and Standing 2014; Humphreys et al. 2003; Mason 2007; Meng 2013). Moreover, it is argued that while integration creates a strong bond between a contractor and supplier firm, the adaptations and routines that a firm develops for a particular relationship can have a serious impact on its relationship with other firms (Ford et al. 2003). London (2008) point to the fact that suppliers in the AEC industry have many materials/services and customers, and will seldom be part of just one supply chain. In this regard, some integration activities can undermine suppliers’ flexibility to align and coordinate with other buyers (contractors), leading to conflict of interest in doing business with a wider buyer/customer base.