Core Elements Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review

Walter Puppo Studer; Luiz Carlos Brasil De Brito Mello

doi:10.3390/buildings11120569

Core Elements Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review

Studer, Walter Puppo;De Brito Mello, Luiz Carlos Brasil 2021-11-23 00:00:00 buildings Review Core Elements Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review Walter Puppo Studer * and Luiz Carlos Brasil De Brito Mello Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói 24210-240, Brazil; luiz_brasil@id.uff.br * Correspondence: wpuppo@id.uff.br Abstract: The relevance of supply chain management (SCM) is being increasingly recognized in the construction industry. However, its implementation has been limited and is still challenging for researchers and practitioners. An adequate and systematic understanding of context-speciﬁc core concepts and practices are considered fundamental to foster its implementation. This paper aims to provide a holistic look into the existing research on elements underlying SCM in the construction industry. It adopts a systematic literature review method to examine almost two decades of publica- tions and uses a comprehensive SCM framework to synthesize the ﬁndings. The results revealed a set of 19 core elements clustered in ﬁve subject areas (i.e., ‘strategic management’, ‘logistics’, ‘relation- ships’, ‘best practices’ and ‘organizational behavior ’) that have a prominent role in construction SCM. Every core element was analyzed in detail and the results were discussed in the context of other evidence. This study produced the ﬁrst comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge, providing relevant contributions to enhance the understanding and implementation of SCM within the construction industry. Citation: Studer, W.P.; De Brito Keywords: construction industry; SCM; strategic management; logistics; relationships; best practices; Mello, L.C.B. Core Elements organizational behavior Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Buildings 2021, 11, 569. 1. Introduction https://doi.org/10.3390/ Construction supply chains (CSCs) involve all construction processes, from the initial buildings11120569 demands, design and construction to maintenance, replacement and eventual demolition Academic Editor: Audrius Banaitis of buildings and other structures [1]. Every year, about USD 10 trillion are spent on construction-related goods and services, equivalent to 13% of the world’s GDP, employing Received: 19 October 2021 7% of the world’s working population. Thus, construction is one of the largest sectors of Accepted: 16 November 2021 the world economy [2]. In spite of being an important contributor to the global economy Published: 23 November 2021 and playing an important role in economic development, it is a complex sector, which is facing difﬁculties and challenges all over the world [3,4]. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral The construction industry has been widely criticized for a marked tendency to gener- with regard to jurisdictional claims in ate waste and for its inefﬁciency [5], low-proﬁt margin [3], low productivity [6,7], frequent published maps and institutional afﬁl- schedule delays, cost overruns and quality defects [8–10]. According to Behera et al. [9], iations. a major part of these problems can be traced to the interfaces of different parties in- volved in construction supply chains. A myopic and independent control of construction supply chains [1], exacerbated by characteristics such as fragmentation [11,12], lack of coordination and communication between participants [13], adversarial short-term re- Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. lationships [14], separation of design and construction [1] and mistrust [6] is causing Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. performance-related problems. This article is an open access article Since the 1990s and in response to perceived recurrent problems, there has been a distributed under the terms and growing interest in supply chain management (SCM) practices to improve the construction conditions of the Creative Commons industry performance [15,16]. The recognition of the fact that the competitiveness of an Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// isolated organization critically depends on the supply chain (SC) dynamics in which it creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ participates led to re-examine relationships and interdependencies among supply chain 4.0/). Buildings 2021, 11, 569. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120569 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings Buildings 2021, 11, 569 2 of 20 partners [8], and various government reports and initiatives concurrently suggested that the construction industry would beneﬁt from adopting more collaborative forms of work- ing [17]. Incorporating some of the lessons learnt from other sectors, SCM was considered for adoption in the construction industry. The improvements that can be obtained with Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21 such an approach are increasingly being recognized throughout the industry commu- nity [15,18,19]. Notwithstanding, while other industries such as manufacturing and retailing have made signiﬁcant performance improvement by adopting supply chain management [18], achieving more closely integrated and efficient supply chains [14], the construction indus- achieving more closely integrated and efﬁcient supply chains [14], the construction in- try seems to be facing difficulties in implementing SCM [7,14,20]. Several studies indicate dustry seems to be facing difﬁculties in implementing SCM [7,14,20]. Several studies that challenges mostly originate from the fundamental differences between these indus- indicate that challenges mostly originate from the fundamental differences between these tries [21]. While manufacturing supply chains are based on continuous processes and re- industries [21]. While manufacturing supply chains are based on continuous processes lationships [15], construction supply chains involve a multitude of stakeholders [22] in and relationships [15], construction supply chains involve a multitude of stakeholders [22] temporary sites and temporary organizational configurations [23]. A typical CSC is a long in temporary sites and temporary organizational conﬁgurations [23]. A typical CSC is a [8] and complex [18] network of numerous organizations (i.e., clients/owners, designers, long [8] and complex [18] network of numerous organizations (i.e., clients/owners, design- general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers) and relationships [22], connected ers, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers) and relationships [22], connected through the flows of information, the flows of materials, services and products and the through the ﬂows of information, the ﬂows of materials, services and products and the flows of funds [6] (see Figure 1). Almost every CSC is unique, non-repeatable and estab- ﬂows of funds [6] (see Figure 1). Almost every CSC is unique, non-repeatable and estab- lished just for fulfilling the requirements of a single project [24]. Furthermore, production lished just for fulﬁlling the requirements of a single project [24]. Furthermore, production sites are not controlled environments, being prone to high variability and unpredictability sites are not controlled environments, being prone to high variability and unpredictability (e.g., changing weather conditions) [25]. All these factors contribute to unique levels of (e.g., changing weather conditions) [25]. All these factors contribute to unique levels of uncertainty and instability that jeopardize a direct transfer and application of SCM models uncertainty and instability that jeopardize a direct transfer and application of SCM models developed for other contexts to the construction industry [10,13,15]. At the same time, developed for other contexts to the construction industry [10,13,15]. At the same time, while SCM concepts have been extensively researched in other industries [10], knowledge while SCM concepts have been extensively researched in other industries [10], knowledge about SCM in the construction industry is still embryonic and research in this topic is about SCM in the construction industry is still embryonic and research in this topic is rela- relatively limited [9,18,26]. To introduce SCM successfully without being “lost in transla- tively limited [9,18,26]. To introduce SCM successfully without being “lost in translation”, tion”, numerous researchers advocate for further scrutiny and proper understanding of numerous researchers advocate for further scrutiny and proper understanding of core core concepts and practices underpinning SCM in the construction industry [9,13,20,23]. concepts and practices underpinning SCM in the construction industry [9,13,20,23]. Figure 1. A typical construction supply chain. Adapted from [22]. Figure 1. A typical construction supply chain. Adapted from [22]. Supply chain management is, indeed, an extremely complex and diverse discipline, as Supply chain management is, indeed, an extremely complex and diverse discipline, reﬂected in the broad range of diverse suggested deﬁnitions [16]. It is an evolving ﬁeld that as reflected in the broad range of diverse suggested definitions [16]. It is an evolving field encompasses different perspectives and contributions from distinct ﬁelds of research [27]. that encompasses different perspectives and contributions from distinct fields of research Its development was initially along the lines of logistics [27], but additional concepts and [27]. Its development was initially along the lines of logistics [27], but additional concepts practices from social and organizational sciences (e.g., collaboration between partners) and practices from social and organizational sciences (e.g., collaboration between part- have been gradually incorporated into the body of knowledge [28]. Tiwari et al. [26] ners) have been gradually incorporated into the body of knowledge [28]. Tiwari et al. [26] carried out a literature survey to analyze the existing state of research relating to SCM carried out a literature survey to analyze the existing state of research relating to SCM in in construction. They showed that researchers were keen on developing and pursuing construction. They showed that researchers were keen on developing and pursuing vari- various decision-making models and exploring areas such as supply chain integration and ous decision-making models and exploring areas such as supply chain integration and coordination. Other areas explored by scholars are the emphasis on material flows and information flows and the feasibility of SCM application in particular geographical re- gions such as Europe, Asia and Oceania. Despite these contributions, their study also re- vealed that most studies focus on understanding very specific areas and are short of of- fering a comprehensive solution. Consequently, there is a clear dearth of research, which takes a holistic approach to SCM in construction [17]. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 3 of 20 coordination. Other areas explored by scholars are the emphasis on material ﬂows and information ﬂows and the feasibility of SCM application in particular geographical regions such as Europe, Asia and Oceania. Despite these contributions, their study also revealed that most studies focus on understanding very speciﬁc areas and are short of offering a comprehensive solution. Consequently, there is a clear dearth of research, which takes a holistic approach to SCM in construction [17]. Based on this research gap, the present study reviews the documented evidence of SCM elements in the construction industry. We drew a comprehensive picture of current knowledge, capturing the full range of perspectives and contributions incorporated from distinct ﬁelds of research. The formal review question guiding this process was: ‘What are the documented core elements that support supply chain management in the construction industry?’ More speciﬁcally, the objectives of this study were: Extract from the existing research the documented core elements underpinning SCM in the construction industry; Provide a structured and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge of SCM in the construction industry; Analyze the extracted elements through the lens of a holistic SCM framework to gain an overview and proper understanding of construction SCM core concepts and practices. The remainder of this paper reflects these objectives and is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methodology employed for the systematic literature review. Section 3 presents a descriptive analysis of the selected articles and our ﬁndings, organized by the subject areas of the framework. Next, Section 4 provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. Finally, Section 5 offers the concluding remarks, including contributions, limitations of the study and opportunities for future research. 2. Materials and Methods The methodology employed in this study was a systematic literature review (SLR), which is a “speciﬁc methodology that locates existing studies, selects and evaluates contri- butions, analyses and synthesizes data, and reports the evidence in such a way that allows reasonably clear conclusions to be reached about what is and is not known” [29] (p. 671). Being ﬁrst introduced in the medical sciences research, the systematic approach plays a fundamental role for knowledge advancement in many ﬁelds and is spreading signiﬁcantly in the supply chain management domain [30]. Conducting an SLR requires following a sophisticated protocol to ensure a more comprehensive and unbiased search is performed, with transparent, reliable and reproducible ﬁndings [31,32]. The implementation of this protocol is summarized below. 2.1. Systematic Review Protocol ISI Web of Science (https://clarivate.com, accessed on 18 April 2020) was chosen as the database for the present literature search. It is a trustful database that contains the top journals in the general management and engineering ﬁelds, hence ensuring a broader diversiﬁcation of credible studies. To screen papers by content, different search queries were tested before deﬁning the ﬁnal parameters. First, brainstorming was used to select keywords related to concepts and practices. Then, by applying the snowballing technique to a preliminary screening of records, new keywords were added. Finally, the selected keywords were combined with the terms ‘supply chain management’ and ‘construction’ to build the following search string: ((“supply chain management”) AND construction AND (action OR activity OR antecedent OR approach OR aspect OR concept OR discipline OR element OR factor OR feature OR practice OR pre-condition OR prerequisite OR principle OR procedure OR tactic OR technique OR tool)). This search string was entered into the topic ﬁeld, which performed the search in the title, abstract and keywords of the source, yielding 554 results. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 4 of 20 The results were then evaluated following a set of classiﬁcation criteria, as summarized in the PRISMA ﬂow diagram [33] presented in Figure 2. The ﬁrst classiﬁcation criteria limited the search to peer-reviewed journal papers written in English and published until December 2019. Therefore, proceedings papers, reviews and editorial material were Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21 excluded as well as papers written in German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish, leaving a sample with 321 articles. Figure 2. Study selection and evaluation. Based on the PRISMA ﬂow diagram, with permission of Figure 2. Study selection and evaluation. Based on the PRISMA flow diagram, with permission of Moher et al. [3 Moher et al. [ 3]; publishe 33]; published d by by PLOS Medicine, 2009. PLOS Medicine, 2009. The following classiﬁcation criteria was a quality assessment, where only the papers The following classification criteria was a quality assessment, where only the papers of journals with impact factor, based on the Thomson Reuters listing, were included. This of journals with impact factor, based on the Thomson Reuters listing, were included. This reduced the sample to 240 articles. Following this, the abstracts of papers that passed reduced the sample to 240 articles. Following this, the abstracts of papers that passed this this stage were read and, in order to avoid researcher bias [31], subjected to a two-part stage were read and, in order to avoid researcher bias [31], subjected to a two-part selec- selection ﬁlter, downsizing the sample to 130 articles. First, the main author conducted tion filter, downsizing the sample to 130 articles. First, the main author conducted an ex- an examination of the abstracts, excluding some reports, and then the second author amination of the abstracts, excluding some reports, and then the second author confirmed conﬁrmed the selection and double-checked the borderline cases. The excluded papers were the selection and double-checked the borderline cases. The excluded papers were not spe- not speciﬁc for the construction industry, mentioned construction with another meaning cific for the construction industry, mentioned construction with another meaning (e.g., (e.g., ‘sample construction’ and ‘construction of pairwise comparison’) or were perceived ‘sample construction’ and ‘construction of pairwise comparison’) or were perceived as not as not relevant to the research question (i.e., not discussing CSCM-underlying elements). relevant to the research question (i.e., not discussing CSCM-underlying elements). The ﬁnal classiﬁcation criterion was an in-depth full-text review, which led to the The final classification criterion was an in-depth full-text review, which led to the exclusion of 22 papers. The exclusion criteria consisted of articles mentioning CSCM exclusion of 22 papers. The exclusion criteria consisted of articles mentioning CSCM un- underlying elements as a background for discussing other main issues or articles only derlying elements as a background for discussing other main issues or articles only fo- focused on employing or developing mathematical methods, engineering modeling or cused on employing or developing mathematical methods, engineering modeling or sim- simulations. Overall, 108 articles passed all stages of the protocol and formed the ﬁnal ulations. Overall, 108 articles passed all stages of the protocol and formed the final sample sample to be further analyzed. Through a structured procedure, all 108 articles were to be further analyzed. Through a structured procedure, all 108 articles were classified in classiﬁed in terms of authors, titles, years of publication, journals, countries of origin and terms of authors, titles, years of publication, journals, countries of origin and major con- major contributions. tributions. 2.2. The Analytical Framework Used to Synthesise and Interpret the Findings Qualitative approaches to synthesize the evidence extracted through systematic re- views tend to be particularly relevant for management sciences, principally due to the diver- gent nature of the discipline [32]. This approach enables the identiﬁcation of themes among different studies to attain a greater level of conceptual or theoretical development [31]. In Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21 2.2. The Analytical Framework Used to Synthesise and Interpret the Findings Qualitative approaches to synthesize the evidence extracted through systematic re- views tend to be particularly relevant for management sciences, principally due to the Buildings 2021, 11, 569 5 of 20 divergent nature of the discipline [32]. This approach enables the identification of themes among different studies to attain a greater level of conceptual or theoretical development [31]. In the present review, we have chosen Croom et al.’s [27] supply chain management ana the lpr ytesent ical frr aeview mework , weas t hav he e concep chosen Cr tua oom l tool et fo al.’s r codin [27] supply g and synthesizing the chain management findings. analytical framework After conducti as the conceptual ng a critica tool l litera forture review coding and based on synthesizing the analysis o the ﬁndings. f a large number After conducting a critical literature review based on the analysis of a large number of publications on supply chain management (i.e., books, journal articles and conference of publications on supply chain management (i.e., books, journal articles and conference papers), Croom et al. [27] presented a framework for categorizing the SCM linked litera- papers), Croom et al. [27] presented a framework for categorizing the SCM linked literature. ture. According to the authors, it provides a taxonomy with which to map and evaluate According to the authors, it provides a taxonomy with which to map and evaluate research, research, allowing its classification in the field as well as enabling the identification of key allowing its classiﬁcation in the ﬁeld as well as enabling the identiﬁcation of key content of content of the subject. Therefore, Croom et al.’s [27] framework was considered appropri- the subject. Therefore, Croom et al.’s [27] framework was considered appropriate as an a ate as an a priori-defined coding structure for our analysis. priori-deﬁned coding structure for our analysis. The following procedure was implemented. The first author manually coded the ex- The following procedure was implemented. The ﬁrst author manually coded the tracted elements into the subject areas defined in Croom et al.’s [27] framework. Decisions extracted elements into the subject areas deﬁned in Croom et al.’s [27] framework. Decisions were iteratively checked, ensuring coding reliability. Then, the second author double- were iteratively checked, ensuring coding reliability. Then, the second author double- checked the codes against both the original data and the framework subjects. Eventual checked the codes against both the original data and the framework subjects. Eventual disagreements were debated until resolved, thus minimizing errors, and producing a disagreements were debated until resolved, thus minimizing errors, and producing a more more robust structure of findings. robust structure of ﬁndings. 3. Findings 3. Findings 3.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Sample 3.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Sample The descriptive analysis of the 108 sources presented in Figure 3 shows the rising rate The descriptive analysis of the 108 sources presented in Figure 3 shows the rising in the number of articles published per year and, more specifically, the pronounced in- rate in the number of articles published per year and, more speciﬁcally, the pronounced crease of publications over the last few years. Among all the selected papers, 81% of them increase of publications over the last few years. Among all the selected papers, 81% of them were published since 2010, and 56% of them were published in the last 4 years, indicating were published since 2010, and 56% of them were published in the last 4 years, indicating the growing attention that the review subject has received from researchers. the growing attention that the review subject has received from researchers. Figure 3. Distribution of selected articles by publication year. Figure 3. Distribution of selected articles by publication year. This review conﬁrmed how construction SCM literature is scattered across different This review confirmed how construction SCM literature is scattered across different journals and research areas. The selected papers were published in 42 different journals that journals and research areas. The selected papers were published in 42 different journals cover 10 research areas. Even though ﬁve journals included 45% of the papers, almost 80% that cover 10 research areas. Even though five journals included 45% of the papers, almost of the journals were only being represented by a maximum of two papers. The three most 80% of the journals were only being represented by a maximum of two papers. The three representative subject areas are engineering, business and economics and construction and most representative subject areas are engineering, business and economics and construc- building technology, accounting for almost 70% of the sample (see Figure 4). tion and building technology, accounting for almost 70% of the sample (see Figure 4). Moreover, the distribution analysis of the selected papers according to the geographi- cal location of the ﬁrst author ’s research institution highlights the spread of papers across various locations. Thirty countries from six different continents contributed to this review. Figure 5 shows that Europe, Asia and Oceania, which altogether accounted for almost 88% of the total number of collected papers, were the major sources of information on the subject, conﬁrming the regional differences in research appointed by Tiwari et al. [26]. When analyzed by country, the top three contributors were China, England and Australia, with 18%, 12% and 11% of the papers published, respectively. Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21 Buildings 2021, 11, 569 6 of 20 Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21 Figure 4. Research areas of journals. Note: Some journals cover more than one research area. Moreover, the distribution analysis of the selected papers according to the geograph- ical location of the first author’s research institution highlights the spread of papers across various locations. Thirty countries from six different continents contributed to this review. Figure 5 shows that Europe, Asia and Oceania, which altogether accounted for almost 88% of the total number of collected papers, were the major sources of information on the sub- ject, confirming the regional differences in research appointed by Tiwari et al. [26]. When analyzed by country, the top three contributors were China, England and Australia, with 18%, 12% and 11% of the papers published, respectively. Figure 4. Research areas of journals. Note: Some journals cover more than one research area. Figure 4. Research areas of journals. Note: Some journals cover more than one research area. Moreover, the distribution analysis of the selected papers according to the geograph- ical location of the first author’s research institution highlights the spread of papers across various locations. Thirty countries from six different continents contributed to this review. Figure 5 shows that Europe, Asia and Oceania, which altogether accounted for almost 88% of the total number of collected papers, were the major sources of information on the sub- ject, confirming the regional differences in research appointed by Tiwari et al. [26]. When analyzed by country, the top three contributors were China, England and Australia, with 18%, 12% and 11% of the papers published, respectively. Figure 5. Figure 5. Distri Distribution bution of the of the se selected lected arti articles cles by by the co the continent ntinent of the f of the ﬁrst irst a author uthor’s research institu- ’s research institution. tion. The descriptive analysis of this work also performed a comprehensive keywords co-occurrence network using the VOSviewer tool. According to [34], keywords are a clear The descriptive analysis of this work also performed a comprehensive keywords co- and concise way to describe research contents. A network map of keywords facilitates the occurrence network using the VOSviewer tool. According to [34], keywords are a clear visualization of the knowledge structure of a particular ﬁeld of research, unveils emerging and concise way to describe research contents. A network map of keywords facilitates the elements and depicts the dynamics of the knowledge structure. Therefore, a keywords visualization of the knowledge structure of a particular field of research, unveils emerging co-occurrence network was generated setting the minimum number of occurrences to ﬁve, elements and depicts the dynamics of the knowledge structure. Therefore, a keywords co- as shown in Figure 6. occurrence network was generated setting the minimum number of occurrences to five, The frequency of occurrence of the keywords and their interconnections can be de- as shown in Figure 6. noted according to node sizes, the distance among nodes and connection lines among Figure 5. Distribution of the selected articles by the continent of the first author’s research institu- keywords [35]. The size of a node is a depiction of its weight in the network, while the tion. distance among nodes represents their relatedness. The closer the nodes are, the stronger the connection between them. Items with the same color represent an identical cluster, The descriptive analysis of this work also performed a comprehensive keywords co- meaning that keywords within the same cluster are more closely linked to each other [35]. occurrence Accordingly n ,eas twork usin can be seen g the in VOSvie Figure 6 wer tool. Acc , four different ording clusters to [34], werekeywor generated. ds are W a cle ith ar ten keywords each, the most important clusters were the red and the green ones, which and concise way to describe research contents. A network map of keywords facilitates the focused on the logistics and the relationships component bodies, respectively. The blue visualization of the knowledge structure of a particular field of research, unveils emerging cluster represented the strategic management component, containing keywords such as elements and depicts the dynamics of the knowledge structure. Therefore, a keywords co- ‘management’, ‘framework’ and ‘system’. Lastly, the yellow cluster reminded us of the occurrence network was generated setting the minimum number of occurrences to five, importance of sustainability to the construction supply chain. The keywords co-occurrence as shown in Figure 6. network showed that these are the principal component bodies of SCM literature in the construction industry. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 7 of 20 Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21 Figure 6. Figure 6. Netw Network ork of co-o of co-occurr ccurrence of k ence of keywor eywords from ds from the these selected lected papers papers. . 3.2. Core Elements Underpinning SCM in the Construction Industry The frequency of occurrence of the keywords and their interconnections can be de- The presentation of thematic ﬁndings is based on Croom et al.’s [27] framework, that noted according to node sizes, the distance among nodes and connection lines among distinguish six subject areas related to the ﬁeld of supply chain management: ‘strategic keywords [35]. The size of a node is a depiction of its weight in the network, while the management’, ‘logistics’, ‘marketing’, ‘relationships’, ‘best practices’ and ‘organizational be- distance among nodes represents their relatedness. The closer the nodes are, the stronger havior ’. The framework also identiﬁes and classiﬁes the concerns within each subject area, the connection between them. Items with the same color represent an identical cluster, thus providing speciﬁc guidance for categorizing core elements. The review of ﬁndings meaning that keywords within the same cluster are more closely linked to each other [35]. in this section follows this structure. A set of 19 core elements, identiﬁed in at least three Accordingly, as can be seen in Figure 6, four different clusters were generated. With ten papers, were extracted from the reviewed literature and classiﬁed into ﬁve SCM subject keywords each, the most important clusters were the red and the green ones, which fo- areas. The next sections provide a description of each topic, organized by the subject areas cused on the logistics and the relationships component bodies, respectively. The blue clus- of Croom et al.’s [27] framework, and the full list of results can be found in Table 1. Four of ter represented the strategic management component, containing keywords such as ‘man- the ﬁve subject areas identiﬁed (i.e., ‘strategic management’, ‘logistics’, ‘relationships’ and agement’, ‘framework’ and ‘system’. Lastly, the yellow cluster reminded us of the im- ‘best practices’) are strongly correlated with the four principal component bodies unveiled portance of sustainability to the construction supply chain. The keywords co-occurrence by the keywords co-occurrence network (see Figure 6), validating the suitability of the network showed that these are the principal component bodies of SCM literature in the selected framework to synthesize the ﬁndings. The remaining subject area, ‘organizational construction industry. behavior ’, is also included in the keywords co-occurrence network, but appears integrated into the ‘logistics’ component body. 3.2. Core Elements Underpinning SCM in the Construction Industry The presentation of thematic findings is based on Croom et al.’s [27] framework, that Table 1. Core elements underlying construction supply chain management. distinguish six subject areas related to the field of supply chain management: ‘strategic Subject Area Element References management’, ‘logistics’, ‘marketing’, ‘relationships’, ‘best practices’ and ‘organizational behavior’. The fr Global strategy amework also identifies and classifies the conce [8,20,23,r 36 ns within –41] each subject Strategic Management Change management [38,40–44] area, thus providing specific guidance for categorizing core elements. The review of find- Capacity development [11,20,23,40,42,45,46] ings in this section follows this structure. A set of 19 core elements, identified in at least Planning and control of material ﬂows [3,21,25,47–56] Logistics three papers, were extracted from the reviewed literature and classified into five SCM Integration of materials and information ﬂows [19,21,57–61] subject areas. The next sections provide a description of each topic, organized by the sub- Procurement [3,6,7,17,18,20,24,36,39,50,62–70] ject areaObjectives s of Croom alignment et al.’s [27] framework, and the full list o [10 f re ,16 su –18 lts ,20 can be fo ,38] und in Table Top management support and long-term 1. Four of the five subject areas identified (i.e., ‘strategic management’, ‘logistics’, ‘rela- [10,11,18,20] commitment Relationships tionships’ and ‘best practices’) are strongly correlated with the four principal component Trust [5,7,10,18,20,23,71–73] Collaboration [1,5–7,9–11,13,14,16–18,20,23,28,38,39,41,74–79] bodies unveiled by the keywords co-occurrence network (see Figure 6), validating the Communication [10,11,14,16–18,20,21,23,28,74,80–82] suitability of the selected framework to synthesize the findings. The remaining subject Problem solving [10,14,18] area, ‘organi Risk zationa sharing l behavior’, is also included in the ke [10 ywords ,18,20,24 co ,44-occurr ,83–86] ence network, but appears integrated into the ‘logistics’ component body. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 8 of 20 Table 1. Cont. Subject Area Element References Continuous improvement [9–11,14,16–18,20,23,37,38,62,87–89] Lean thinking [15,66,75,90,91] Just-in-time [15,41,92,93] Best Practices Offsite manufacturing [4,15,51,54,57,66,89,93,94] Sustainability [16,40,43,45,46,49,64,70,81,95–114] Organizational Information and Communication Technology [5,12,14,17,19,20,38,39,42,49,50,57,59,61,66,67,72,103, 105,115–117] Behavior (ICT) Integration It should be noted that although a certain level of overlapping may exist among the elements, this is a common feature in the SCM literature, where plenty of overlapping terminology and meanings exist [27]. Moreover, the holistic view of Croom et al.’s [27] framework makes core elements deﬁnition less speciﬁc, and each core element may include several related aspects. For example, the core element ‘planning and control of material ﬂows’ include aspects such as supply network design, materials buffers deﬁnition and project scheduling, among others. Two additional matters regarding elements classiﬁcation are worth mentioning. First, as certain topics can be approached from multiple perspectives, they could be classiﬁed in more than one subject area. This was the case of ‘just-in-time’, which was classiﬁed in favor of ‘best practices’ rather than ‘logistics’, and ‘communication’, classiﬁed in ‘relationships’ rather than ‘organizational behavior ’. Both choices were based on the analyzed literature prevalent criteria. Additionally, ‘sustainability’ and ‘off site manufacturing’, not included as concerns in Croom et al.’s [27] framework, were classiﬁed in the ‘best practices’ ﬁeld. 3.2.1. Strategic Management This subject area comprises three elements, namely, ‘global strategy’, ‘change man- agement’ and ‘capability development’. Supply chains are networks of independent but collaborating entities, where the performance of each of them depends on the performance of their partners [36]. Therefore, a global strategy pointing towards an emphasis on holistic systems is required to pursue competitive advantage. It should properly specify the partic- ipating entities and the relationships among them to achieve high value generation [37,38], extending its scope to reach participants many layers up and down in the SC tiers [39]. This is not an easy task, especially considering the large number of participants working together in a project-based temporary manner [37]. However, as supply chains are becom- ing increasingly dependent on small- and medium-sized enterprises, which perform most project activities [20,39], a global strategy is essential to create the conditions and enhance the possibilities of successful SCM implementation [23]. A strategic change management approach is recommended to face the conservative nature of the industry. Organizations ought to show a willingness to change their culture, structure and processes [42]. To this end, strategies should focus on the dissatisfaction with the status quo, highlighting the need for transformational change and sensitizing organizations to the beneﬁts that SCM offer both to themselves and their SC [40]. Commu- nicating and convincing staff about what the change is and why it is happening, coupled with top management support [43] and the ﬁgure of a change champion [42], are essential tools to overcome resistance. In addition to the motivation, there is a need to promote a proper understanding of the concepts underlying SCM [23] and develop the competencies required to work with them [42]. This entails mobilizing and educate key SC stakeholders, providing training programs to employees at all organizational levels [40,45] and active guidance in the practical context [42]. Such approaches, aimed at the development of knowledge, competencies and experience, are critical to achieve goals and contribute to both short-term and long-term success [20]. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 9 of 20 3.2.2. Logistics The two elements included in this subject area are ‘planning and control of material ﬂows’ and ‘integration of materials and information ﬂows’. Transport and logistics of construction materials represent an important share of total costs [118]. Inefﬁciencies in the planning and control of material ﬂows, such as late deliveries, incomplete orders and quality deﬁciencies, result in the disruption of construction processes, causing delays and increased costs [47]. Even thoguh time and material buffers are commonly used to mitigate these risks, they may contribute to signiﬁcant time waste and enormous ad- ditional costs [3,21]. Therefore, planning and control of material ﬂows, involving the mechanisms to ensure the availability of materials at the right time, with the required quantity and minimum cost [48], are critical to the success of a project. Accordingly, many models to support decision making for tasks, such as selection of material sources, de- termination of the number of deliveries and project scheduling, have been proposed by researchers [49–54]. Moreover, studies indicate efﬁciency potentials in applying collabo- rative supply networks [47,55]. In the traditional practice, each actor coordinates its own materials supply (i.e., storage, packaging and transport) and onsite logistics activities (i.e., material handling activities). An extended scope of coordination, considering joint coordination of materials supply and onsite logistics activities, or even coordination of activities beyond individual sites, including all supply chains directed to them, entails opportunities for improving performance [55]. The second element, integration of materials and information ﬂows, is crucial for improving the visibility and traceability of materials throughout the construction supply chain. This is not only a way of reducing the uncertainties that affect the above-mentioned planning practices, but also supports progress monitoring and materials management processes as a whole [21,57]. Different technologies, such as radio frequency identiﬁcation (RFID) [58,59], machine learning [60] and smart construction objects (i.e., construction resources augmented with sensing, processing and communication abilities) [61], have been proposed to improve the transparency of information. The central tenet underpinning these technologies is to increase the quantity, rate and quality of information. With accurate information available at the right time and in the right format, project managers can make prompt and informed decisions [59]. 3.2.3. Relationships Almost 43% of the elements belong to this subject area, which includes ‘procurement’, ‘objectives alignment’, ‘top management support and long-term commitment’, ‘trust’, ‘col- laboration’, ‘communication’, ‘problem solving’ and ‘risk sharing’. The strong competitive environment puts pressure on construction companies to concentrate on core competencies and provide their requirements by outsourcing [62]. Companies are becoming increasingly dependent on suppliers (i.e., material and equipment suppliers and service suppliers) [24], which have a lasting effect on the success of a project [63]. Hence, the evaluation and selec- tion of the best-ﬁt suppliers are of vital importance [62]. Traditional procurement, based on the lowest tendered price, does not necessarily result in a low actual cost nor a good project delivery [18], and limits the ﬂexibility of suppliers to explore innovative solutions that could enhance performance [17]. A multi-criteria decision-making procurement approach is frequently applied to achieve the best value for a project [18,64]. It uses a set of weighted pre-qualiﬁcation criteria to assess the resources and capabilities of suppliers [20], and those with the highest aggregate weighting are selected for further direct negotiation [17,18]. Pre-qualiﬁcation criteria are a way to check the compatibility between the ﬁrms, and thus, it should be designed to reﬂect the unique entities of the relationship [39]. In addition to the evaluation and selection methodology, making early procurement decisions also has an important impact on project performance [65]. It not only allows suppliers to bring ideas to the design process and detect errors as early as possible, but also permits contractors to better plan construction processes [66]. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 10 of 20 Objectives alignment enable SC participants to work collectively in order to pursue common goals. Without objectives alignment, project actors’ efforts may clash with one another or may not be compatible with the holistic project goals [17]. Therefore, mutual objectives should be established by maximizing mutual interests [18], nurturing a win- win scenario that will beneﬁt everyone in the project [17]. Reaching a uniﬁed vision is a fundamental integrating mechanism that supports the creation of common a group identity and promotes active participation of partners [20], as all of them share responsibility for dealing with problems and maintaining relationships [10]. This full involvement of partners and the commitment to forming long-term relationships are essential ingredients for success [14]. Indeed, a long-term focus is fundamental to achieve the mutual beneﬁts in SCM (e.g., improved quality and ﬂexibility of operations), as it can provide higher value of cooperation and better exploration of knowledge [20]. As top managers are the ones who decide the business direction of an organization and the length of commitment to the supply chain, their support is of paramount importance for effective SC relationships [10]. Trust is an essential prerequisite to enable collaboration and co-prosperity between SC partners [7]. As deﬁned by Li et al. [71], trust is the ‘psychological expectation about the behavior of opponents or organizations’. In other words, it is about having the reliance and conﬁdence that the trustee will do what is expected, with the expected standard, without intentionally harming the trustor [72]. Among the many factors that inﬂuence trust, Khalfan et al. [73] highlighted honest communication, reliance and delivery of outcomes. According to the authors, SC participants have to be open to share important information in an honest way and rely on each other compromises. Those who are more competent to deliver successfully the outcome of a project are more likely to be trusted. Building up mutual trust is necessary to modernize complex and highly fragmented CSCs [20]. Moreover, high levels of trust among SC participants allows decisive and ﬂexible action in critical situations [5]. In an industry increasingly exposed to uncertainty, where unexpected problems are almost inevitable, trust liberates participants to pursue courses of action with conﬁdence in each other ’s, enhancing greater agility, informality and morale in relationships [72]. Collaboration is the basis for good working relationships among participants and en- sures supply chain efﬁciency and responsiveness [10]. It implies leaving behind adversarial relationships to embrace an integrated team culture [18], in which an emphasis on group effort prevails over individual efforts and rewards [6]. If things go wrong, energy is not wasted on looking for someone to blame. Instead, solutions are developed in a concurrent style [17]. In a collaborative supply chain, partners work together in an integrated and coordinated way in order to accomplish collective goals and to achieve mutual beneﬁts [1]. This does not mean that relationships with every partner have to be collaborative, but efforts should focus on developing stronger ties with the more strategic ones and managing weaker ties through standardized practices [6]. The development of a more collaborative culture strongly depends on effective communication among SC partners, ensuring good and reliable ﬂows of information [14]. However, under traditional contracts, there is often an unwillingness among SC participants to share information [21], affecting the formation of long-term relationships [10]. Information sharing reduces supply chain uncertainty and provides the possibility to anticipate situations [28], driving all the project phases and enabling correct and in time decision making [20]. An open and effective communication is crucial to obtain competitive advantages. It minimizes errors, reworks and schedule delays [10]. Additionally, it facilitates eliminating learning barriers, allowing participants to acquire knowledge, to innovate and to learn from the best business practices [74,80]. Conﬂicts among supply chain partners, which generally bring tension and lead to bad relationships, are hardly avoidable in the construction industry [10]. Therefore, early warning mechanisms should be established in order to anticipate potential problems. Furthermore, developing protocols for effective joint problem solving, continuous im- provement and sharing learning mechanisms are essential not only to solve problems as early as possible but also to avoid the same problems to come again [14,18]. Unclear risk Buildings 2021, 11, 569 11 of 20 allocation is one of the roots problems of much litigation. Sharing risk and beneﬁts is an SC commitment to share either proﬁts or losses, being a motivation to achieve common goals [10]. A deep understanding of the key SC risks is pivotal to formulate more realistic plans and expectations. After estimating the impacts that they may cause on project ob- jectives, partners can better allocate the risks through the entire supply chain [44]. Risks should be allocated to the parties who can best manage it, offering appropriate rewards. That is, return should be always be balanced against the effort [18]. 3.2.4. Best Practices Five elements are included in this subject area, i.e., ‘continuous improvement’, ‘lean thinking’, ‘offsite manufacturing’, ‘just-in-time’ and ‘sustainability’. Continuous improve- ment refers to the continuous systematic planning and process development to achieve long-term performance improvement. It is not a one-off project initiative, and therefore, requires a joint effort of supply chain partners aiming to achieve the best value through long-term relationships [11]. Performance measurements are an important enabler of con- tinuous improvement, making it possible to set some clear targets [87]. By comparing their performance against predeﬁned goals, past performance or the ‘best practice’ performance, organizations can continuously learn and improve their processes [17], identifying the areas that need improvement and not adding value works that can be eliminated [10]. In this direction, lean thinking, a management approach inﬂuenced by the Toyota production system and widely recognized in many different industrial settings to improve supply chain performance, has been gradually adopted by the construction industry [15]. According to the Lean Enterprise Institute [119], its core objective is to maximize customer value while minimizing waste, considering waste as any effort that does not add value to the ﬁnal product from the customer ’s point of view [75]. This includes material-related waste, to which the word waste predominantly refers in construction, but also waste as- sociated with inputs such as workforce, time and equipment (e.g., activity start delays, rework, unused employee creativity, long approval process, etc.) [90]. The core principles of lean thinking within the construction industry include waste reduction, process focus in production planning and control, end customer focus, continuous improvements, co- operative relationships and systems perspective [15]. To implement them, the industry adopted lean tools and techniques from manufacturing, such as Value Stream Mapping and Six Sigma, but also developed speciﬁcally conceived methods, such as the Last Planner System [91]. Lean thinking proves to be important to improve project performance in terms of time, cost and quality. Moreover, when integrated with SCM, with supply chain partners collaborating with each other, the opportunities to minimize waste and maximize value are much greater [66]. Both offsite manufacturing and just-in-time are considered central practices for waste reduction in lean thinking [15]. Notwithstanding, these two practices have also attracted the attention of practitioners and researchers apart from the lean literature and are, therefore, discussed in detail. There are various terms associated with offsite manufacturing (OSM), such as prefabrication, preassembly and modularization [4]. In this paper, OMS refers to production systems in which standardized building components, elements or units are prefabricated in factory-based production environments before being shipped for subsequent onsite installation [51,66]. By moving traditionally onsite operations to areas under controlled conditions, OSM can lead to signiﬁcant beneﬁts such as construction time reduction, consistent quality, higher safety performance, improvements in constructability and a decrease in environmental impact [4]. However, shifting activities to remote locations also requires a higher level of integration among partners [57], such as manufacturing, transportation, inventory management and assembly sequences, which need to be carefully coordinated [51]. In this regard, just-in-time is a supply strategy that advocates smaller but more frequent deliveries to the construction site [15]. Its objective is to synchronize the delivery of materials with the assembly to minimize material buffers [41,92]. By doing this, just-in-time contributes to eliminating waste caused by overproduction, waiting time, Buildings 2021, 11, 569 12 of 20 transportation, stocks and second handling of materials, generating positive effects for both suppliers and contractors [93]. Sustainability, in its three-fold meaning (i.e., economic, environmental and social), is an increasingly important issue for the construction industry [43,95,96]. Environmental policies and customer concerns are stimulating the entire construction supply chain, a major contributor to environmental pollution, to adopt sustainability practices to minimize the negative consequences of project activities on environments while maximizing contribution to economics and society [97–100]. Sustainability practices can be distinguished between core and facilitating practices [45]. Core practices cover the major stages of the construction supply chain, including design, purchasing, transportation, construction and end-of-life management. These practices involve considerations such as the development of green building materials [101], prudent use of natural resources [16], the adoption of offsite- prefabrication [4], waste management planning [102,103] and reverse logistics [104,105], among many others. On the other hand, facilitating practices, which support core practices, consist of environmental management systems and certiﬁcations (e.g., policies, assess- ments, etc.), environmental training, environmental auditing and green related research and development. The literature indicates that sustainability is beneﬁcial for the environ- ment, generates cost savings and improves organizational performance, such as enhanced sales revenue and market share [100,106]. To that end, a strategic orientation towards sustainability from one company is not enough for that company to be fully sustainable, but an all-encompassing effort is needed. As highlighted by Pero et al. [95], sustainability is not a matter of a single company but a matter of the supply chain. Collaboration between supply chain partners and along the construction stages is necessary for achieving a fully sustainable behavior [81,99,107]. 3.2.5. Organizational Behavior This last subject area comprises just one practice, namely ‘information and communica- tion technology integration’. Information and communication technology (ICT) delivers an environment within which supply chain members have greater accessibility to one another and can conveniently retrieve or send information at any time and in any place [12,17]. Therefore, it plays a key role to ensure consistent and efﬁcient information management [5] and to enhance communication and coordination within the supply chain [6], [115]. ICT impacts both on technical and managerial sides boosting the effectiveness and efﬁciency of designing and managing projects [20]. Building information modeling (BIM), an “object- based and multidisciplinary approach aimed at facilitating collaboration between parties and the integration of object-related information over the entire life cycle of an asset” [42], is one of the most popular and increasingly important technologies [39]. BIM adoption has become a paradigm shift in the construction industry, increasing productivity, reducing failure costs and fostering new ways of collaboration [42,57,59,66,103]. BIM related appli- cations were identiﬁed in almost all the previously discussed elements, corroborating the idea that this technology is rapidly transforming the construction industry [49]. Recent trends have been directed towards exploring new ways of capturing and synchronizing real-time information with BIM. This entails integrating BIM with other technologies, such as RFID [59], geographic information systems [19,50,67], web map service [49] and internet of things [61], to improve supply chain transparency, visibility and traceability, thus making supply chains more agile, ﬂexible and resilient. Yet, to take advantage of ICT, consistent adoption of these technologies along the supply chain is required [39]. Considering that the construction supply chain is formed by many small- and medium-sized enterprises, facing the challenge of diffusing these new technologies should be a priority [20,39,72]. In particular, issues with costs, compatibility and interoperability, lack of awareness and suppliers’ reluctance to adopt needs to be managed [39]. Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21 an “object-based and multidisciplinary approach aimed at facilitating collaboration be- tween parties and the integration of object-related information over the entire life cycle of an asset” [42], is one of the most popular and increasingly important technologies [39]. BIM adoption has become a paradigm shift in the construction industry, increasing productivity, reducing failure costs and fostering new ways of collaboration [42,57,59,66,103]. BIM related applications were identified in almost all the previously dis- cussed elements, corroborating the idea that this technology is rapidly transforming the construction industry [49]. Recent trends have been directed towards exploring new ways of capturing and synchronizing real-time information with BIM. This entails integrating BIM with other technologies, such as RFID [59], geographic information systems [19,50,67], web map service [49] and internet of things [61], to improve supply chain trans- parency, visibility and traceability, thus making supply chains more agile, flexible and resilient. Yet, to take advantage of ICT, consistent adoption of these technologies along the supply chain is required [39]. Considering that the construction supply chain is formed by many small- and medium-sized enterprises, facing the challenge of diffusing these new technologies should be a priority [20,39,72]. In particular, issues with costs, compatibility Buildings 2021, 11, 569 13 of 20 and interoperability, lack of awareness and suppliers’ reluctance to adopt needs to be managed [39]. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion A total of 108 articles formed the final sample of this review. The majority was fo- A total of 108 articles formed the ﬁnal sample of this review. The majority was focused cused on specific topics regarding just one subject area (i.e., 55% contributed to only one on speciﬁc topics regarding just one subject area (i.e., 55% contributed to only one core core element and 7% to more than one core element). Nearly 27% of the articles contrib- element and 7% to more than one core element). Nearly 27% of the articles contributed to uted to two subject areas and the last 11% contributed to more than two subject areas. two subject areas and the last 11% contributed to more than two subject areas. Neither of Neither of them concurrently discussed elements included in the five subject areas. This them concurrently discussed elements included in the ﬁve subject areas. This conﬁrms the confirms the point made by [26] that most studies focus on specific areas and reinforces point made by [26] that most studies focus on speciﬁc areas and reinforces the research gap: the research gap: there is a clear need to present a total solution for SCM in the construc- there is a clear need to present a total solution for SCM in the construction industry. The tion industry. The review of research into core concepts and practices underpinning SCM review of research into core concepts and practices underpinning SCM in the construction in the construction industry, as identified through the systematic review procedures, industry, as identiﬁed through the systematic review procedures, coded into elements coded into elements and classified into subject areas according to Croom et al.’s [27] and classiﬁed into subject areas according to Croom et al.’s [27] framework, produced framework, produced a comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge in this a comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge in this area (see Table 1). It area (see Table 1). It integrates different perspectives and contributions made by the extant integrates different perspectives and contributions made by the extant literature over the literature over the years to present a global perspective of SCM in the construction indus- years to present a global perspective of SCM in the construction industry. Figure 7 shows try. Figure 7 shows the number of articles that contributed to each subject area. the number of articles that contributed to each subject area. Figure 7.Figure Numb7. er of arti Number cles of th articles at contribu thatted contributed to each suto bjec each t area subject . Note: So area. me article Note: Some s cove articles r more than o cover mor ne subject area e . than one subject area. The first subject area, strategic management, brought together the elements that pro- The ﬁrst subject area, strategic management, brought together the elements that mote a strategic orientation toward SCM adoption. The results show that effective imple- promote a strategic orientation toward SCM adoption. The results show that effective im- mentation of SCM requires defining a strategy that takes a systems approach to view the plementation of SCM requires deﬁning a strategy that takes a systems approach to view the supply chain as a single entity. Intra-firm and inter-firm capabilities must be synchronized supply chain as a single entity. Intra-ﬁrm and inter-ﬁrm capabilities must be synchronized and converge into a unified force in pursuit of customer value [120]. Findings also suggest and converge into a uniﬁed force in pursuit of customer value [120]. Findings also suggest that this strategic perspective requires firms to have proper capabilities and motivation to that this strategic perspective requires ﬁrms to have proper capabilities and motivation to embrace change. These insights echo the previous work of Esper et al. [121], who discussed the concept of supply chain orientation as an antecedent to SCM. According to the authors, supply chain-oriented organizations place strategic emphasis on systemic, integrated SCM, and support this emphasis with an organizational structure (e.g., employees with key SCM skills, metrics to facilitate SC alignment and motivation, etc.) that capitalizes on this strategy. The following subject area, logistics, can be traced back into the origins of SCM and relates to the effective management of materials and information ﬂows [120,122]. The sig- niﬁcant representativeness of materials transportation in total costs has spurred scholarly research into this topic. As presented by [123], numerous models to facilitate decisions that play important roles in the planning and control of material ﬂows were identiﬁed in the literature. Moreover, ﬁndings suggest that the industry has started its own development and experimentation of new technologies intended to enhance real-time integration of material and information ﬂows. These applications, as highlighted by [124], could help to solve many of the shortcomings of traditional logistics and improve construction qual- ity. Coherently with the work of [125], the review also pointed to efﬁciency potentials in expanding the scope of logistics management beyond the individual construction site to in- clude coordination across supply chains and construction sites. Although such approaches present challenges in terms of more advanced coordination amongst the actors involved, the advancement of new technologies is argued to open up for new ways of organizing the work more efﬁciently [55]. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 14 of 20 Relationships, associated with the management of the interface relationships within and between various supply chain members, are another key aspect of SCM [122]. As deﬁned by [126], the focus of supply chain management is upon the management of relationships to deliver better customer value at less cost to the supply chain as a whole. This involves recognizing that through cooperation and proper relationship management, the ‘whole can be greater than the sum of its parts’ [126]. In this direction, the review reveals the grounding elements to change from the traditional adversarial to collaborative supply chain relationships. In other words, our ﬁndings suggest that procurement, objectives alignment, top management support and long-term commitment, trust, collaboration, communication, problem solving and risk sharing are the elements laying the foundation for good relationships among the SC members. They provide guidance as antecedents that need to be in place to obtain success in managing relationships. Notwithstanding, evidence suggests that there is no generic approach to pursue supply chain relationship management. This implication is consistent with previous studies of [127,128], who indicated that in order to fully exploit joint opportunities, each relationship has to be managed according to speciﬁc circumstances, such as the importance of the partner to the business. When it comes to best practices, there were ﬁve main points of convergence: contin- uous improvement, lean thinking, offsite manufacturing, just-in-time and sustainability. Notably, due to the increasing sustainability requirements of the industry [2], sustainability has become the most popular research theme. The Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals [129] contends that best practice refers to a process or group of processes recognized as the best method for conducting an action. Best practices are the cause of best performance and provide opportunities for gaining strategic, operational and ﬁnancial advantages. Accordingly, the identiﬁed practices have already attracted numerous research efforts as individual and disjointed supply chain tactics. However, ﬁndings also recognize the importance to integrate them with supply chain management. That is, compared to best practices in isolation, best practices are more successful when coordinated over the supply chain. For example, refs. [66,95] demonstrated, respectively, a step-wise improvement of the efﬁciency of lean practices and sustainability when integrated with supply chain management. Hence, the review not only identiﬁed the main best practices addressed by the construction supply chain literature for achieving performance improvement, but also indicates that combining them with supply chain collaboration is essential to foster results. Finally, information and communication technology integration was the only element identiﬁed in the organizational behavior subject area. Being a major driver to improve information sharing, communication and coordination across the multiple SC participants, ICT was deemed as a crucial enabler to supply chain management. A recent report by McKinsey Global Institute [2] urged the widespread adoption of ICT as a way to transform the effectiveness and efﬁciency of construction. In accordance with [130], the reviewed evidence revealed that the industry is increasingly embracing BIM as the dominant tech- nology, which is acting as a platform for construction innovation and digitization. In particular, [130] showed that BIM, internet of things (IoT) and big data (BD) are the main drivers of the fourth industrial revolution in construction and provide signiﬁcant beneﬁts, such as improved real-time monitoring, data exchange and construction planning, among others. However, in order to achieve the expected beneﬁts, the results highlighted that the ICT gap between supply chain parties stills needs to be minimized. Hence, this paper reinforces the recent work of [124] about the importance of diffusing ICT technologies, mostly developed by the larger organizations, also among the average construction ﬁrms, with low-proﬁt margins and spending power. 5. Conclusions A proper and holistic understanding of context-speciﬁc core concepts and practices underpinning SCM is recognized as essential in order to foster its implementation in the construction industry. However, studies continue to focus on very speciﬁc ﬁelds of research and fail to present a total solution. This paper responded to this research gap by Buildings 2021, 11, 569 15 of 20 conducting a systematic literature review. Following a sophisticated protocol, 108 relevant articles from ISI Web of Science were collected. These articles were analyzed statistically regarding the publication year, journal research area, geographical location and keywords co-occurrence. Going beyond the scope of existing studies, the full range of perspectives and contributions incorporated from distinct ﬁelds of research were analyzed to capture the documented core concepts and practices underlying SCM in the construction industry. As a result, a set of 19 core elements were revealed and classiﬁed into ﬁve different SCM subject areas, namely ‘strategic management’, ‘logistics’, ‘relationships’, ‘best practices’ and ‘organizational behavior ’. This study made signiﬁcant contributions. It delineated the SCM domain in the construction industry, providing a structured and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge. In addition, every revealed core element was discussed in detail, providing some valuable insights about its speciﬁc importance and how they are related to the broader SCM ﬁeld. The review also pointed that the trend goes towards more external collaboration, and highlighted the challenges that need to be addressed. Hence, this study serves as a frame of reference for practitioners and researchers in the ﬁeld. It has considerable potential to accelerate the understanding and implementation of SCM within the construction industry. In particular, this paper offers some sense of assistance to construction managers in highlighting the core CSCM elements that matter most. While not suggesting a prescriptive step-by-step approach, managers can use the results to identify and prioritize core elements that could be addressed and determine a strategy to enhance the possibilities of the successful implementation of SCM. Every study has limitations, and this review is certainly no exception. ISI Web of Science was chosen as the only database. Thus, the data coverage might not be all-inclusive, as the consideration of other research databases (e.g., Scopus) could have led to the inclusion of additional articles. Additionally, the research was restricted to peer reviewed articles published in English, leaving aside other sources (e.g., books, conference publications) that are also part of the SCM body of knowledge and documents published in other languages. Finally, the inclusion and exclusion criteria may have inadvertently excluded some important studies. These limitations could serve as fertile areas for further research. Replications of this research may test and validate with empirical data the proposed ﬁndings. Other research directions could include exploring cause–effect relationships between revealed core elements and developing tools to measure elements maturity level. These approaches will support organizations to analyze where improvement is needed and infer priorities to develop strategies to foster SCM implementation. Author Contributions: W.P.S. and L.C.B.D.B.M. have equally contributed to this study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Xue, X.; Li, X.; Shen, Q.; Wang, Y. An agent-based framework for supply chain coordination in construction. Autom. Constr. 2005, 14, 413–430. [CrossRef] 2. McKinsey Global Institute. Reinventing Construction: A Route to Higher Productivity; McKinsey & Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017. 3. Yeo, K.; Ning, J. Managing uncertainty in major equipment procurement in engineering projects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 171, 123–134. [CrossRef] 4. Durdyev, S.; Ismail, S. Offsite manufacturing in the construction industry for productivity improvement. Eng. Manag. J. 2019, 31, 35–46. [CrossRef] 5. Lönngren, H.; Rosenkranz, C.; Kolbe, H. Aggregated construction supply chains: Success factors in implementation of strategic partnerships. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 404–411. [CrossRef] Buildings 2021, 11, 569 16 of 20 6. Fulford, R.; Standing, C. Construction industry productivity and the potential for collaborative practice. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 315–326. [CrossRef] 7. Costa, F.; Granja, A.D.; Fregola, A.; Picchi, F.; Staudacher, A.P. Understanding relative importance of barriers to improving the customer-supplier relationship within construction supply chains using DEMATEL technique. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 04019002. [CrossRef] 8. Tah, J.H. Towards an agent-based construction supply network modelling and simulation platform. Autom. Constr. 2005, 14, 353–359. [CrossRef] 9. Behera, P.; Mohanty, R.; Prakash, A. Understanding construction supply chain management. Prod. Plan. Control. 2015, 26, 1332–1350. [CrossRef] 10. Kim, S.-Y.; Nguyen, V.T. A structural model for the impact of supply chain relationship traits on project performance in construction. Prod. Plan. Control. 2018, 29, 170–183. [CrossRef] 11. Broft, R.D.; Badi, S.M.; Pryke, S. Towards supply chain maturity in construction. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2016, 6, 187–204. [CrossRef] 12. Abedi, M.; Fathi, M.; Mirasa, A.; Rawai, N. Integrated collaborative tools for precast supply chain management. Sci. Iran. 2016, 23, 429–448. [CrossRef] 13. Bankvall, L.; Bygballe, L.E.; Dubois, A.; Jahre, M. Interdependence in supply chains and projects in construction. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 385–393. [CrossRef] 14. Briscoe, G.; Dainty, A. Construction supply chain integration: An elusive goal? Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2005, 10, 319–326. [CrossRef] 15. Eriksson, P.E. Improving construction supply chain collaboration and performance: A lean construction pilot project. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 394–403. [CrossRef] 16. Adetunji, I.; Price, A.D.F.; Fleming, P. Achieving sustainability in the construction supply chain. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2008, 161, 161–172. [CrossRef] 17. Love, P.E.D.; Irani, Z.; Edwards, D.J. A seamless supply chain management model for construction. Supply Chain Manag. 2004, 9, 43–56. [CrossRef] 18. Meng, X.; Sun, M.; Jones, M. Maturity model for supply chain relationships in construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 97–105. [CrossRef] 19. Irizarry, J.; Karan, E.P.; Jalaei, F. Integrating BIM and GIS to improve the visual monitoring of construction supply chain management. Autom. Constr. 2013, 31, 241–254. [CrossRef] 20. Aloini, D.; Dulmin, R.; Mininno, V.; Ponticelli, S. Key antecedents and practices for Supply Chain Management adoption in project contexts. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1301–1316. [CrossRef] 21. Young, D.A.; Haas, C.T.; Goodrum, P.; Caldas, C. Improving construction supply network visibility by using automated materials locating and tracking technology. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 976–984. [CrossRef] 22. Xue, X.; Wang, Y.; Shen, Q.; Yu, X. Coordination mechanisms for construction supply chain management in the Internet environment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 150–157. [CrossRef] 23. Arantes, A.; Ferreira, L.; Costa, A.A. Is the construction industry aware of supply chain management? The Portuguese contractors’ perspective. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2015, 20, 404–414. [CrossRef] 24. Shishodia, A.; Verma, P.; Dixit, V. Supplier evaluation for resilient project driven supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 129, 465–478. [CrossRef] 25. Dallasega, P.; Rojas, R.A.; Bruno, G.; Rauch, E. An agile scheduling and control approach in ETO construction supply chains. Comput. Ind. 2019, 112, 103122. [CrossRef] 26. Tiwari, R.; Shepherd, H.; Pandey, R.K. Supply chain management in construction: A literature survey. Int. J. Manag. Res. Bus. Strateg. 2014, 3, 7–28. 27. Croom, S.; Romano, P.; Giannakis, M. Supply chain management: An analytical framework for critical literature review. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2000, 6, 67–83. [CrossRef] 28. Isatto, E.L.; Azambuja, M.; Formoso, C.T. The role of commitments in the management of construction make-to-order supply chains. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014053. [CrossRef] 29. Terregino, C.; Toffan, A.; Cilloni, F.; Monne, I.; Bertoli, E.; Castellanos, L.; Amarin, N.; Mancin, M.; Capua, I. Evaluation of the protection induced by avian inﬂuenza vaccines containing a 1994 Mexican H5N2 LPAI seed strain against a 2008 Egyptian H5N1 HPAI virus belonging to clade 2.2.1 by means of serological and in vivo tests. Avian Pathol. 2010, 39, 215–222. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Durach, C.F.; Kembro, J.; Wieland, A. A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2017, 53, 67–85. [CrossRef] 31. Thomé, A.M.T.; Scavarda, L.F.; Scavarda, A.J. Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Prod. Plan. Control. 2016, 27, 408–420. [CrossRef] 32. Tranﬁeld, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [CrossRef] 33. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Buildings 2021, 11, 569 17 of 20 34. Su, H.-N.; Lee, P.-C. Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A ﬁrst look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics 2010, 85, 65–79. [CrossRef] 35. Jin, R.; Zou, Y.; Gidado, K.; Ashton, P.; Painting, N. Scientometric analysis of BIM-based research in construction engineering and management. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 1750–1776. [CrossRef] 36. Costantino, N.; Dotoli, M.; Falagario, M.; Fanti, M.P.; Iacobellis, G. A decision support system framework for purchasing management in supply chains. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2009, 24, 278–290. [CrossRef] 37. Cheng, J.C.; Law, K.H.; Bjornsson, H.; Jones, A.; Sriram, R.D. Modeling and monitoring of construction supply chains. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2010, 24, 435–455. [CrossRef] 38. Meng, X. Proactive management in the context of construction supply chains. Prod. Plan. Control. 2019, 31, 527–539. [CrossRef] 39. Pala, M.; Edum-Fotwe, F.; Ruikar, K.; Doughty, N.; Peters, C. Contractor practices for managing extended supply chain tiers. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2014, 19, 31–45. [CrossRef] 40. Chileshe, N.; Rameezdeen, R.; Hosseini, M.R.; Lehmann, S. Barriers to implementing reverse logistics in South Australian construction organisations. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2015, 20, 179–204. [CrossRef] 41. Childerhouse, P.; Lewis, J.; Naim, M.; Towill, D.R. Re-engineering a construction supply chain: A material ﬂow control approach. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2003, 8, 395–406. [CrossRef] 42. Siebelink, S.; Voordijk, J.T.; Adriaanse, A. Developing and testing a tool to evaluate BIM maturity: Sectoral analysis in the Dutch construction industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 05018007. [CrossRef] 43. Upstill-Goddard, J.; Glass, J.; Dainty, A.; Nicholson, I. Implementing sustainability in small and medium-sized construction ﬁrms. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2016, 23, 407–427. [CrossRef] 44. Rudolf, C.A.; Spinler, S. Key risks in the supply chain of large scale engineering and construction projects. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2018, 23, 336–350. [CrossRef] 45. Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V. Green supply chain management: An empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2017, 22, 58–81. [CrossRef] 46. Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V. Environmental supply chain management in the construction sector: Theoretical underpinnings. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2018, 21, 502–528. [CrossRef] 47. Vidalakis, C.; Tookey, E.J.; Sommerville, J. Demand uncertainty in construction supply chains: A discrete event simulation study. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2013, 64, 1194–1204. [CrossRef] 48. Meng, J.; Yan, J.; Xue, B.; Fu, J.; He, N. Reducing construction material cost by optimizing buy-in decision that accounts the ﬂexibility of non-critical activities. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2018, 25, 1092–1108. [CrossRef] 49. Chen, P.-H.; Nguyen, T.C. A BIM-WMS integrated decision support tool for supply chain management in construction. Autom. Constr. 2019, 98, 289–301. [CrossRef] 50. Deng, Y.; Gan, V.J.L.; Das, M.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Anumba, C. Integrating 4D BIM and GIS for construction supply chain management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019016. [CrossRef] 51. Hsu, P.-Y.; Aurisicchio, M.; Angeloudis, P. Risk-averse supply chain for modular construction projects. Autom. Constr. 2019, 106, 102898. [CrossRef] 52. Ahmadian, F.F.A.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Rashidi, T.H.; Waller, S.T. Accounting for transport times in planning off-site shipment of construction materials. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04015050. [CrossRef] 53. Jaskowski, ´ P.; Sobotka, A.; Czarnigowska, A. Decision model for selecting supply sources of road construction aggregates. Eng. Econ. 2014, 25, 13–20. [CrossRef] 54. Liu, J.; Lu, M. Constraint programming approach to optimizing project schedules under material logistics and crew availability constraints. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018049. [CrossRef] 55. Dubois, A.; Hulthén, K.; Sundquist, V. Organising logistics and transport activities in construction. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2019, 30, 620–640. [CrossRef] 56. Ala-Risku, T.; Kärkkäinen, M. Material delivery problems in construction projects: A possible solution. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006, 104, 19–29. [CrossRef] 57. Babic, ˇ N.C.; Rebolj, D.; Nekrep-Perc, M.; Podbreznik, P. Supply-chain transparency within industrialized construction projects. Comput. Ind. 2014, 65, 345–353. [CrossRef] 58. Hinkka, V.; Tätilä, J. RFID tracking implementation model for the technical trade and construction supply chains. Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 405–414. [CrossRef] 59. Lu, W.; Huang, G.Q.; Li, H. Scenarios for applying RFID technology in construction project management. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 101–106. [CrossRef] 60. Chen, J.; Fang, Y.; Cho, Y.K.; Kim, C. Principal axes descriptor for automated construction-equipment classiﬁcation from point clouds. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2017, 31, 04016058. [CrossRef] 61. Niu, Y.; Lu, W.; Liu, D.; Chen, K.; Anumba, C.; Huang, G.G. An SCO-enabled logistics and supply chain–management system in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04016103. [CrossRef] 62. Shahvand, E.; Sebt, M.H.; Banki, M.T. Developing fuzzy expert system for supplier and subcontractor evaluation in construction industry. Sci. Iran. 2016, 23, 842–855. [CrossRef] 63. Kayhan, B.M.; Cebi, S.; Kahraman, C. Determining and prioritizing main factors of supplier reliability in construction industry. J. Mult. Log. Soft Comput. 2019, 32, 111–134. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 18 of 20 64. Matic, ´ B.; Jovanovic, ´ S.; Das, D.K.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Stevic, ´ Ž.; Sremac, S.; Marinkovic, ´ M. A new hybrid MCDM model: Sustainable supplier selection in a construction company. Symmetry 2019, 11, 353. [CrossRef] 65. Azambuja, M.M.; Ponticelli, S.; O’Brien, W.J. Strategic procurement practices for the industrial supply chain. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 06014005. [CrossRef] 66. Meng, X. Lean management in the context of construction supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 3784–3798. [CrossRef] 67. Wang, T.-K.; Zhang, Q.; Chong, H.-Y.; Wang, X. Integrated supplier selection framework in a resilient construction supply chain: An approach via Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA). Sustainability 2017, 9, 289. [CrossRef] 68. Ilie-Zudor, E.; Monostori, L. Agent-based framework for pre-contractual evaluation of participants in project-delivery supply- chains. Assem. Autom. 2009, 29, 137–153. [CrossRef] 69. Liang, R.; Chong, H.-Y. A hybrid group decision model for green supplier selection: A case study of megaprojects. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 1712–1734. [CrossRef] 70. Bohari, A.A.M.; Skitmore, M.; Xia, B.; Teo, M. Green oriented procurement for building projects: Preliminary ﬁndings from Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 148, 690–700. [CrossRef] 71. Li, Y.; He, N.; Li, H.; Liu, Z.; Qi, J. Inﬂuencing factors on inter-organizational trust asymmetry behavior in construction projects. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 28, 308–331. [CrossRef] 72. Chalker, M.; Loosemore, M. Trust and productivity in Australian construction projects: A subcontractor perspective. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2016, 23, 192–210. [CrossRef] 73. Khalfan, M.; McDermott, P.; Swan, W. Building trust in construction projects. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2007, 12, 385–391. [CrossRef] 74. Hao, C.; Du, Q.; Huang, Y.; Shao, L.; Yan, Y. Evolutionary game analysis on knowledge-sharing behavior in the construction supply chain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5319. [CrossRef] 75. Arbulu, R.; Tommelein, I.; Walsh, K.; Hershauer, J. Value stream analysis of a re-engineered construction supply chain. Build. Res. Inf. 2003, 31, 161–171. [CrossRef] 76. Xie, C.; Wu, D.; Luo, J.; Hu, X. A case study of multi-team communications in construction design under supply chain partnering. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 363–370. [CrossRef] 77. Ireland, P. Managing appropriately in construction power regimes: Understanding the impact of regularity in the project environment. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2004, 9, 372–382. [CrossRef] 78. Aaltonen, K.; Turkulainen, V. Creating relational capital through socialization in project alliances. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 1387–1421. [CrossRef] 79. Vallet-Bellmunt, T.; Rivera-Torres, P. Integration: Attitudes, patterns and practices. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2013, 18, 308–323. [CrossRef] 80. Vicedo, J.C.; Mula, J.; Capó, J. A social network-based organizational model for improving knowledge management in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2011, 16, 379–388. [CrossRef] 81. Woo, C.; Kim, M.G.; Chung, Y.; Rho, J.J. Suppliers’ communication capability and external green integration for green and ﬁnancial performance in Korean construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 483–493. [CrossRef] 82. Wang, Q.; Shi, Q. The incentive mechanism of knowledge sharing in the industrial construction supply chain based on a supervisory mechanism. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 989–1003. [CrossRef] 83. Quang, H.T.; Hara, Y. Risks and performance in supply chain: The push effect. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 1369–1388. [CrossRef] 84. Truong, H.Q.; Hara, Y. Supply chain risk management: Manufacturing- and service-oriented ﬁrms. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2018, 29, 218–239. [CrossRef] 85. Naderpajouh, N.; Hastak, M.; Gokhale, S.; Bayraktar, M.E.; Iyer, A.; Arif, F. Counterfeiting risk governance in the capital projects supply chain. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04014084. [CrossRef] 86. Shojaei, P.; Haeri, S.A.S. Development of supply chain risk management approaches for construction projects: A grounded theory approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 128, 837–850. [CrossRef] 87. Halman, J.I.M.; Voordijk, J.T. Balanced framework for measuring performance of supply chains in house building. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 1444–1450. [CrossRef] 88. Wickramatillake, C.D.; Koh, S.L.; Gunasekaran, A.; Arunachalam, S. Measuring performance within the supply chain of a large scale project. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2007, 12, 52–59. [CrossRef] 89. Zeng, W.; Wang, H.; Li, H.; Zhou, H.; Wu, P.; Le, Y. Incentive mechanisms for supplier development in mega construction projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2019, 66, 252–265. [CrossRef] 90. Bajjou, M.S.; Chaﬁ, A. Identifying and managing critical waste factors for lean construction projects. Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 32, 2–13. [CrossRef] 91. Tezel, A.; Koskela, L.; Aziz, Z. Current condition and future directions for lean construction in highways projects: A small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 267–286. [CrossRef] 92. Dallasega, P.; Rauch, E. Sustainable construction supply chains through synchronized production planning and control in engineer-to-order enterprises. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1888. [CrossRef] 93. Kong, L.; Li, H.; Luo, H.; Ding, L.; Zhang, X. Sustainable performance of just-in-time (JIT) management in time-dependent batch delivery scheduling of precast construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 684–701. [CrossRef] Buildings 2021, 11, 569 19 of 20 94. Lee, J.; Park, M.; Lee, H.-S.; Hyun, H. Classiﬁcation of modular building construction projects based on schedule-driven approach. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019031. [CrossRef] 95. Pero, M.; Moretto, A.; Bottani, E.; Bigliardi, B. Environmental collaboration for sustainability in the construction industry: An exploratory study in Italy. Sustainability 2017, 9, 125. [CrossRef] 96. Martinez, S.; Delgado, M.D.M.; Marin, R.M.; Alvarez, S. Organization environmental footprint through input-output analysis: A case study in the construction sector. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 23, 879–892. [CrossRef] 97. Hsueh, S.-L.; Yan, M.-R. A multimethodology contractor assessment model for facilitating green innovation: The view of energy and environmental protection. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 1–14. [CrossRef] 98. Wong, J.K.W.; Chan, J.K.S.; Wadu, M.J. Facilitating effective green procurement in construction projects: An empirical study of the enablers. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 859–871. [CrossRef] 99. Zhang, J.; Qi, X.; Liang, C. Tackling complexity in green contractor selection for mega infrastructure projects: A hesitant fuzzy linguistic MADM approach with considering group attitudinal character and attributes’ interdependency. Complexity 2018, 2018, 1–31. [CrossRef] 100. Li, Y.; Ding, R.; Sun, T. The drivers and performance of environmental practices in the Chinese construction industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 614. [CrossRef] 101. Shen, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, X. Key factors affecting green procurement in real estate development: A China study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 372–383. [CrossRef] 102. Freitas, L.A.R.U.; Magrini, A. Waste management in industrial construction: Investigating contributions from industrial ecology. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1251. [CrossRef] 103. Akinade, O.O.; Oyedele, L.O. Integrating construction supply chains within a circular economy: An ANFIS-based waste analytics system (A-WAS). J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 863–873. [CrossRef] 104. Chileshe, N.; Rameezdeen, R.; Hosseini, M.R.; Lehmann, S.; Udeaja, C. Analysis of reverse logistics implementation practices by South Australian construction organisations. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2016, 36, 332–356. [CrossRef] 105. Chileshe, N.; Jayasinghe, R.S.; Rameezdeen, R. Information ﬂow-centric approach for reverse logistics supply chains. Autom. Constr. 2019, 106, 102858. [CrossRef] 106. Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V. Green supply chain management: The case of the construction sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Prod. Plan. Control. 2017, 28, 1116–1138. [CrossRef] 107. Albino, V.; Berardi, U. Green buildings and organizational changes in Italian case studies. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2012, 21, 387–400. [CrossRef] 108. Ahmadian, F.F.A.; Rashidi, T.H.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Waller, S.T. BIM-enabled sustainability assessment of material supply decisions. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2017, 24, 668–695. [CrossRef] 109. da Rocha, C.G.; Sattler, M.A. A discussion on the reuse of building components in Brazil: An analysis of major social, economical and legal factors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 54, 104–112. [CrossRef] 110. Nasir, M.H.A.; Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.; Koh, S.; Yamoah, F. Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 183, 443–457. [CrossRef] 111. Chileshe, N.; Rameezdeen, R.; Hosseini, M.R. Drivers for adopting reverse logistics in the construction industry: A qualitative study. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2016, 23, 134–157. [CrossRef] 112. Warren, J.D.; Chong, W.K.O.; Kim, C. Recycling construction and demolition waste for construction in Kansas City Metropolitan Area, Kansas and Missouri. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2007, 2011, 193–200. [CrossRef] 113. Ma, L.; Wang, L.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Gajda, W. An eco-innovative framework development for sustainable consumption and production in the construction industry. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2019, 25, 774–801. [CrossRef] 114. Xu, J.; Shi, Y.; Zhao, S. Reverse logistics network-based multiperiod optimization for construction and demolition waste disposal. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04018124. [CrossRef] 115. Tserng, H.P.; Dzeng, R.-J.; Lin, Y.-C.; Lin, S.-T. Mobile construction supply chain management using PDA and bar codes. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2005, 20, 242–264. [CrossRef] 116. Costa, A.A.; Tavares, L.V. Social e-business and the Satellite Network model: Innovative concepts to improve collaboration in construction. Autom. Constr. 2012, 22, 387–397. [CrossRef] 117. Wang, L.-C.; Lin, Y.-C.; Lin, P.H. Dynamic mobile RFID-based supply chain control and management system in construction. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2007, 21, 377–390. [CrossRef] 118. Gadde, L.-E.; Dubois, A. Partnering in the construction industry—Problems and opportunities. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2010, 16, 254–263. [CrossRef] 119. Lean Enterprise Institute. What Is Lean? Available online: https://www.lean.org/whatslean/ (accessed on 30 May 2021). 120. Mentzer, J.T.; DeWitt, W.; Keebler, J.S.; Min, S.; Nix, N.W.; Smith, C.D.; Zacharia, Z.G. Deﬁning supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 2001, 22, 1–25. [CrossRef] 121. Esper, T.L.; Defee, C.C.; Mentzer, J.T. A framework of supply chain orientation. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2010, 21, 161–179. [CrossRef] 122. Stock, J.R.; Boyer, S.L.; Harmon, T. Research opportunities in supply chain management. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2010, 38, 32–41. [CrossRef] 123. Sarker, B.R.; Egbelu, P.J.; Liao, T.W.; Yu, J. Planning and design models for construction industry: A critical survey. Autom. Constr. 2012, 22, 123–134. [CrossRef] Buildings 2021, 11, 569 20 of 20 124. Jelodar, M.B.; Shu, F. Innovative use of low-cost digitisation for smart information systems in construction projects. Buildings 2021, 11, 270. [CrossRef] 125. El Moussaoui, S.; Lafhaj, Z.; Leite, F.; Fléchard, J.; Linéatte, B. Construction logistics centres proposing kitting service: Organization analysis and cost mapping. Buildings 2021, 11, 105. [CrossRef] 126. Christopher, M. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Adding Networks, 4th ed.; Financial Times Prentice Hall: Harlow, UK, 2011. 127. Cox, A.; Ireland, P. Managing construction supply chain: The common sense approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2002, 9, 409–416. [CrossRef] 128. Bemelmans, J.; Voordijk, H.; Vos, B.; Buter, J. Assessing buyer-supplier relationship management: Multiple case-study in the Dutch construction industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 163–176. [CrossRef] 129. CSCMP. Supply Chain Management: Terms and Glossary. Available online: https://cscmp.org/CSCMP/Academia/SCM_ Deﬁnitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms (accessed on 7 September 2021). 130. Begic, ´ H.; Galic, ´ M. A systematic review of construction 4.0 in the context of the BIM 4.0 premise. Buildings 2021, 11, 337. [CrossRef] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Buildings Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/core-elements-underlying-supply-chain-management-in-the-construction-WK8rFwGhFU

Loading next page...

References (88)

S. Durdyev, S. Ismail (2019)
Offsite Manufacturing in the Construction Industry for Productivity Improvement
Engineering Management Journal, 31
M. Khalfan, P. McDermott, W. Swan (2007)
Building trust in construction projects
Supply Chain Management, 12
A. Tezel, L. Koskela, Zeeshan Aziz (2018)
Current condition and future directions for lean construction in highways projects: A small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perspective
International Journal of Project Management, 36
C. Durach, J. Kembro, Andreas Wieland (2017)
A New Paradigm for Systematic Literature Reviews in Supply Chain Management
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53
I. Adetunji, A. Price, P. Fleming (2008)
Achieving sustainability in the construction supply chain
, 161
Nenad Čuš-Babič, D. Rebolj, Matjaz Nekrep-Perc, P. Podbreznik (2014)
Supply-chain transparency within industrialized construction projects
Comput. Ind., 65
Timo Ala-Risku, M. Karkkainen (2006)
Material delivery problems in construction projects: A possible solution
International Journal of Production Economics, 104
Anjali Shishodia, Priyanka Verma, V. Dixit (2019)
Supplier evaluation for resilient project driven supply chain
Comput. Ind. Eng., 129
Lung-Chuang Wang, Yu-Cheng Lin, P. Lin (2007)
Dynamic mobile RFID-based supply chain control and management system in construction
Adv. Eng. Informatics, 21
C. Wickramatillake, S. Koh, A. Gunasekaran, S. Arunachalam (2007)
Measuring performance within the supply chain of a large scale project
Supply Chain Management, 12
J. Tah (2005)
Towards an agent-based construction supply network modelling and simulation platform
Automation in Construction, 14
Hans-Martin Lönngren, Christoph Rosenkranz, H. Kolbe (2010)
Aggregated construction supply chains: success factors in implementation of strategic partnerships
Supply Chain Management, 15
A. Cox, P. Ireland (2002)
Managing construction supply chains: the common sense approach
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 9
Olúgbénga Akinadé, Lukumon Oyedele (2019)
Integrating construction supply chains within a circular economy: An ANFIS-based waste analytics system (A-WAS)
Journal of Cleaner Production
S. Balasubramanian, Vinaya Shukla (2018)
Environmental supply chain management in the construction sector: theoretical underpinnings
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 21
Soo-Yong Kim, V. Nguyen (2018)
A Structural model for the impact of supply chain relationship traits on project performance in construction
Production Planning & Control, 29
A. Bohari, M. Skitmore, Bo Xia, Melissa Teo (2017)
Green oriented procurement for building projects: Preliminary findings from Malaysia
Journal of Cleaner Production, 148
J. Mentzer, William DeWitt, J. Keebler, S. Min, N. Nix, Carlo Smith, Zach Zacharia (2001)
DEFINING SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
Journal of Business Logistics, 22
Xianhai Meng (2020)
Proactive management in the context of construction supply chains
Production Planning & Control, 31
C. Xie, Dash Wu, Jianwen Luo, Xiaoling Hu (2010)
A case study of multi‐team communications in construction design under supply chain partnering
Supply Chain Management, 15
V. Albino, U. Berardi (2012)
Green Buildings and Organizational Changes in Italian Case Studies
Business Strategy and The Environment, 21
J. Warren, W. Chong, Changwan Kim (2007)
Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste for Construction in Kansas City Metropolitan Area, Kansas and Missouri
Transportation Research Record, 2011
Bojan Matić, S. Jovanovic, D. Das, E. Zavadskas, Željko Stević, S. Sremac, M. Marinković (2019)
A New Hybrid MCDM Model: Sustainable Supplier Selection in a Construction Company
Symmetry, 11
C. Rocha, M. Sattler (2009)
A discussion on the reuse of building components in Brazil: An analysis of major social, economical and legal factors
Resources Conservation and Recycling, 54
Mohammed Nasir, A. Genovese, A. Acquaye, S. Koh, F. Yamoah (2017)
Comparing linear and circular supply chains: a case study from the construction industry
International Journal of Production Economics, 183
C. Woo, M. Kim, Yanghon Chung, J. Rho (2016)
Suppliers' communication capability and external green integration for green and financial performance in Korean construction industry
Journal of Cleaner Production, 112
Lars Bankvall, Lena Bygballe, A. Dubois, Marianne Jahre (2010)
Interdependence in supply chains and projects in construction
Supply Chain Management, 15
Weisheng Lu, G. Huang, Heng Li (2011)
Scenarios for applying RFID technology in construction project management
Automation in Construction, 20
Ying Li, Ronggui Ding, Tao Sun (2019)
The Drivers and Performance of Environmental Practices in the Chinese Construction Industry
Sustainability
A. Thomé, L. Scavarda, A. Scavarda (2016)
Conducting systematic literature review in operations management
Production Planning & Control, 27
Ville Hinkka, Jaakko Tätilä (2013)
RFID tracking implementation model for the technical trade and construction supply chains
Automation in Construction, 35
E. Shahvand, M. Sebt, M. Banki (2016)
Developing fuzzy expert system for supplier and subcontractor evaluation in construction industry
Scientia Iranica, 23
M. Bajjou, A. Chafi (2020)
Identifying and Managing Critical Waste Factors for Lean Construction Projects
Engineering Management Journal, 32
Muhammad Abedi, M. Fathi, A. Mirasa, N. Rawai (2016)
Integrated collaborative tools for precast supply chain management
Scientia Iranica, 23
H. Su, Pei-Chun Lee (2010)
Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: a first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight
Scientometrics, 85
D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, P. Smart (2003)
Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review
British Journal of Management, 14
J. Stock, Stefanie Boyer, Tracy Harmon (2010)
Research opportunities in supply chain management
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38
P. Jaśkowski, A. Sobotka, A. Czarnigowska (2014)
Decision Model for Selecting Supply Sources of Road Construction Aggregates
The Engineering Economics, 25
Li Ma, Liang Wang, M. Skibniewski, W. Gajda (2019)
AN ECO-INNOVATIVE FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Technological and Economic Development of Economy
Payam Shojaei, S. Haeri (2019)
Development of supply chain risk management approaches for construction projects: A grounded theory approach
Comput. Ind. Eng., 128
M. Pero, A. Moretto, E. Bottani, B. Bigliardi (2017)
Environmental Collaboration for Sustainability in the Construction Industry: An Exploratory Study in Italy
Sustainability, 9
Panchanan Behera, R. Mohanty, A. Prakash (2015)
Understanding Construction Supply Chain Management
Production Planning & Control, 26
Jun-ling Zhang, Xiaowen Qi, Changyong Liang (2018)
Tackling Complexity in Green Contractor Selection for Mega Infrastructure Projects: A Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic MADM Approach with considering Group Attitudinal Character and Attributes' Interdependency
Complex., 2018
Jack Cheng, K. Law, H. Bjornsson, Albert Jones, Ram Sriram (2010)
Modeling and monitoring of construction supply chains
Adv. Eng. Informatics, 24
P. Childerhouse, J. Lewis, M. Naim, D. Towill (2003)
Re‐engineering a construction supply chain: a material flow control approach
Supply Chain Management, 8
C. Vidalakis, J. Tookey, J. Sommerville (2013)
Demand uncertainty in construction supply chains: a discrete event simulation study
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64
C. Terregino, A. Toffan, Filippo Cilloni, I. Monne, E. Bertoli, L. Castellanos, Nadim Amarin, M. Mancin, I. Capua (2010)
Evaluation of the protection induced by avian influenza vaccines containing a 1994 Mexican H5N2 LPAI seed strain against a 2008 Egyptian H5N1 HPAI virus belonging to clade 2.2.1 by means of serological and in vivo tests
Avian Pathology, 39
B. Sarker, P. Egbelu, T. Liao, Junfang Yu (2012)
Planning and design models for construction industry: A critical survey
Automation in Construction, 22
P. Eriksson (2010)
Improving construction supply chain collaboration and performance: a lean construction pilot project
Supply Chain Management, 15
X. Xue, Yaowu Wang, Q. Shen, Xiaoguo Yu (2007)
Coordination mechanisms for construction supply chain management in the Internet environment
International Journal of Project Management, 25
S. Hsueh, M. Yan (2013)
A Multimethodology Contractor Assessment Model for Facilitating Green Innovation: The View of Energy and Environmental Protection
The Scientific World Journal, 2013
D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. Altman (2009)
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
PLoS Medicine, 6
Liyin Shen, Zhenyu Zhang, Xiaoling Zhang (2017)
Key factors affecting green procurement in real estate development: a China study
Journal of Cleaner Production, 153
Sara Martinez, M. Delgado, Rubén Marín, S. Álvarez (2018)
Organization Environmental Footprint through Input‐Output Analysis: A Case Study in the Construction Sector
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23
Josep Capó-Vicedo, J. Mula, Jordi Capó (2011)
A social network‐based organizational model for improving knowledge management in supply chains
Supply Chain Management, 16
P. Dallasega, E. Rauch (2017)
Sustainable Construction Supply Chains through Synchronized Production Planning and Control in Engineer-to-Order Enterprises
Sustainability, 9
D. Aloini, Riccardo Dulmin, Valeria Mininno, S. Ponticelli (2015)
Key antecedents and practices for Supply Chain Management adoption in project contexts
International Journal of Project Management, 33
Richard Fulford, C. Standing (2014)
Construction industry productivity and the potential for collaborative practice
International Journal of Project Management, 32
S. Balasubramanian, Vinaya Shukla (2017)
Green supply chain management: the case of the construction sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Production Planning & Control, 28
B. Kayhan, S. Çebi, C. Kahraman (2014)
Determining and Prioritizing Main Factors of Supplier Reliability in Construction Industry
J. Multiple Valued Log. Soft Comput., 32
Po-Han Chen, Thanh Nguyen (2019)
A BIM-WMS integrated decision support tool for supply chain management in construction
Automation in Construction
N. Costantino, M. Dotoli, M. Falagario, M. Fanti, G. Iacobellis (2009)
A decision support system framework for purchasing management in supply chains
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24
Soufiane Moussaoui, Z. Lafhaj, Fernanda Leite, Julien Fléchard, Bruno Linéatte (2021)
Construction Logistics Centres Proposing Kitting Service: Organization Analysis and Cost Mapping
Buildings
J. Irizarry, E. Karan, Farzad Jalaei (2013)
Integrating BIM and GIS to improve the visual monitoring of construction supply chain management
Automation in Construction, 31
P. Love, Z. Irani, D. Edwards (2004)
A seamless supply chain management model for construction
Supply Chain Management, 9
Ting Wang, Qian Zhang, H. Chong, Xiangyu Wang (2017)
Integrated Supplier Selection Framework in a Resilient Construction Supply Chain: An Approach via Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA)
Sustainability, 9
Roberto Arbulu, Iris Tommelein, K. Walsh, J. Hershauer (2003)
Value stream analysis of a re-engineered construction supply chain
Building Research & Information, 31
Terry Esper, C. Defee, J. Mentzer (2010)
A framework of supply chain orientation
The International Journal of Logistics Management, 21
P. Ireland (2004)
Managing appropriately in construction power regimes: understanding the impact of regularity in the project environment
Supply Chain Management, 9
P. Dallasega, Rafael Rojas, G. Bruno, E. Rauch (2019)
An agile scheduling and control approach in ETO construction supply chains
Comput. Ind., 112
Johnny Wong, J. Chan, Mesthrige Wadu (2016)
Facilitating effective green procurement in construction projects: An empirical study of the enablers
Journal of Cleaner Production, 135
E. Ilie-Zudor, L. Monostori (2009)
Agent-based framework for pre-contractual evaluation of participants in project-delivery supply-chains
Assembly Automation, 29
X. Xue, Xiaodong Li, Q. Shen, Yaowu Wang (2005)
An agent-based framework for supply chain coordination in construction
Automation in Construction, 14
Lars-Erik Gadde, A. Dubois (2010)
Partnering in the construction industry - Problems and opportunities
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 16
K. Yeo, J. Ning (2006)
Managing uncertainty in major equipment procurement in engineering projects
Eur. J. Oper. Res., 171
G. Briscoe, A. Dainty (2005)
Construction supply chain integration: an elusive goal?
Supply Chain Management, 10
R. Tiwari, H. Shepherd, R. Pandey (2014)
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT IN CONSTRUCTION: A LITERATURE SURVEY
M. Jelodar, Feiya Shu (2021)
Innovative Use of Low-Cost Digitisation for Smart Information Systems in Construction Projects
Buildings
Chanchan Hao, Q. Du, Youdan Huang, Long Shao, Yunqing Yan (2019)
Evolutionary Game Analysis on Knowledge-Sharing Behavior in the Construction Supply Chain
Sustainability
H. Begić, M. Galić (2021)
A Systematic Review of Construction 4.0 in the Context of the BIM 4.0 Premise
Buildings
Huy Quang, Y. Hara (2018)
Risks and performance in supply chain: the push effect
International Journal of Production Research, 56
L. Freitas, A. Magrini (2017)
Waste Management in Industrial Construction: Investigating Contributions from Industrial Ecology
Sustainability, 9
Liulin Kong, Heng Li, Hanbin Luo, L. Ding, Xiaoling Zhang (2018)
Sustainable performance of just-in-time (JIT) management in time-dependent batch delivery scheduling of precast construction
Journal of Cleaner Production
H. Tserng, R. Dzeng, Yu-Cheng Lin, Sheng‐Tai Lin (2005)
Mobile Construction Supply Chain Management Using PDA and Bar Codes
Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 20
N. Chileshe, Ruchini Jayasinghe, R. Rameezdeen (2019)
Information flow-centric approach for reverse logistics supply chains
Automation in Construction
Pei-Yuan Hsu, M. Aurisicchio, Panagiotis Angeloudis (2019)
Risk-averse supply chain for modular construction projects
Automation in Construction
Xianhai Meng (2019)
Lean management in the context of construction supply chains
International Journal of Production Research, 57
A. Costa, L. Tavares (2012)
Social e-business and the Satellite Network model: Innovative concepts to improve collaboration in construction
Automation in Construction, 22

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright: © 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN: 2075-5309
DOI: 10.3390/buildings11120569
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

buildings Review Core Elements Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review Walter Puppo Studer * and Luiz Carlos Brasil De Brito Mello Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói 24210-240, Brazil; luiz_brasil@id.uff.br * Correspondence: wpuppo@id.uff.br Abstract: The relevance of supply chain management (SCM) is being increasingly recognized in the construction industry. However, its implementation has been limited and is still challenging for researchers and practitioners. An adequate and systematic understanding of context-speciﬁc core concepts and practices are considered fundamental to foster its implementation. This paper aims to provide a holistic look into the existing research on elements underlying SCM in the construction industry. It adopts a systematic literature review method to examine almost two decades of publica- tions and uses a comprehensive SCM framework to synthesize the ﬁndings. The results revealed a set of 19 core elements clustered in ﬁve subject areas (i.e., ‘strategic management’, ‘logistics’, ‘relation- ships’, ‘best practices’ and ‘organizational behavior ’) that have a prominent role in construction SCM. Every core element was analyzed in detail and the results were discussed in the context of other evidence. This study produced the ﬁrst comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge, providing relevant contributions to enhance the understanding and implementation of SCM within the construction industry. Citation: Studer, W.P.; De Brito Keywords: construction industry; SCM; strategic management; logistics; relationships; best practices; Mello, L.C.B. Core Elements organizational behavior Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Buildings 2021, 11, 569. 1. Introduction https://doi.org/10.3390/ Construction supply chains (CSCs) involve all construction processes, from the initial buildings11120569 demands, design and construction to maintenance, replacement and eventual demolition Academic Editor: Audrius Banaitis of buildings and other structures [1]. Every year, about USD 10 trillion are spent on construction-related goods and services, equivalent to 13% of the world’s GDP, employing Received: 19 October 2021 7% of the world’s working population. Thus, construction is one of the largest sectors of Accepted: 16 November 2021 the world economy [2]. In spite of being an important contributor to the global economy Published: 23 November 2021 and playing an important role in economic development, it is a complex sector, which is facing difﬁculties and challenges all over the world [3,4]. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral The construction industry has been widely criticized for a marked tendency to gener- with regard to jurisdictional claims in ate waste and for its inefﬁciency [5], low-proﬁt margin [3], low productivity [6,7], frequent published maps and institutional afﬁl- schedule delays, cost overruns and quality defects [8–10]. According to Behera et al. [9], iations. a major part of these problems can be traced to the interfaces of different parties in- volved in construction supply chains. A myopic and independent control of construction supply chains [1], exacerbated by characteristics such as fragmentation [11,12], lack of coordination and communication between participants [13], adversarial short-term re- Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. lationships [14], separation of design and construction [1] and mistrust [6] is causing Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. performance-related problems. This article is an open access article Since the 1990s and in response to perceived recurrent problems, there has been a distributed under the terms and growing interest in supply chain management (SCM) practices to improve the construction conditions of the Creative Commons industry performance [15,16]. The recognition of the fact that the competitiveness of an Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// isolated organization critically depends on the supply chain (SC) dynamics in which it creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ participates led to re-examine relationships and interdependencies among supply chain 4.0/). Buildings 2021, 11, 569. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11120569 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings Buildings 2021, 11, 569 2 of 20 partners [8], and various government reports and initiatives concurrently suggested that the construction industry would beneﬁt from adopting more collaborative forms of work- ing [17]. Incorporating some of the lessons learnt from other sectors, SCM was considered for adoption in the construction industry. The improvements that can be obtained with Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21 such an approach are increasingly being recognized throughout the industry commu- nity [15,18,19]. Notwithstanding, while other industries such as manufacturing and retailing have made signiﬁcant performance improvement by adopting supply chain management [18], achieving more closely integrated and efficient supply chains [14], the construction indus- achieving more closely integrated and efﬁcient supply chains [14], the construction in- try seems to be facing difficulties in implementing SCM [7,14,20]. Several studies indicate dustry seems to be facing difﬁculties in implementing SCM [7,14,20]. Several studies that challenges mostly originate from the fundamental differences between these indus- indicate that challenges mostly originate from the fundamental differences between these tries [21]. While manufacturing supply chains are based on continuous processes and re- industries [21]. While manufacturing supply chains are based on continuous processes lationships [15], construction supply chains involve a multitude of stakeholders [22] in and relationships [15], construction supply chains involve a multitude of stakeholders [22] temporary sites and temporary organizational configurations [23]. A typical CSC is a long in temporary sites and temporary organizational conﬁgurations [23]. A typical CSC is a [8] and complex [18] network of numerous organizations (i.e., clients/owners, designers, long [8] and complex [18] network of numerous organizations (i.e., clients/owners, design- general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers) and relationships [22], connected ers, general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers) and relationships [22], connected through the flows of information, the flows of materials, services and products and the through the ﬂows of information, the ﬂows of materials, services and products and the flows of funds [6] (see Figure 1). Almost every CSC is unique, non-repeatable and estab- ﬂows of funds [6] (see Figure 1). Almost every CSC is unique, non-repeatable and estab- lished just for fulfilling the requirements of a single project [24]. Furthermore, production lished just for fulﬁlling the requirements of a single project [24]. Furthermore, production sites are not controlled environments, being prone to high variability and unpredictability sites are not controlled environments, being prone to high variability and unpredictability (e.g., changing weather conditions) [25]. All these factors contribute to unique levels of (e.g., changing weather conditions) [25]. All these factors contribute to unique levels of uncertainty and instability that jeopardize a direct transfer and application of SCM models uncertainty and instability that jeopardize a direct transfer and application of SCM models developed for other contexts to the construction industry [10,13,15]. At the same time, developed for other contexts to the construction industry [10,13,15]. At the same time, while SCM concepts have been extensively researched in other industries [10], knowledge while SCM concepts have been extensively researched in other industries [10], knowledge about SCM in the construction industry is still embryonic and research in this topic is about SCM in the construction industry is still embryonic and research in this topic is rela- relatively limited [9,18,26]. To introduce SCM successfully without being “lost in transla- tively limited [9,18,26]. To introduce SCM successfully without being “lost in translation”, tion”, numerous researchers advocate for further scrutiny and proper understanding of numerous researchers advocate for further scrutiny and proper understanding of core core concepts and practices underpinning SCM in the construction industry [9,13,20,23]. concepts and practices underpinning SCM in the construction industry [9,13,20,23]. Figure 1. A typical construction supply chain. Adapted from [22]. Figure 1. A typical construction supply chain. Adapted from [22]. Supply chain management is, indeed, an extremely complex and diverse discipline, as Supply chain management is, indeed, an extremely complex and diverse discipline, reﬂected in the broad range of diverse suggested deﬁnitions [16]. It is an evolving ﬁeld that as reflected in the broad range of diverse suggested definitions [16]. It is an evolving field encompasses different perspectives and contributions from distinct ﬁelds of research [27]. that encompasses different perspectives and contributions from distinct fields of research Its development was initially along the lines of logistics [27], but additional concepts and [27]. Its development was initially along the lines of logistics [27], but additional concepts practices from social and organizational sciences (e.g., collaboration between partners) and practices from social and organizational sciences (e.g., collaboration between part- have been gradually incorporated into the body of knowledge [28]. Tiwari et al. [26] ners) have been gradually incorporated into the body of knowledge [28]. Tiwari et al. [26] carried out a literature survey to analyze the existing state of research relating to SCM carried out a literature survey to analyze the existing state of research relating to SCM in in construction. They showed that researchers were keen on developing and pursuing construction. They showed that researchers were keen on developing and pursuing vari- various decision-making models and exploring areas such as supply chain integration and ous decision-making models and exploring areas such as supply chain integration and coordination. Other areas explored by scholars are the emphasis on material flows and information flows and the feasibility of SCM application in particular geographical re- gions such as Europe, Asia and Oceania. Despite these contributions, their study also re- vealed that most studies focus on understanding very specific areas and are short of of- fering a comprehensive solution. Consequently, there is a clear dearth of research, which takes a holistic approach to SCM in construction [17]. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 3 of 20 coordination. Other areas explored by scholars are the emphasis on material ﬂows and information ﬂows and the feasibility of SCM application in particular geographical regions such as Europe, Asia and Oceania. Despite these contributions, their study also revealed that most studies focus on understanding very speciﬁc areas and are short of offering a comprehensive solution. Consequently, there is a clear dearth of research, which takes a holistic approach to SCM in construction [17]. Based on this research gap, the present study reviews the documented evidence of SCM elements in the construction industry. We drew a comprehensive picture of current knowledge, capturing the full range of perspectives and contributions incorporated from distinct ﬁelds of research. The formal review question guiding this process was: ‘What are the documented core elements that support supply chain management in the construction industry?’ More speciﬁcally, the objectives of this study were: Extract from the existing research the documented core elements underpinning SCM in the construction industry; Provide a structured and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge of SCM in the construction industry; Analyze the extracted elements through the lens of a holistic SCM framework to gain an overview and proper understanding of construction SCM core concepts and practices. The remainder of this paper reflects these objectives and is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methodology employed for the systematic literature review. Section 3 presents a descriptive analysis of the selected articles and our ﬁndings, organized by the subject areas of the framework. Next, Section 4 provides a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. Finally, Section 5 offers the concluding remarks, including contributions, limitations of the study and opportunities for future research. 2. Materials and Methods The methodology employed in this study was a systematic literature review (SLR), which is a “speciﬁc methodology that locates existing studies, selects and evaluates contri- butions, analyses and synthesizes data, and reports the evidence in such a way that allows reasonably clear conclusions to be reached about what is and is not known” [29] (p. 671). Being ﬁrst introduced in the medical sciences research, the systematic approach plays a fundamental role for knowledge advancement in many ﬁelds and is spreading signiﬁcantly in the supply chain management domain [30]. Conducting an SLR requires following a sophisticated protocol to ensure a more comprehensive and unbiased search is performed, with transparent, reliable and reproducible ﬁndings [31,32]. The implementation of this protocol is summarized below. 2.1. Systematic Review Protocol ISI Web of Science (https://clarivate.com, accessed on 18 April 2020) was chosen as the database for the present literature search. It is a trustful database that contains the top journals in the general management and engineering ﬁelds, hence ensuring a broader diversiﬁcation of credible studies. To screen papers by content, different search queries were tested before deﬁning the ﬁnal parameters. First, brainstorming was used to select keywords related to concepts and practices. Then, by applying the snowballing technique to a preliminary screening of records, new keywords were added. Finally, the selected keywords were combined with the terms ‘supply chain management’ and ‘construction’ to build the following search string: ((“supply chain management”) AND construction AND (action OR activity OR antecedent OR approach OR aspect OR concept OR discipline OR element OR factor OR feature OR practice OR pre-condition OR prerequisite OR principle OR procedure OR tactic OR technique OR tool)). This search string was entered into the topic ﬁeld, which performed the search in the title, abstract and keywords of the source, yielding 554 results. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 4 of 20 The results were then evaluated following a set of classiﬁcation criteria, as summarized in the PRISMA ﬂow diagram [33] presented in Figure 2. The ﬁrst classiﬁcation criteria limited the search to peer-reviewed journal papers written in English and published until December 2019. Therefore, proceedings papers, reviews and editorial material were Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21 excluded as well as papers written in German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish, leaving a sample with 321 articles. Figure 2. Study selection and evaluation. Based on the PRISMA ﬂow diagram, with permission of Figure 2. Study selection and evaluation. Based on the PRISMA flow diagram, with permission of Moher et al. [3 Moher et al. [ 3]; publishe 33]; published d by by PLOS Medicine, 2009. PLOS Medicine, 2009. The following classiﬁcation criteria was a quality assessment, where only the papers The following classification criteria was a quality assessment, where only the papers of journals with impact factor, based on the Thomson Reuters listing, were included. This of journals with impact factor, based on the Thomson Reuters listing, were included. This reduced the sample to 240 articles. Following this, the abstracts of papers that passed reduced the sample to 240 articles. Following this, the abstracts of papers that passed this this stage were read and, in order to avoid researcher bias [31], subjected to a two-part stage were read and, in order to avoid researcher bias [31], subjected to a two-part selec- selection ﬁlter, downsizing the sample to 130 articles. First, the main author conducted tion filter, downsizing the sample to 130 articles. First, the main author conducted an ex- an examination of the abstracts, excluding some reports, and then the second author amination of the abstracts, excluding some reports, and then the second author confirmed conﬁrmed the selection and double-checked the borderline cases. The excluded papers were the selection and double-checked the borderline cases. The excluded papers were not spe- not speciﬁc for the construction industry, mentioned construction with another meaning cific for the construction industry, mentioned construction with another meaning (e.g., (e.g., ‘sample construction’ and ‘construction of pairwise comparison’) or were perceived ‘sample construction’ and ‘construction of pairwise comparison’) or were perceived as not as not relevant to the research question (i.e., not discussing CSCM-underlying elements). relevant to the research question (i.e., not discussing CSCM-underlying elements). The ﬁnal classiﬁcation criterion was an in-depth full-text review, which led to the The final classification criterion was an in-depth full-text review, which led to the exclusion of 22 papers. The exclusion criteria consisted of articles mentioning CSCM exclusion of 22 papers. The exclusion criteria consisted of articles mentioning CSCM un- underlying elements as a background for discussing other main issues or articles only derlying elements as a background for discussing other main issues or articles only fo- focused on employing or developing mathematical methods, engineering modeling or cused on employing or developing mathematical methods, engineering modeling or sim- simulations. Overall, 108 articles passed all stages of the protocol and formed the ﬁnal ulations. Overall, 108 articles passed all stages of the protocol and formed the final sample sample to be further analyzed. Through a structured procedure, all 108 articles were to be further analyzed. Through a structured procedure, all 108 articles were classified in classiﬁed in terms of authors, titles, years of publication, journals, countries of origin and terms of authors, titles, years of publication, journals, countries of origin and major con- major contributions. tributions. 2.2. The Analytical Framework Used to Synthesise and Interpret the Findings Qualitative approaches to synthesize the evidence extracted through systematic re- views tend to be particularly relevant for management sciences, principally due to the diver- gent nature of the discipline [32]. This approach enables the identiﬁcation of themes among different studies to attain a greater level of conceptual or theoretical development [31]. In Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21 2.2. The Analytical Framework Used to Synthesise and Interpret the Findings Qualitative approaches to synthesize the evidence extracted through systematic re- views tend to be particularly relevant for management sciences, principally due to the Buildings 2021, 11, 569 5 of 20 divergent nature of the discipline [32]. This approach enables the identification of themes among different studies to attain a greater level of conceptual or theoretical development [31]. In the present review, we have chosen Croom et al.’s [27] supply chain management ana the lpr ytesent ical frr aeview mework , weas t hav he e concep chosen Cr tua oom l tool et fo al.’s r codin [27] supply g and synthesizing the chain management findings. analytical framework After conducti as the conceptual ng a critica tool l litera forture review coding and based on synthesizing the analysis o the ﬁndings. f a large number After conducting a critical literature review based on the analysis of a large number of publications on supply chain management (i.e., books, journal articles and conference of publications on supply chain management (i.e., books, journal articles and conference papers), Croom et al. [27] presented a framework for categorizing the SCM linked litera- papers), Croom et al. [27] presented a framework for categorizing the SCM linked literature. ture. According to the authors, it provides a taxonomy with which to map and evaluate According to the authors, it provides a taxonomy with which to map and evaluate research, research, allowing its classification in the field as well as enabling the identification of key allowing its classiﬁcation in the ﬁeld as well as enabling the identiﬁcation of key content of content of the subject. Therefore, Croom et al.’s [27] framework was considered appropri- the subject. Therefore, Croom et al.’s [27] framework was considered appropriate as an a ate as an a priori-defined coding structure for our analysis. priori-deﬁned coding structure for our analysis. The following procedure was implemented. The first author manually coded the ex- The following procedure was implemented. The ﬁrst author manually coded the tracted elements into the subject areas defined in Croom et al.’s [27] framework. Decisions extracted elements into the subject areas deﬁned in Croom et al.’s [27] framework. Decisions were iteratively checked, ensuring coding reliability. Then, the second author double- were iteratively checked, ensuring coding reliability. Then, the second author double- checked the codes against both the original data and the framework subjects. Eventual checked the codes against both the original data and the framework subjects. Eventual disagreements were debated until resolved, thus minimizing errors, and producing a disagreements were debated until resolved, thus minimizing errors, and producing a more more robust structure of findings. robust structure of ﬁndings. 3. Findings 3. Findings 3.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Sample 3.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Sample The descriptive analysis of the 108 sources presented in Figure 3 shows the rising rate The descriptive analysis of the 108 sources presented in Figure 3 shows the rising in the number of articles published per year and, more specifically, the pronounced in- rate in the number of articles published per year and, more speciﬁcally, the pronounced crease of publications over the last few years. Among all the selected papers, 81% of them increase of publications over the last few years. Among all the selected papers, 81% of them were published since 2010, and 56% of them were published in the last 4 years, indicating were published since 2010, and 56% of them were published in the last 4 years, indicating the growing attention that the review subject has received from researchers. the growing attention that the review subject has received from researchers. Figure 3. Distribution of selected articles by publication year. Figure 3. Distribution of selected articles by publication year. This review conﬁrmed how construction SCM literature is scattered across different This review confirmed how construction SCM literature is scattered across different journals and research areas. The selected papers were published in 42 different journals that journals and research areas. The selected papers were published in 42 different journals cover 10 research areas. Even though ﬁve journals included 45% of the papers, almost 80% that cover 10 research areas. Even though five journals included 45% of the papers, almost of the journals were only being represented by a maximum of two papers. The three most 80% of the journals were only being represented by a maximum of two papers. The three representative subject areas are engineering, business and economics and construction and most representative subject areas are engineering, business and economics and construc- building technology, accounting for almost 70% of the sample (see Figure 4). tion and building technology, accounting for almost 70% of the sample (see Figure 4). Moreover, the distribution analysis of the selected papers according to the geographi- cal location of the ﬁrst author ’s research institution highlights the spread of papers across various locations. Thirty countries from six different continents contributed to this review. Figure 5 shows that Europe, Asia and Oceania, which altogether accounted for almost 88% of the total number of collected papers, were the major sources of information on the subject, conﬁrming the regional differences in research appointed by Tiwari et al. [26]. When analyzed by country, the top three contributors were China, England and Australia, with 18%, 12% and 11% of the papers published, respectively. Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21 Buildings 2021, 11, 569 6 of 20 Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21 Figure 4. Research areas of journals. Note: Some journals cover more than one research area. Moreover, the distribution analysis of the selected papers according to the geograph- ical location of the first author’s research institution highlights the spread of papers across various locations. Thirty countries from six different continents contributed to this review. Figure 5 shows that Europe, Asia and Oceania, which altogether accounted for almost 88% of the total number of collected papers, were the major sources of information on the sub- ject, confirming the regional differences in research appointed by Tiwari et al. [26]. When analyzed by country, the top three contributors were China, England and Australia, with 18%, 12% and 11% of the papers published, respectively. Figure 4. Research areas of journals. Note: Some journals cover more than one research area. Figure 4. Research areas of journals. Note: Some journals cover more than one research area. Moreover, the distribution analysis of the selected papers according to the geograph- ical location of the first author’s research institution highlights the spread of papers across various locations. Thirty countries from six different continents contributed to this review. Figure 5 shows that Europe, Asia and Oceania, which altogether accounted for almost 88% of the total number of collected papers, were the major sources of information on the sub- ject, confirming the regional differences in research appointed by Tiwari et al. [26]. When analyzed by country, the top three contributors were China, England and Australia, with 18%, 12% and 11% of the papers published, respectively. Figure 5. Figure 5. Distri Distribution bution of the of the se selected lected arti articles cles by by the co the continent ntinent of the f of the ﬁrst irst a author uthor’s research institu- ’s research institution. tion. The descriptive analysis of this work also performed a comprehensive keywords co-occurrence network using the VOSviewer tool. According to [34], keywords are a clear The descriptive analysis of this work also performed a comprehensive keywords co- and concise way to describe research contents. A network map of keywords facilitates the occurrence network using the VOSviewer tool. According to [34], keywords are a clear visualization of the knowledge structure of a particular ﬁeld of research, unveils emerging and concise way to describe research contents. A network map of keywords facilitates the elements and depicts the dynamics of the knowledge structure. Therefore, a keywords visualization of the knowledge structure of a particular field of research, unveils emerging co-occurrence network was generated setting the minimum number of occurrences to ﬁve, elements and depicts the dynamics of the knowledge structure. Therefore, a keywords co- as shown in Figure 6. occurrence network was generated setting the minimum number of occurrences to five, The frequency of occurrence of the keywords and their interconnections can be de- as shown in Figure 6. noted according to node sizes, the distance among nodes and connection lines among Figure 5. Distribution of the selected articles by the continent of the first author’s research institu- keywords [35]. The size of a node is a depiction of its weight in the network, while the tion. distance among nodes represents their relatedness. The closer the nodes are, the stronger the connection between them. Items with the same color represent an identical cluster, The descriptive analysis of this work also performed a comprehensive keywords co- meaning that keywords within the same cluster are more closely linked to each other [35]. occurrence Accordingly n ,eas twork usin can be seen g the in VOSvie Figure 6 wer tool. Acc , four different ording clusters to [34], werekeywor generated. ds are W a cle ith ar ten keywords each, the most important clusters were the red and the green ones, which and concise way to describe research contents. A network map of keywords facilitates the focused on the logistics and the relationships component bodies, respectively. The blue visualization of the knowledge structure of a particular field of research, unveils emerging cluster represented the strategic management component, containing keywords such as elements and depicts the dynamics of the knowledge structure. Therefore, a keywords co- ‘management’, ‘framework’ and ‘system’. Lastly, the yellow cluster reminded us of the occurrence network was generated setting the minimum number of occurrences to five, importance of sustainability to the construction supply chain. The keywords co-occurrence as shown in Figure 6. network showed that these are the principal component bodies of SCM literature in the construction industry. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 7 of 20 Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21 Figure 6. Figure 6. Netw Network ork of co-o of co-occurr ccurrence of k ence of keywor eywords from ds from the these selected lected papers papers. . 3.2. Core Elements Underpinning SCM in the Construction Industry The frequency of occurrence of the keywords and their interconnections can be de- The presentation of thematic ﬁndings is based on Croom et al.’s [27] framework, that noted according to node sizes, the distance among nodes and connection lines among distinguish six subject areas related to the ﬁeld of supply chain management: ‘strategic keywords [35]. The size of a node is a depiction of its weight in the network, while the management’, ‘logistics’, ‘marketing’, ‘relationships’, ‘best practices’ and ‘organizational be- distance among nodes represents their relatedness. The closer the nodes are, the stronger havior ’. The framework also identiﬁes and classiﬁes the concerns within each subject area, the connection between them. Items with the same color represent an identical cluster, thus providing speciﬁc guidance for categorizing core elements. The review of ﬁndings meaning that keywords within the same cluster are more closely linked to each other [35]. in this section follows this structure. A set of 19 core elements, identiﬁed in at least three Accordingly, as can be seen in Figure 6, four different clusters were generated. With ten papers, were extracted from the reviewed literature and classiﬁed into ﬁve SCM subject keywords each, the most important clusters were the red and the green ones, which fo- areas. The next sections provide a description of each topic, organized by the subject areas cused on the logistics and the relationships component bodies, respectively. The blue clus- of Croom et al.’s [27] framework, and the full list of results can be found in Table 1. Four of ter represented the strategic management component, containing keywords such as ‘man- the ﬁve subject areas identiﬁed (i.e., ‘strategic management’, ‘logistics’, ‘relationships’ and agement’, ‘framework’ and ‘system’. Lastly, the yellow cluster reminded us of the im- ‘best practices’) are strongly correlated with the four principal component bodies unveiled portance of sustainability to the construction supply chain. The keywords co-occurrence by the keywords co-occurrence network (see Figure 6), validating the suitability of the network showed that these are the principal component bodies of SCM literature in the selected framework to synthesize the ﬁndings. The remaining subject area, ‘organizational construction industry. behavior ’, is also included in the keywords co-occurrence network, but appears integrated into the ‘logistics’ component body. 3.2. Core Elements Underpinning SCM in the Construction Industry The presentation of thematic findings is based on Croom et al.’s [27] framework, that Table 1. Core elements underlying construction supply chain management. distinguish six subject areas related to the field of supply chain management: ‘strategic Subject Area Element References management’, ‘logistics’, ‘marketing’, ‘relationships’, ‘best practices’ and ‘organizational behavior’. The fr Global strategy amework also identifies and classifies the conce [8,20,23,r 36 ns within –41] each subject Strategic Management Change management [38,40–44] area, thus providing specific guidance for categorizing core elements. The review of find- Capacity development [11,20,23,40,42,45,46] ings in this section follows this structure. A set of 19 core elements, identified in at least Planning and control of material ﬂows [3,21,25,47–56] Logistics three papers, were extracted from the reviewed literature and classified into five SCM Integration of materials and information ﬂows [19,21,57–61] subject areas. The next sections provide a description of each topic, organized by the sub- Procurement [3,6,7,17,18,20,24,36,39,50,62–70] ject areaObjectives s of Croom alignment et al.’s [27] framework, and the full list o [10 f re ,16 su –18 lts ,20 can be fo ,38] und in Table Top management support and long-term 1. Four of the five subject areas identified (i.e., ‘strategic management’, ‘logistics’, ‘rela- [10,11,18,20] commitment Relationships tionships’ and ‘best practices’) are strongly correlated with the four principal component Trust [5,7,10,18,20,23,71–73] Collaboration [1,5–7,9–11,13,14,16–18,20,23,28,38,39,41,74–79] bodies unveiled by the keywords co-occurrence network (see Figure 6), validating the Communication [10,11,14,16–18,20,21,23,28,74,80–82] suitability of the selected framework to synthesize the findings. The remaining subject Problem solving [10,14,18] area, ‘organi Risk zationa sharing l behavior’, is also included in the ke [10 ywords ,18,20,24 co ,44-occurr ,83–86] ence network, but appears integrated into the ‘logistics’ component body. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 8 of 20 Table 1. Cont. Subject Area Element References Continuous improvement [9–11,14,16–18,20,23,37,38,62,87–89] Lean thinking [15,66,75,90,91] Just-in-time [15,41,92,93] Best Practices Offsite manufacturing [4,15,51,54,57,66,89,93,94] Sustainability [16,40,43,45,46,49,64,70,81,95–114] Organizational Information and Communication Technology [5,12,14,17,19,20,38,39,42,49,50,57,59,61,66,67,72,103, 105,115–117] Behavior (ICT) Integration It should be noted that although a certain level of overlapping may exist among the elements, this is a common feature in the SCM literature, where plenty of overlapping terminology and meanings exist [27]. Moreover, the holistic view of Croom et al.’s [27] framework makes core elements deﬁnition less speciﬁc, and each core element may include several related aspects. For example, the core element ‘planning and control of material ﬂows’ include aspects such as supply network design, materials buffers deﬁnition and project scheduling, among others. Two additional matters regarding elements classiﬁcation are worth mentioning. First, as certain topics can be approached from multiple perspectives, they could be classiﬁed in more than one subject area. This was the case of ‘just-in-time’, which was classiﬁed in favor of ‘best practices’ rather than ‘logistics’, and ‘communication’, classiﬁed in ‘relationships’ rather than ‘organizational behavior ’. Both choices were based on the analyzed literature prevalent criteria. Additionally, ‘sustainability’ and ‘off site manufacturing’, not included as concerns in Croom et al.’s [27] framework, were classiﬁed in the ‘best practices’ ﬁeld. 3.2.1. Strategic Management This subject area comprises three elements, namely, ‘global strategy’, ‘change man- agement’ and ‘capability development’. Supply chains are networks of independent but collaborating entities, where the performance of each of them depends on the performance of their partners [36]. Therefore, a global strategy pointing towards an emphasis on holistic systems is required to pursue competitive advantage. It should properly specify the partic- ipating entities and the relationships among them to achieve high value generation [37,38], extending its scope to reach participants many layers up and down in the SC tiers [39]. This is not an easy task, especially considering the large number of participants working together in a project-based temporary manner [37]. However, as supply chains are becom- ing increasingly dependent on small- and medium-sized enterprises, which perform most project activities [20,39], a global strategy is essential to create the conditions and enhance the possibilities of successful SCM implementation [23]. A strategic change management approach is recommended to face the conservative nature of the industry. Organizations ought to show a willingness to change their culture, structure and processes [42]. To this end, strategies should focus on the dissatisfaction with the status quo, highlighting the need for transformational change and sensitizing organizations to the beneﬁts that SCM offer both to themselves and their SC [40]. Commu- nicating and convincing staff about what the change is and why it is happening, coupled with top management support [43] and the ﬁgure of a change champion [42], are essential tools to overcome resistance. In addition to the motivation, there is a need to promote a proper understanding of the concepts underlying SCM [23] and develop the competencies required to work with them [42]. This entails mobilizing and educate key SC stakeholders, providing training programs to employees at all organizational levels [40,45] and active guidance in the practical context [42]. Such approaches, aimed at the development of knowledge, competencies and experience, are critical to achieve goals and contribute to both short-term and long-term success [20]. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 9 of 20 3.2.2. Logistics The two elements included in this subject area are ‘planning and control of material ﬂows’ and ‘integration of materials and information ﬂows’. Transport and logistics of construction materials represent an important share of total costs [118]. Inefﬁciencies in the planning and control of material ﬂows, such as late deliveries, incomplete orders and quality deﬁciencies, result in the disruption of construction processes, causing delays and increased costs [47]. Even thoguh time and material buffers are commonly used to mitigate these risks, they may contribute to signiﬁcant time waste and enormous ad- ditional costs [3,21]. Therefore, planning and control of material ﬂows, involving the mechanisms to ensure the availability of materials at the right time, with the required quantity and minimum cost [48], are critical to the success of a project. Accordingly, many models to support decision making for tasks, such as selection of material sources, de- termination of the number of deliveries and project scheduling, have been proposed by researchers [49–54]. Moreover, studies indicate efﬁciency potentials in applying collabo- rative supply networks [47,55]. In the traditional practice, each actor coordinates its own materials supply (i.e., storage, packaging and transport) and onsite logistics activities (i.e., material handling activities). An extended scope of coordination, considering joint coordination of materials supply and onsite logistics activities, or even coordination of activities beyond individual sites, including all supply chains directed to them, entails opportunities for improving performance [55]. The second element, integration of materials and information ﬂows, is crucial for improving the visibility and traceability of materials throughout the construction supply chain. This is not only a way of reducing the uncertainties that affect the above-mentioned planning practices, but also supports progress monitoring and materials management processes as a whole [21,57]. Different technologies, such as radio frequency identiﬁcation (RFID) [58,59], machine learning [60] and smart construction objects (i.e., construction resources augmented with sensing, processing and communication abilities) [61], have been proposed to improve the transparency of information. The central tenet underpinning these technologies is to increase the quantity, rate and quality of information. With accurate information available at the right time and in the right format, project managers can make prompt and informed decisions [59]. 3.2.3. Relationships Almost 43% of the elements belong to this subject area, which includes ‘procurement’, ‘objectives alignment’, ‘top management support and long-term commitment’, ‘trust’, ‘col- laboration’, ‘communication’, ‘problem solving’ and ‘risk sharing’. The strong competitive environment puts pressure on construction companies to concentrate on core competencies and provide their requirements by outsourcing [62]. Companies are becoming increasingly dependent on suppliers (i.e., material and equipment suppliers and service suppliers) [24], which have a lasting effect on the success of a project [63]. Hence, the evaluation and selec- tion of the best-ﬁt suppliers are of vital importance [62]. Traditional procurement, based on the lowest tendered price, does not necessarily result in a low actual cost nor a good project delivery [18], and limits the ﬂexibility of suppliers to explore innovative solutions that could enhance performance [17]. A multi-criteria decision-making procurement approach is frequently applied to achieve the best value for a project [18,64]. It uses a set of weighted pre-qualiﬁcation criteria to assess the resources and capabilities of suppliers [20], and those with the highest aggregate weighting are selected for further direct negotiation [17,18]. Pre-qualiﬁcation criteria are a way to check the compatibility between the ﬁrms, and thus, it should be designed to reﬂect the unique entities of the relationship [39]. In addition to the evaluation and selection methodology, making early procurement decisions also has an important impact on project performance [65]. It not only allows suppliers to bring ideas to the design process and detect errors as early as possible, but also permits contractors to better plan construction processes [66]. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 10 of 20 Objectives alignment enable SC participants to work collectively in order to pursue common goals. Without objectives alignment, project actors’ efforts may clash with one another or may not be compatible with the holistic project goals [17]. Therefore, mutual objectives should be established by maximizing mutual interests [18], nurturing a win- win scenario that will beneﬁt everyone in the project [17]. Reaching a uniﬁed vision is a fundamental integrating mechanism that supports the creation of common a group identity and promotes active participation of partners [20], as all of them share responsibility for dealing with problems and maintaining relationships [10]. This full involvement of partners and the commitment to forming long-term relationships are essential ingredients for success [14]. Indeed, a long-term focus is fundamental to achieve the mutual beneﬁts in SCM (e.g., improved quality and ﬂexibility of operations), as it can provide higher value of cooperation and better exploration of knowledge [20]. As top managers are the ones who decide the business direction of an organization and the length of commitment to the supply chain, their support is of paramount importance for effective SC relationships [10]. Trust is an essential prerequisite to enable collaboration and co-prosperity between SC partners [7]. As deﬁned by Li et al. [71], trust is the ‘psychological expectation about the behavior of opponents or organizations’. In other words, it is about having the reliance and conﬁdence that the trustee will do what is expected, with the expected standard, without intentionally harming the trustor [72]. Among the many factors that inﬂuence trust, Khalfan et al. [73] highlighted honest communication, reliance and delivery of outcomes. According to the authors, SC participants have to be open to share important information in an honest way and rely on each other compromises. Those who are more competent to deliver successfully the outcome of a project are more likely to be trusted. Building up mutual trust is necessary to modernize complex and highly fragmented CSCs [20]. Moreover, high levels of trust among SC participants allows decisive and ﬂexible action in critical situations [5]. In an industry increasingly exposed to uncertainty, where unexpected problems are almost inevitable, trust liberates participants to pursue courses of action with conﬁdence in each other ’s, enhancing greater agility, informality and morale in relationships [72]. Collaboration is the basis for good working relationships among participants and en- sures supply chain efﬁciency and responsiveness [10]. It implies leaving behind adversarial relationships to embrace an integrated team culture [18], in which an emphasis on group effort prevails over individual efforts and rewards [6]. If things go wrong, energy is not wasted on looking for someone to blame. Instead, solutions are developed in a concurrent style [17]. In a collaborative supply chain, partners work together in an integrated and coordinated way in order to accomplish collective goals and to achieve mutual beneﬁts [1]. This does not mean that relationships with every partner have to be collaborative, but efforts should focus on developing stronger ties with the more strategic ones and managing weaker ties through standardized practices [6]. The development of a more collaborative culture strongly depends on effective communication among SC partners, ensuring good and reliable ﬂows of information [14]. However, under traditional contracts, there is often an unwillingness among SC participants to share information [21], affecting the formation of long-term relationships [10]. Information sharing reduces supply chain uncertainty and provides the possibility to anticipate situations [28], driving all the project phases and enabling correct and in time decision making [20]. An open and effective communication is crucial to obtain competitive advantages. It minimizes errors, reworks and schedule delays [10]. Additionally, it facilitates eliminating learning barriers, allowing participants to acquire knowledge, to innovate and to learn from the best business practices [74,80]. Conﬂicts among supply chain partners, which generally bring tension and lead to bad relationships, are hardly avoidable in the construction industry [10]. Therefore, early warning mechanisms should be established in order to anticipate potential problems. Furthermore, developing protocols for effective joint problem solving, continuous im- provement and sharing learning mechanisms are essential not only to solve problems as early as possible but also to avoid the same problems to come again [14,18]. Unclear risk Buildings 2021, 11, 569 11 of 20 allocation is one of the roots problems of much litigation. Sharing risk and beneﬁts is an SC commitment to share either proﬁts or losses, being a motivation to achieve common goals [10]. A deep understanding of the key SC risks is pivotal to formulate more realistic plans and expectations. After estimating the impacts that they may cause on project ob- jectives, partners can better allocate the risks through the entire supply chain [44]. Risks should be allocated to the parties who can best manage it, offering appropriate rewards. That is, return should be always be balanced against the effort [18]. 