Color profile: Disabled

Composite Default screen

1133

A project managers level of satisfaction in

construction logistics
Hyounseung Jang, Jeffrey S. Russell, and June Seong Yi

Abstract: Customer satisfaction and continuous improvement are the fundamental goals of construction logistics. While
much research has been focusing on exploring the relationship between the contractors and the ultimate customers,
known as the owner, to improve the understanding of the significance of customer satisfaction, the need to examine the
relationship between material suppliers and contractors is highly in demand. The purpose of this study is to extend the
framework for construction material logistics in customer satisfaction from owner to project manager level. This paper
examines how construction logistics affect a project managers level of satisfaction. A survey established the general
importance that a project manager must place on the construction logistics. Accordingly, the most significantly correlated
factors in customer satisfaction were obtained from a project managers point of view. Two hundred twenty-three experienced
project managers provided valuable data to the study. Five important factors related to satisfaction were found through
interviews with project managers and a literature review. These included personnel, material flow, schedule adherence,
contractors organization, and information flow. The study results suggest that material flow and information flow are
worthy of the most attention. Satisfying the above factors will greatly improve the construction logistics that will, as a
result, immensely increase the project managers level of satisfaction.
Key words: construction logistics, customer satisfaction, project manager, survey.
Rsum : La satisfaction de la clientle et lamlioration continue sont les objectifs fondamentaux de la logistique en
construction. Bien que beaucoup de recherche cible la relation entre les entrepreneurs et le client en bout de ligne, ou
propritaires, afin damliorer la comprhension de limportance de la satisfaction des clients, le besoin dexaminer la
relation entre les fournisseurs de matriaux et les entrepreneurs est grandement en demande. Le but de la prsente
tude est dlargir le cadre de la logistique aux matriaux de construction pour englober la satisfaction des clients du
niveau du propritaire jusquau gestionnaire de projet. Le prsent article examine comment la logistique en construction
peut affecter le niveau de satisfaction dun gestionnaire de projet. Un sondage a tabli limportance gnrale quun
gestionnaire de projet doit accorder la logistique en construction. De mme, on a corrl les facteurs les plus
significatifs la satisfaction des clients, selon le gestionnaire de projet. