Based on the respondents’ past experience as reported in Figure 4.1, the survey results reveal that the public organisations put more emphasis on quality problems (26%) than did the contractors and consultants (13%) in addressing the frequent disruptions they often face. Conversely, contractors and consultants were more concerned with the failure of their key supplier or customer (17%) and their financial situation (16%). No disruptions due to loss of critical services were reported by the public organisations, suggesting that these occur more frequently in the contractors’ and consultants’ operations. The contractors’ and consultants’ operations also faced more severe weather conditions (12%) and transportdisruption (7%) than the public organisations (7% and 3% respectively). On the other hand, the public organisations faced more disruptions due to regulatory issues (12%) compared to the private organisations (9%). Both the public and private organisations gave the same ratings of 8% for disruption due to technological change.
Figure 4.1: Frequent disruptive events experienced by respondents
The survey results show that a majority of the respondents from both the public and private organisations (56%) find that acute disruptions to project performance caused delay in delivering products or services to customers, as shown in Figure 4.2. However, there seems to be a gap in terms of the effect of disruptions on the quality of the public projects, with a higher rating (21%) given by the public organisations than that from the private organisations (7%). The public organisations (14%) were also more concerned about damage to their reputation
than the private organisations (7%). On the other hand, the private organisations faced higher repercussion from disruptions on their internal performance and profitability measures (i.e. higher cost of operation (18%), loss of productivity (16%), and decrease in profit (15%)) compared to the public organisations. Only 13% of the public organisations rated loss of productivity, with 4% given to decrease in profit and the lowest, 3%, to loss of skilled workers.
Figure 4.2: Critical effects of disruptive events
In terms of the level of frequency of disruptive events, a total of 65% of the private organisations (contractors and consultants) reported that they often or always face disruptions in dealing with public projects (see Figure 4.3). However, 33% of professionals from the public organisations claim that disruptions only occur sometimes in project delivery. The different perceptions of the frequency of disruptions suggest that the parties from the bottom tier of the supply chain (refer to Figure 2.4) face more frequent disruptions in project delivery than other parts of the chain. This is an important consideration as the disruptions might have a knock-on effect on the upper tier of the supply chain (i.e public organisations) if not managed properly.
Figure 4.3: Level of frequency of disruptions faced by respondents
Based on the results presented in Figure 4.4, a majority of respondents from both the public organisations (63%) and contractors and consultants (39%) dealt with disruptions as part of business-as-usual. On the other hand, a total of 40% of the contractors and consultants found that the disruptions challenged them and were moderately or very disruptive. However, only 26% of the public organisations answered in this way. This shows how the disruptions have different levels of impact on different parts of the supply chain. Both the public and private organisations, however, agreed that the disruptions did not shut down their operation permanently, based on the number of ratings given for this option in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4: Severity of disruptions experienced by respondents
Comparison of Level of Frequency and Impact of Disruptions Between Groups of Respondents
Further Kruskal-Wallis tests as discussed in Section 3.5.1.3 were conducted on the results from question 3 on the level of frequency of disruptions (see Figure 4.3) and question 4 on the severity of impact of disruptions (Figure 4.4). For the purpose of this test, the answers to question 3 were computed as 1-never, 2-rarely, 3-sometimes, 4-often, and 5-always, and the answers to question 4 as 1-we dealt with it as part of business-as-usual, 2-it challenged us but was not overly disruptive, 3-it definitely challenged us and was moderately disruptive, 4-it definitely challenged us and was very disruptive, and 5-it could have shut us down permanently.
The reults of the Kruskal-Wallis test (Table 4.5) revealed a statistically significant difference in disruption frequency levels across the three groups of respondents (Gp1, n = 54: public organisations, Gp2, n = 25: contractors, Gp3, n = 26: consultants), χ² (2, n = 105) = 11.21, р = .004. Pairwise comparisons with adjusted p-values showed no significant differences in the disruption frequency between the public organisations and consultants (p = 1.00, r = .00). However, significant differences in the frequency level of disruptions were identified between the contractors and consultants (p = .018, r = .38) and the public organisations (p = .005, r
between the contractors’ and the consultants’ and public organisations’ perceptions suggest that although all parties of the supply chain face disruptions in public projectsthose at the bottom tier of the supply chain, in this case the contractors, faced more frequent disruptions during public project delivery. This is an important consideration as the disruptions might have a knock-on effect on the upper tier of the supply chain if not managed properly.
Table 4.5: Level of Frequency and Impact of Disruptions in Public Projects Perceived Differently by Public Organisations, Consultants and Contractors using Kruskal-Wallis Test
Mean Rank Test Statistics
Organisations Public Consultants Contractors Square Chi- df value P- Frequency of
Disruptions 47.68 47.63 70.08 11.213 2 0.004
Severity of Impact of
Disruptions 47.22 47.77 70.92 13.419 2 0.001
In terms of the disruptions impacts, the Kruskal-Wallis test results in Table 4.5 revealed that there is a statistically significant difference in the impact of disruptions across the three groups, χ² (2, n = 105) = 13.42, р = .001. Pairwise comparisons with adjusted p-values showed that there was no significant difference in the impact between the public organisations and consultants (p = 1.00, r = .00). However, significant differences in the level of impact were identified between contractors and consultants (p = .010, r = .41) and the public organisations (p = .001, r = .39). The contractors overall recorded a significantly higher mean rank score (70.92) than the public organisations (mean rank = 47.22) and consultants (mean rank = 47.77), as per Table 4.5. This shows how the disruptions to public projects have different levels of impact on different parts of the supply chain, with greater disruption to the contractors’ operations than to the consultants and public organisations.
In managing disruptions, the highest proportion of respondents (42% from the public organisations and 25% of the private organisations) reported that risk management is adopted by the firm to manage disruptions in public sector projects (see Figure 4.5). Apart from the traditional risk management approach, 16% of the public organisations also have disaster management in place to deal with disruptive events. This differs considerably from the case of the private organisations: only a small percentage (6%) employ disaster management in their operations, preferring emergency management (21%) and crisis management (13%). The major concern in the result here, however, is the fact that many of the private organisations (28%) do
not employ any of these strategies in their operations, suggesting that they have no specific management plans in place to handle disruptions. In the public organisations, 15% of the respondents claimed to have no formal management system to reduce disruption.
Figure 4.5: Current management of disruptive events
of the largest percentage of respondents from the public organisations believe that the best way to manage disruptions is through planning (35%), followed by collaboration with supply chain members (26%) and staff involvement (24%). Similarly, most of the contractors and consultants (38%) find that good planning will help the supply chain to anticipate, respond to and recover from disruptions in public projects. However, it can be seen from Figure 4.6 that, compared to the public organisations (14%), having insurance is perceived to be more important to contractors and consultants (19%) to recover from disruptions.
Figure 4.6: Suggestions for managing disruptions
4.4 Supply Chain Vulnerability and Capability Assessment
Supply Chain Vulnerability Assessment
Public Organisations
The results of the public organisations’ vulnerability scores and rankings are presented in Table 4.6 (main factors) and Table 4.7 (sub-factors). As shown in Table 4.6, the top five critical vulnerability factors are political or legal pressures, management vulnerability, liquidity/credit vulnerability, strategic vulnerability and market pressures. The respondents from public organisations identified that they are widely exposed to political disruptions (3.76 average score) and are vulnerable to political or regulatory changes (3.56), as per Table 4.7. In terms of management vulnerability, the most significant sub-factors are the timing of business decisions (4.00), reliance upon information flow (3.74) and inadequate management oversight (3.41). Looking at the liquidity/credit vulnerability sub-factors, the public organisations are highly susceptible to financial policies and procedures (3.48) and the lack of financial resources (3.31). Finally, process vulnerability, environmental factors, supplier/customer disruptions and personnel vulnerability appear to be moderate vulnerabilities, and physical damage disruption is rated as a minor issue.