3.2.4. Best Practices Five elements are included in this subject area, i.e., ‘continuous improvement’, ‘lean thinking’, ‘offsite manufacturing’, ‘just-in-time’ and ‘sustainability’. Continuous improve- ment refers to the continuous systematic planning and process development to achieve long-term performance improvement. It is not a one-off project initiative, and therefore, requires a joint effort of supply chain partners aiming to achieve the best value through long-term relationships [11]. Performance measurements are an important enabler of con- tinuous improvement, making it possible to set some clear targets [87]. By comparing their performance against predeﬁned goals, past performance or the ‘best practice’ performance, organizations can continuously learn and improve their processes [17], identifying the areas that need improvement and not adding value works that can be eliminated [10]. In this direction, lean thinking, a management approach inﬂuenced by the Toyota production system and widely recognized in many different industrial settings to improve supply chain performance, has been gradually adopted by the construction industry [15]. According to the Lean Enterprise Institute [119], its core objective is to maximize customer value while minimizing waste, considering waste as any effort that does not add value to the ﬁnal product from the customer ’s point of view [75]. This includes material-related waste, to which the word waste predominantly refers in construction, but also waste as- sociated with inputs such as workforce, time and equipment (e.g., activity start delays, rework, unused employee creativity, long approval process, etc.) [90]. The core principles of lean thinking within the construction industry include waste reduction, process focus in production planning and control, end customer focus, continuous improvements, co- operative relationships and systems perspective [15]. To implement them, the industry adopted lean tools and techniques from manufacturing, such as Value Stream Mapping and Six Sigma, but also developed speciﬁcally conceived methods, such as the Last Planner System [91]. Lean thinking proves to be important to improve project performance in terms of time, cost and quality. Moreover, when integrated with SCM, with supply chain partners collaborating with each other, the opportunities to minimize waste and maximize value are much greater [66]. Both offsite manufacturing and just-in-time are considered central practices for waste reduction in lean thinking [15]. Notwithstanding, these two practices have also attracted the attention of practitioners and researchers apart from the lean literature and are, therefore, discussed in detail. There are various terms associated with offsite manufacturing (OSM), such as prefabrication, preassembly and modularization [4]. In this paper, OMS refers to production systems in which standardized building components, elements or units are prefabricated in factory-based production environments before being shipped for subsequent onsite installation [51,66]. By moving traditionally onsite operations to areas under controlled conditions, OSM can lead to signiﬁcant beneﬁts such as construction time reduction, consistent quality, higher safety performance, improvements in constructability and a decrease in environmental impact [4]. However, shifting activities to remote locations also requires a higher level of integration among partners [57], such as manufacturing, transportation, inventory management and assembly sequences, which need to be carefully coordinated [51]. In this regard, just-in-time is a supply strategy that advocates smaller but more frequent deliveries to the construction site [15]. Its objective is to synchronize the delivery of materials with the assembly to minimize material buffers [41,92]. By doing this, just-in-time contributes to eliminating waste caused by overproduction, waiting time, Buildings 2021, 11, 569 12 of 20 transportation, stocks and second handling of materials, generating positive effects for both suppliers and contractors [93]. Sustainability, in its three-fold meaning (i.e., economic, environmental and social), is an increasingly important issue for the construction industry [43,95,96]. Environmental policies and customer concerns are stimulating the entire construction supply chain, a major contributor to environmental pollution, to adopt sustainability practices to minimize the negative consequences of project activities on environments while maximizing contribution to economics and society [97–100]. Sustainability practices can be distinguished between core and facilitating practices [45]. Core practices cover the major stages of the construction supply chain, including design, purchasing, transportation, construction and end-of-life management. These practices involve considerations such as the development of green building materials [101], prudent use of natural resources [16], the adoption of offsite- prefabrication [4], waste management planning [102,103] and reverse logistics [104,105], among many others. On the other hand, facilitating practices, which support core practices, consist of environmental management systems and certiﬁcations (e.g., policies, assess- ments, etc.), environmental training, environmental auditing and green related research and development. The literature indicates that sustainability is beneﬁcial for the environ- ment, generates cost savings and improves organizational performance, such as enhanced sales revenue and market share [100,106]. To that end, a strategic orientation towards sustainability from one company is not enough for that company to be fully sustainable, but an all-encompassing effort is needed. As highlighted by Pero et al. [95], sustainability is not a matter of a single company but a matter of the supply chain. Collaboration between supply chain partners and along the construction stages is necessary for achieving a fully sustainable behavior [81,99,107]. 3.2.5. Organizational Behavior This last subject area comprises just one practice, namely ‘information and communica- tion technology integration’. Information and communication technology (ICT) delivers an environment within which supply chain members have greater accessibility to one another and can conveniently retrieve or send information at any time and in any place [12,17]. Therefore, it plays a key role to ensure consistent and efﬁcient information management [5] and to enhance communication and coordination within the supply chain [6], [115]. ICT impacts both on technical and managerial sides boosting the effectiveness and efﬁciency of designing and managing projects [20]. Building information modeling (BIM), an “object- based and multidisciplinary approach aimed at facilitating collaboration between parties and the integration of object-related information over the entire life cycle of an asset” [42], is one of the most popular and increasingly important technologies [39]. BIM adoption has become a paradigm shift in the construction industry, increasing productivity, reducing failure costs and fostering new ways of collaboration [42,57,59,66,103]. BIM related appli- cations were identiﬁed in almost all the previously discussed elements, corroborating the idea that this technology is rapidly transforming the construction industry [49]. Recent trends have been directed towards exploring new ways of capturing and synchronizing real-time information with BIM. This entails integrating BIM with other technologies, such as RFID [59], geographic information systems [19,50,67], web map service [49] and internet of things [61], to improve supply chain transparency, visibility and traceability, thus making supply chains more agile, ﬂexible and resilient. Yet, to take advantage of ICT, consistent adoption of these technologies along the supply chain is required [39]. Considering that the construction supply chain is formed by many small- and medium-sized enterprises, facing the challenge of diffusing these new technologies should be a priority [20,39,72]. In particular, issues with costs, compatibility and interoperability, lack of awareness and suppliers’ reluctance to adopt needs to be managed [39]. Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21 an “object-based and multidisciplinary approach aimed at facilitating collaboration be- tween parties and the integration of object-related information over the entire life cycle of an asset” [42], is one of the most popular and increasingly important technologies [39]. BIM adoption has become a paradigm shift in the construction industry, increasing productivity, reducing failure costs and fostering new ways of collaboration [42,57,59,66,103]. BIM related applications were identified in almost all the previously dis- cussed elements, corroborating the idea that this technology is rapidly transforming the construction industry [49]. Recent trends have been directed towards exploring new ways of capturing and synchronizing real-time information with BIM. This entails integrating BIM with other technologies, such as RFID [59], geographic information systems [19,50,67], web map service [49] and internet of things [61], to improve supply chain trans- parency, visibility and traceability, thus making supply chains more agile, flexible and resilient. Yet, to take advantage of ICT, consistent adoption of these technologies along the supply chain is required [39]. Considering that the construction supply chain is formed by many small- and medium-sized enterprises, facing the challenge of diffusing these new technologies should be a priority [20,39,72]. In particular, issues with costs, compatibility Buildings 2021, 11, 569 13 of 20 and interoperability, lack of awareness and suppliers’ reluctance to adopt needs to be managed [39]. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion A total of 108 articles formed the final sample of this review. The majority was fo- A total of 108 articles formed the ﬁnal sample of this review. The majority was focused cused on specific topics regarding just one subject area (i.e., 55% contributed to only one on speciﬁc topics regarding just one subject area (i.e., 55% contributed to only one core core element and 7% to more than one core element). Nearly 27% of the articles contrib- element and 7% to more than one core element). Nearly 27% of the articles contributed to uted to two subject areas and the last 11% contributed to more than two subject areas. two subject areas and the last 11% contributed to more than two subject areas. Neither of Neither of them concurrently discussed elements included in the five subject areas. This them concurrently discussed elements included in the ﬁve subject areas. This conﬁrms the confirms the point made by [26] that most studies focus on specific areas and reinforces point made by [26] that most studies focus on speciﬁc areas and reinforces the research gap: the research gap: there is a clear need to present a total solution for SCM in the construc- there is a clear need to present a total solution for SCM in the construction industry. The tion industry. The review of research into core concepts and practices underpinning SCM review of research into core concepts and practices underpinning SCM in the construction in the construction industry, as identified through the systematic review procedures, industry, as identiﬁed through the systematic review procedures, coded into elements coded into elements and classified into subject areas according to Croom et al.’s [27] and classiﬁed into subject areas according to Croom et al.’s [27] framework, produced framework, produced a comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge in this a comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge in this area (see Table 1). It area (see Table 1). It integrates different perspectives and contributions made by the extant integrates different perspectives and contributions made by the extant literature over the literature over the years to present a global perspective of SCM in the construction indus- years to present a global perspective of SCM in the construction industry. Figure 7 shows try. Figure 7 shows the number of articles that contributed to each subject area. the number of articles that contributed to each subject area. Figure 7.Figure Numb7. er of arti Number cles of th articles at contribu thatted contributed to each suto bjec each t area subject . Note: So area. me article Note: Some s cove articles r more than o cover mor ne subject area e . than one subject area. The first subject area, strategic management, brought together the elements that pro- The ﬁrst subject area, strategic management, brought together the elements that mote a strategic orientation toward SCM adoption. The results show that effective imple- promote a strategic orientation toward SCM adoption. The results show that effective im- mentation of SCM requires defining a strategy that takes a systems approach to view the plementation of SCM requires deﬁning a strategy that takes a systems approach to view the supply chain as a single entity. Intra-firm and inter-firm capabilities must be synchronized supply chain as a single entity. Intra-ﬁrm and inter-ﬁrm capabilities must be synchronized and converge into a unified force in pursuit of customer value [120]. Findings also suggest and converge into a uniﬁed force in pursuit of customer value [120]. Findings also suggest that this strategic perspective requires firms to have proper capabilities and motivation to that this strategic perspective requires ﬁrms to have proper capabilities and motivation to embrace change. These insights echo the previous work of Esper et al. [121], who discussed the concept of supply chain orientation as an antecedent to SCM. According to the authors, supply chain-oriented organizations place strategic emphasis on systemic, integrated SCM, and support this emphasis with an organizational structure (e.g., employees with key SCM skills, metrics to facilitate SC alignment and motivation, etc.) that capitalizes on this strategy. The following subject area, logistics, can be traced back into the origins of SCM and relates to the effective management of materials and information ﬂows [120,122]. The sig- niﬁcant representativeness of materials transportation in total costs has spurred scholarly research into this topic. As presented by [123], numerous models to facilitate decisions that play important roles in the planning and control of material ﬂows were identiﬁed in the literature. Moreover, ﬁndings suggest that the industry has started its own development and experimentation of new technologies intended to enhance real-time integration of material and information ﬂows. These applications, as highlighted by [124], could help to solve many of the shortcomings of traditional logistics and improve construction qual- ity. Coherently with the work of [125], the review also pointed to efﬁciency potentials in expanding the scope of logistics management beyond the individual construction site to in- clude coordination across supply chains and construction sites. Although such approaches present challenges in terms of more advanced coordination amongst the actors involved, the advancement of new technologies is argued to open up for new ways of organizing the work more efﬁciently [55]. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 14 of 20 Relationships, associated with the management of the interface relationships within and between various supply chain members, are another key aspect of SCM [122]. As deﬁned by [126], the focus of supply chain management is upon the management of relationships to deliver better customer value at less cost to the supply chain as a whole. This involves recognizing that through cooperation and proper relationship management, the ‘whole can be greater than the sum of its parts’ [126]. In this direction, the review reveals the grounding elements to change from the traditional adversarial to collaborative supply chain relationships. In other words, our ﬁndings suggest that procurement, objectives alignment, top management support and long-term commitment, trust, collaboration, communication, problem solving and risk sharing are the elements laying the foundation for good relationships among the SC members. They provide guidance as antecedents that need to be in place to obtain success in managing relationships. Notwithstanding, evidence suggests that there is no generic approach to pursue supply chain relationship management. This implication is consistent with previous studies of [127,128], who indicated that in order to fully exploit joint opportunities, each relationship has to be managed according to speciﬁc circumstances, such as the importance of the partner to the business. When it comes to best practices, there were ﬁve main points of convergence: contin- uous improvement, lean thinking, offsite manufacturing, just-in-time and sustainability. Notably, due to the increasing sustainability requirements of the industry [2], sustainability has become the most popular research theme. The Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals [129] contends that best practice refers to a process or group of processes recognized as the best method for conducting an action. Best practices are the cause of best performance and provide opportunities for gaining strategic, operational and ﬁnancial advantages. Accordingly, the identiﬁed practices have already attracted numerous research efforts as individual and disjointed supply chain tactics. However, ﬁndings also recognize the importance to integrate them with supply chain management. That is, compared to best practices in isolation, best practices are more successful when coordinated over the supply chain. For example, refs. [66,95] demonstrated, respectively, a step-wise improvement of the efﬁciency of lean practices and sustainability when integrated with supply chain management. Hence, the review not only identiﬁed the main best practices addressed by the construction supply chain literature for achieving performance improvement, but also indicates that combining them with supply chain collaboration is essential to foster results. Finally, information and communication technology integration was the only element identiﬁed in the organizational behavior subject area. Being a major driver to improve information sharing, communication and coordination across the multiple SC participants, ICT was deemed as a crucial enabler to supply chain management. A recent report by McKinsey Global Institute [2] urged the widespread adoption of ICT as a way to transform the effectiveness and efﬁciency of construction. In accordance with [130], the reviewed evidence revealed that the industry is increasingly embracing BIM as the dominant tech- nology, which is acting as a platform for construction innovation and digitization. In particular, [130] showed that BIM, internet of things (IoT) and big data (BD) are the main drivers of the fourth industrial revolution in construction and provide signiﬁcant beneﬁts, such as improved real-time monitoring, data exchange and construction planning, among others. However, in order to achieve the expected beneﬁts, the results highlighted that the ICT gap between supply chain parties stills needs to be minimized. Hence, this paper reinforces the recent work of [124] about the importance of diffusing ICT technologies, mostly developed by the larger organizations, also among the average construction ﬁrms, with low-proﬁt margins and spending power. 5. Conclusions A proper and holistic understanding of context-speciﬁc core concepts and practices underpinning SCM is recognized as essential in order to foster its implementation in the construction industry. However, studies continue to focus on very speciﬁc ﬁelds of research and fail to present a total solution. This paper responded to this research gap by Buildings 2021, 11, 569 15 of 20 conducting a systematic literature review. Following a sophisticated protocol, 108 relevant articles from ISI Web of Science were collected. These articles were analyzed statistically regarding the publication year, journal research area, geographical location and keywords co-occurrence. Going beyond the scope of existing studies, the full range of perspectives and contributions incorporated from distinct ﬁelds of research were analyzed to capture the documented core concepts and practices underlying SCM in the construction industry. As a result, a set of 19 core elements were revealed and classiﬁed into ﬁve different SCM subject areas, namely ‘strategic management’, ‘logistics’, ‘relationships’, ‘best practices’ and ‘organizational behavior ’. This study made signiﬁcant contributions. It delineated the SCM domain in the construction industry, providing a structured and comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge. In addition, every revealed core element was discussed in detail, providing some valuable insights about its speciﬁc importance and how they are related to the broader SCM ﬁeld. The review also pointed that the trend goes towards more external collaboration, and highlighted the challenges that need to be addressed. Hence, this study serves as a frame of reference for practitioners and researchers in the ﬁeld. It has considerable potential to accelerate the understanding and implementation of SCM within the construction industry. In particular, this paper offers some sense of assistance to construction managers in highlighting the core CSCM elements that matter most. While not suggesting a prescriptive step-by-step approach, managers can use the results to identify and prioritize core elements that could be addressed and determine a strategy to enhance the possibilities of the successful implementation of SCM. Every study has limitations, and this review is certainly no exception. ISI Web of Science was chosen as the only database. Thus, the data coverage might not be all-inclusive, as the consideration of other research databases (e.g., Scopus) could have led to the inclusion of additional articles. Additionally, the research was restricted to peer reviewed articles published in English, leaving aside other sources (e.g., books, conference publications) that are also part of the SCM body of knowledge and documents published in other languages. Finally, the inclusion and exclusion criteria may have inadvertently excluded some important studies. These limitations could serve as fertile areas for further research. Replications of this research may test and validate with empirical data the proposed ﬁndings. Other research directions could include exploring cause–effect relationships between revealed core elements and developing tools to measure elements maturity level. These approaches will support organizations to analyze where improvement is needed and infer priorities to develop strategies to foster SCM implementation. Author Contributions: W.P.S. and L.C.B.D.B.M. have equally contributed to this study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Xue, X.; Li, X.; Shen, Q.; Wang, Y. An agent-based framework for supply chain coordination in construction. Autom. Constr. 2005, 14, 413–430. [CrossRef] 2. McKinsey Global Institute. Reinventing Construction: A Route to Higher Productivity; McKinsey & Company: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017. 3. Yeo, K.; Ning, J. Managing uncertainty in major equipment procurement in engineering projects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2006, 171, 123–134. [CrossRef] 4. Durdyev, S.; Ismail, S. Offsite manufacturing in the construction industry for productivity improvement. Eng. Manag. J. 2019, 31, 35–46. [CrossRef] 5. Lönngren, H.; Rosenkranz, C.; Kolbe, H. Aggregated construction supply chains: Success factors in implementation of strategic partnerships. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 404–411. [CrossRef] Buildings 2021, 11, 569 16 of 20 6. Fulford, R.; Standing, C. Construction industry productivity and the potential for collaborative practice. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 315–326. [CrossRef] 7. Costa, F.; Granja, A.D.; Fregola, A.; Picchi, F.; Staudacher, A.P. Understanding relative importance of barriers to improving the customer-supplier relationship within construction supply chains using DEMATEL technique. J. Manag. Eng. 2019, 35, 04019002. [CrossRef] 8. Tah, J.H. Towards an agent-based construction supply network modelling and simulation platform. Autom. Constr. 2005, 14, 353–359. [CrossRef] 9. Behera, P.; Mohanty, R.; Prakash, A. Understanding construction supply chain management. Prod. Plan. Control. 2015, 26, 1332–1350. [CrossRef] 10. Kim, S.-Y.; Nguyen, V.T. A structural model for the impact of supply chain relationship traits on project performance in construction. Prod. Plan. Control. 2018, 29, 170–183. [CrossRef] 11. Broft, R.D.; Badi, S.M.; Pryke, S. Towards supply chain maturity in construction. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2016, 6, 187–204. [CrossRef] 12. Abedi, M.; Fathi, M.; Mirasa, A.; Rawai, N. Integrated collaborative tools for precast supply chain management. Sci. Iran. 2016, 23, 429–448. [CrossRef] 13. Bankvall, L.; Bygballe, L.E.; Dubois, A.; Jahre, M. Interdependence in supply chains and projects in construction. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 385–393. [CrossRef] 14. Briscoe, G.; Dainty, A. Construction supply chain integration: An elusive goal? Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2005, 10, 319–326. [CrossRef] 15. Eriksson, P.E. Improving construction supply chain collaboration and performance: A lean construction pilot project. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 394–403. [CrossRef] 16. Adetunji, I.; Price, A.D.F.; Fleming, P. Achieving sustainability in the construction supply chain. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2008, 161, 161–172. [CrossRef] 17. Love, P.E.D.; Irani, Z.; Edwards, D.J. A seamless supply chain management model for construction. Supply Chain Manag. 2004, 9, 43–56. [CrossRef] 18. Meng, X.; Sun, M.; Jones, M. Maturity model for supply chain relationships in construction. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 97–105. [CrossRef] 19. Irizarry, J.; Karan, E.P.; Jalaei, F. Integrating BIM and GIS to improve the visual monitoring of construction supply chain management. Autom. Constr. 2013, 31, 241–254. [CrossRef] 20. Aloini, D.; Dulmin, R.; Mininno, V.; Ponticelli, S. Key antecedents and practices for Supply Chain Management adoption in project contexts. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1301–1316. [CrossRef] 21. Young, D.A.; Haas, C.T.; Goodrum, P.; Caldas, C. Improving construction supply network visibility by using automated materials locating and tracking technology. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 976–984. [CrossRef] 22. Xue, X.; Wang, Y.; Shen, Q.; Yu, X. Coordination mechanisms for construction supply chain management in the Internet environment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 150–157. [CrossRef] 23. Arantes, A.; Ferreira, L.; Costa, A.A. Is the construction industry aware of supply chain management? The Portuguese contractors’ perspective. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2015, 20, 404–414. [CrossRef] 24. Shishodia, A.; Verma, P.; Dixit, V. Supplier evaluation for resilient project driven supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 129, 465–478. [CrossRef] 25. Dallasega, P.; Rojas, R.A.; Bruno, G.; Rauch, E. An agile scheduling and control approach in ETO construction supply chains. Comput. Ind. 2019, 112, 103122. [CrossRef] 26. Tiwari, R.; Shepherd, H.; Pandey, R.K. Supply chain management in construction: A literature survey. Int. J. Manag. Res. Bus. Strateg. 2014, 3, 7–28. 27. Croom, S.; Romano, P.; Giannakis, M. Supply chain management: An analytical framework for critical literature review. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2000, 6, 67–83. [CrossRef] 28. Isatto, E.L.; Azambuja, M.; Formoso, C.T. The role of commitments in the management of construction make-to-order supply chains. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014053. [CrossRef] 29. Terregino, C.; Toffan, A.; Cilloni, F.; Monne, I.; Bertoli, E.; Castellanos, L.; Amarin, N.; Mancin, M.; Capua, I. Evaluation of the protection induced by avian inﬂuenza vaccines containing a 1994 Mexican H5N2 LPAI seed strain against a 2008 Egyptian H5N1 HPAI virus belonging to clade 2.2.1 by means of serological and in vivo tests. Avian Pathol. 2010, 39, 215–222. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Durach, C.F.; Kembro, J.; Wieland, A. A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2017, 53, 67–85. [CrossRef] 31. Thomé, A.M.T.; Scavarda, L.F.; Scavarda, A.J. Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Prod. Plan. Control. 2016, 27, 408–420. [CrossRef] 32. Tranﬁeld, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [CrossRef] 33. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Buildings 2021, 11, 569 17 of 20 34. Su, H.-N.; Lee, P.-C. Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A ﬁrst look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics 2010, 85, 65–79. [CrossRef] 35. Jin, R.; Zou, Y.; Gidado, K.; Ashton, P.; Painting, N. Scientometric analysis of BIM-based research in construction engineering and management. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 1750–1776. [CrossRef] 36. Costantino, N.; Dotoli, M.; Falagario, M.; Fanti, M.P.; Iacobellis, G. A decision support system framework for purchasing management in supply chains. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2009, 24, 278–290. [CrossRef] 37. Cheng, J.C.; Law, K.H.; Bjornsson, H.; Jones, A.; Sriram, R.D. Modeling and monitoring of construction supply chains. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2010, 24, 435–455. [CrossRef] 38. Meng, X. Proactive management in the context of construction supply chains. Prod. Plan. Control. 2019, 31, 527–539. [CrossRef] 39. Pala, M.; Edum-Fotwe, F.; Ruikar, K.; Doughty, N.; Peters, C. Contractor practices for managing extended supply chain tiers. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2014, 19, 31–45. [CrossRef] 40. Chileshe, N.; Rameezdeen, R.; Hosseini, M.R.; Lehmann, S. Barriers to implementing reverse logistics in South Australian construction organisations. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2015, 20, 179–204. [CrossRef] 41. Childerhouse, P.; Lewis, J.; Naim, M.; Towill, D.R. Re-engineering a construction supply chain: A material ﬂow control approach. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2003, 8, 395–406. [CrossRef] 42. Siebelink, S.; Voordijk, J.T.; Adriaanse, A. Developing and testing a tool to evaluate BIM maturity: Sectoral analysis in the Dutch construction industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 05018007. [CrossRef] 43. Upstill-Goddard, J.; Glass, J.; Dainty, A.; Nicholson, I. Implementing sustainability in small and medium-sized construction ﬁrms. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2016, 23, 407–427. [CrossRef] 44. Rudolf, C.A.; Spinler, S. Key risks in the supply chain of large scale engineering and construction projects. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2018, 23, 336–350. [CrossRef] 45. Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V. Green supply chain management: An empirical investigation on the construction sector. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2017, 22, 58–81. [CrossRef] 46. Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V. Environmental supply chain management in the construction sector: Theoretical underpinnings. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2018, 21, 502–528. [CrossRef] 47. Vidalakis, C.; Tookey, E.J.; Sommerville, J. Demand uncertainty in construction supply chains: A discrete event simulation study. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2013, 64, 1194–1204. [CrossRef] 48. Meng, J.; Yan, J.; Xue, B.; Fu, J.; He, N. Reducing construction material cost by optimizing buy-in decision that accounts the ﬂexibility of non-critical activities. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2018, 25, 1092–1108. [CrossRef] 49. Chen, P.-H.; Nguyen, T.C. A BIM-WMS integrated decision support tool for supply chain management in construction. Autom. Constr. 2019, 98, 289–301. [CrossRef] 50. Deng, Y.; Gan, V.J.L.; Das, M.; Cheng, J.C.P.; Anumba, C. Integrating 4D BIM and GIS for construction supply chain management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019016. [CrossRef] 51. Hsu, P.-Y.; Aurisicchio, M.; Angeloudis, P. Risk-averse supply chain for modular construction projects. Autom. Constr. 2019, 106, 102898. [CrossRef] 52. Ahmadian, F.F.A.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Rashidi, T.H.; Waller, S.T. Accounting for transport times in planning off-site shipment of construction materials. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04015050. [CrossRef] 53. Jaskowski, ´ P.; Sobotka, A.; Czarnigowska, A. Decision model for selecting supply sources of road construction aggregates. Eng. Econ. 2014, 25, 13–20. [CrossRef] 54. Liu, J.; Lu, M. Constraint programming approach to optimizing project schedules under material logistics and crew availability constraints. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018049. [CrossRef] 55. Dubois, A.; Hulthén, K.; Sundquist, V. Organising logistics and transport activities in construction. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2019, 30, 620–640. [CrossRef] 56. Ala-Risku, T.; Kärkkäinen, M. Material delivery problems in construction projects: A possible solution. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006, 104, 19–29. [CrossRef] 57. Babic, ˇ N.C.; Rebolj, D.; Nekrep-Perc, M.; Podbreznik, P. Supply-chain transparency within industrialized construction projects. Comput. Ind. 2014, 65, 345–353. [CrossRef] 58. Hinkka, V.; Tätilä, J. RFID tracking implementation model for the technical trade and construction supply chains. Autom. Constr. 2013, 35, 405–414. [CrossRef] 59. Lu, W.; Huang, G.Q.; Li, H. Scenarios for applying RFID technology in construction project management. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 101–106. [CrossRef] 60. Chen, J.; Fang, Y.; Cho, Y.K.; Kim, C. Principal axes descriptor for automated construction-equipment classiﬁcation from point clouds. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2017, 31, 04016058. [CrossRef] 61. Niu, Y.; Lu, W.; Liu, D.; Chen, K.; Anumba, C.; Huang, G.G. An SCO-enabled logistics and supply chain–management system in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04016103. [CrossRef] 62. Shahvand, E.; Sebt, M.H.; Banki, M.T. Developing fuzzy expert system for supplier and subcontractor evaluation in construction industry. Sci. Iran. 2016, 23, 842–855. [CrossRef] 63. Kayhan, B.M.; Cebi, S.; Kahraman, C. Determining and prioritizing main factors of supplier reliability in construction industry. J. Mult. Log. Soft Comput. 2019, 32, 111–134. Buildings 2021, 11, 569 18 of 20 64. Matic, ´ B.; Jovanovic, ´ S.; Das, D.K.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Stevic, ´ Ž.; Sremac, S.; Marinkovic, ´ M. A new hybrid MCDM model: Sustainable supplier selection in a construction company. Symmetry 2019, 11, 353. [CrossRef] 65. Azambuja, M.M.; Ponticelli, S.; O’Brien, W.J. Strategic procurement practices for the industrial supply chain. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, 06014005. [CrossRef] 66. Meng, X. Lean management in the context of construction supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 3784–3798. [CrossRef] 67. Wang, T.-K.; Zhang, Q.; Chong, H.-Y.; Wang, X. Integrated supplier selection framework in a resilient construction supply chain: An approach via Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Grey Relational Analysis (GRA). Sustainability 2017, 9, 289. [CrossRef] 68. Ilie-Zudor, E.; Monostori, L. Agent-based framework for pre-contractual evaluation of participants in project-delivery supply- chains. Assem. Autom. 2009, 29, 137–153. [CrossRef] 69. Liang, R.; Chong, H.-Y. A hybrid group decision model for green supplier selection: A case study of megaprojects. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 1712–1734. [CrossRef] 70. Bohari, A.A.M.; Skitmore, M.; Xia, B.; Teo, M. Green oriented procurement for building projects: Preliminary ﬁndings from Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 148, 690–700. [CrossRef] 71. Li, Y.; He, N.; Li, H.; Liu, Z.; Qi, J. Inﬂuencing factors on inter-organizational trust asymmetry behavior in construction projects. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 28, 308–331. [CrossRef] 72. Chalker, M.; Loosemore, M. Trust and productivity in Australian construction projects: A subcontractor perspective. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2016, 23, 192–210. [CrossRef] 73. Khalfan, M.; McDermott, P.; Swan, W. Building trust in construction projects. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2007, 12, 385–391. [CrossRef] 74. Hao, C.; Du, Q.; Huang, Y.; Shao, L.; Yan, Y. Evolutionary game analysis on knowledge-sharing behavior in the construction supply chain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5319. [CrossRef] 75. Arbulu, R.; Tommelein, I.; Walsh, K.; Hershauer, J. Value stream analysis of a re-engineered construction supply chain. Build. Res. Inf. 2003, 31, 161–171. [CrossRef] 76. Xie, C.; Wu, D.; Luo, J.; Hu, X. A case study of multi-team communications in construction design under supply chain partnering. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 363–370. [CrossRef] 77. Ireland, P. Managing appropriately in construction power regimes: Understanding the impact of regularity in the project environment. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2004, 9, 372–382. [CrossRef] 78. Aaltonen, K.; Turkulainen, V. Creating relational capital through socialization in project alliances. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 1387–1421. [CrossRef] 79. Vallet-Bellmunt, T.; Rivera-Torres, P. Integration: Attitudes, patterns and practices. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2013, 18, 308–323. [CrossRef] 80. Vicedo, J.C.; Mula, J.; Capó, J. A social network-based organizational model for improving knowledge management in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2011, 16, 379–388. [CrossRef] 81. Woo, C.; Kim, M.G.; Chung, Y.; Rho, J.J. Suppliers’ communication capability and external green integration for green and ﬁnancial performance in Korean construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 483–493. [CrossRef] 82. Wang, Q.; Shi, Q. The incentive mechanism of knowledge sharing in the industrial construction supply chain based on a supervisory mechanism. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 989–1003. [CrossRef] 83. Quang, H.T.; Hara, Y. Risks and performance in supply chain: The push effect. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 1369–1388. [CrossRef] 84. Truong, H.Q.; Hara, Y. Supply chain risk management: Manufacturing- and service-oriented ﬁrms. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2018, 29, 218–239. [CrossRef] 85. Naderpajouh, N.; Hastak, M.; Gokhale, S.; Bayraktar, M.E.; Iyer, A.; Arif, F. Counterfeiting risk governance in the capital projects supply chain. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04014084. [CrossRef] 86. Shojaei, P.; Haeri, S.A.S. Development of supply chain risk management approaches for construction projects: A grounded theory approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 128, 837–850. [CrossRef] 87. Halman, J.I.M.; Voordijk, J.T. Balanced framework for measuring performance of supply chains in house building. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 1444–1450. [CrossRef] 88. Wickramatillake, C.D.; Koh, S.L.; Gunasekaran, A.; Arunachalam, S. Measuring performance within the supply chain of a large scale project. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2007, 12, 52–59. [CrossRef] 89. Zeng, W.; Wang, H.; Li, H.; Zhou, H.; Wu, P.; Le, Y. Incentive mechanisms for supplier development in mega construction projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2019, 66, 252–265. [CrossRef] 90. Bajjou, M.S.; Chaﬁ, A. Identifying and managing critical waste factors for lean construction projects. Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 32, 2–13. [CrossRef] 91. Tezel, A.; Koskela, L.; Aziz, Z. Current condition and future directions for lean construction in highways projects: A small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 267–286. [CrossRef] 92. Dallasega, P.; Rauch, E. Sustainable construction supply chains through synchronized production planning and control in engineer-to-order enterprises. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1888. [CrossRef] 93. Kong, L.; Li, H.; Luo, H.; Ding, L.; Zhang, X. Sustainable performance of just-in-time (JIT) management in time-dependent batch delivery scheduling of precast construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 684–701. [CrossRef] Buildings 2021, 11, 569 19 of 20 94. Lee, J.; Park, M.; Lee, H.-S.; Hyun, H. Classiﬁcation of modular building construction projects based on schedule-driven approach. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019031. [CrossRef] 95. Pero, M.; Moretto, A.; Bottani, E.; Bigliardi, B. Environmental collaboration for sustainability in the construction industry: An exploratory study in Italy. Sustainability 2017, 9, 125. [CrossRef] 96. Martinez, S.; Delgado, M.D.M.; Marin, R.M.; Alvarez, S. Organization environmental footprint through input-output analysis: A case study in the construction sector. J. Ind. Ecol. 2018, 23, 879–892. [CrossRef] 97. Hsueh, S.-L.; Yan, M.-R. A multimethodology contractor assessment model for facilitating green innovation: The view of energy and environmental protection. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 1–14. [CrossRef] 98. Wong, J.K.W.; Chan, J.K.S.; Wadu, M.J. Facilitating effective green procurement in construction projects: An empirical study of the enablers. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 859–871. [CrossRef] 99. Zhang, J.; Qi, X.; Liang, C. Tackling complexity in green contractor selection for mega infrastructure projects: A hesitant fuzzy linguistic MADM approach with considering group attitudinal character and attributes’ interdependency. Complexity 2018, 2018, 1–31. [CrossRef] 100. Li, Y.; Ding, R.; Sun, T. The drivers and performance of environmental practices in the Chinese construction industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 614. [CrossRef] 101. Shen, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, X. Key factors affecting green procurement in real estate development: A China study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 372–383. [CrossRef] 102. Freitas, L.A.R.U.; Magrini, A. Waste management in industrial construction: Investigating contributions from industrial ecology. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1251. [CrossRef] 103. Akinade, O.O.; Oyedele, L.O. Integrating construction supply chains within a circular economy: An ANFIS-based waste analytics system (A-WAS). J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 863–873. [CrossRef] 104. Chileshe, N.; Rameezdeen, R.; Hosseini, M.R.; Lehmann, S.; Udeaja, C. Analysis of reverse logistics implementation practices by South Australian construction organisations. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2016, 36, 332–356. [CrossRef] 105. Chileshe, N.; Jayasinghe, R.S.; Rameezdeen, R. Information ﬂow-centric approach for reverse logistics supply chains. Autom. Constr. 2019, 106, 102858. [CrossRef] 106. Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V. Green supply chain management: The case of the construction sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Prod. Plan. Control. 2017, 28, 1116–1138. [CrossRef] 107. Albino, V.; Berardi, U. Green buildings and organizational changes in Italian case studies. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2012, 21, 387–400. [CrossRef] 108. Ahmadian, F.F.A.; Rashidi, T.H.; Akbarnezhad, A.; Waller, S.T. BIM-enabled sustainability assessment of material supply decisions. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2017, 24, 668–695. [CrossRef] 109. da Rocha, C.G.; Sattler, M.A. A discussion on the reuse of building components in Brazil: An analysis of major social, economical and legal factors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 54, 104–112. [CrossRef] 110. Nasir, M.H.A.; Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.; Koh, S.; Yamoah, F. Comparing linear and circular supply chains: A case study from the construction industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 183, 443–457. [CrossRef] 111. Chileshe, N.; Rameezdeen, R.; Hosseini, M.R. Drivers for adopting reverse logistics in the construction industry: A qualitative study. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2016, 23, 134–157. [CrossRef] 112. Warren, J.D.; Chong, W.K.O.; Kim, C. Recycling construction and demolition waste for construction in Kansas City Metropolitan Area, Kansas and Missouri. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2007, 2011, 193–200. [CrossRef] 113. Ma, L.; Wang, L.; Skibniewski, M.J.; Gajda, W. An eco-innovative framework development for sustainable consumption and production in the construction industry. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2019, 25, 774–801. [CrossRef] 114. Xu, J.; Shi, Y.; Zhao, S. Reverse logistics network-based multiperiod optimization for construction and demolition waste disposal. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04018124. [CrossRef] 115. Tserng, H.P.; Dzeng, R.-J.; Lin, Y.-C.; Lin, S.-T. Mobile construction supply chain management using PDA and bar codes. Comput. Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2005, 20, 242–264. [CrossRef] 116. Costa, A.A.; Tavares, L.V. Social e-business and the Satellite Network model: Innovative concepts to improve collaboration in construction. Autom. Constr. 2012, 22, 387–397. [CrossRef] 117. Wang, L.-C.; Lin, Y.-C.; Lin, P.H. Dynamic mobile RFID-based supply chain control and management system in construction. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2007, 21, 377–390. [CrossRef] 118. Gadde, L.-E.; Dubois, A. Partnering in the construction industry—Problems and opportunities. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2010, 16, 254–263. [CrossRef] 119. Lean Enterprise Institute. What Is Lean? Available online: https://www.lean.org/whatslean/ (accessed on 30 May 2021). 120. Mentzer, J.T.; DeWitt, W.; Keebler, J.S.; Min, S.; Nix, N.W.; Smith, C.D.; Zacharia, Z.G. Deﬁning supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 2001, 22, 1–25. [CrossRef] 121. Esper, T.L.; Defee, C.C.; Mentzer, J.T. A framework of supply chain orientation. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2010, 21, 161–179. [CrossRef] 122. Stock, J.R.; Boyer, S.L.; Harmon, T. Research opportunities in supply chain management. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2010, 38, 32–41. [CrossRef] 123. Sarker, B.R.; Egbelu, P.J.; Liao, T.W.; Yu, J. Planning and design models for construction industry: A critical survey. Autom. Constr. 2012, 22, 123–134. [CrossRef] Buildings 2021, 11, 569 20 of 20 124. Jelodar, M.B.; Shu, F. Innovative use of low-cost digitisation for smart information systems in construction projects. Buildings 2021, 11, 270. [CrossRef] 125. El Moussaoui, S.; Lafhaj, Z.; Leite, F.; Fléchard, J.; Linéatte, B. Construction logistics centres proposing kitting service: Organization analysis and cost mapping. Buildings 2021, 11, 105. [CrossRef] 126. Christopher, M. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Adding Networks, 4th ed.; Financial Times Prentice Hall: Harlow, UK, 2011. 127. Cox, A.; Ireland, P. Managing construction supply chain: The common sense approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2002, 9, 409–416. [CrossRef] 128. Bemelmans, J.; Voordijk, H.; Vos, B.; Buter, J. Assessing buyer-supplier relationship management: Multiple case-study in the Dutch construction industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 163–176. [CrossRef] 129. CSCMP. Supply Chain Management: Terms and Glossary. Available online: https://cscmp.org/CSCMP/Academia/SCM_ Deﬁnitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms (accessed on 7 September 2021). 130. Begic, ´ H.; Galic, ´ M. A systematic review of construction 4.0 in the context of the BIM 4.0 premise. Buildings 2021, 11, 337. [CrossRef]

Journal

Buildings – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Nov 23, 2021

Keywords: construction industry; SCM; strategic management; logistics; relationships; best practices; organizational behavior

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Core Elements Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review

Core Elements Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Core Elements Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review

Core Elements Underlying Supply Chain Management in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review

References (88)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies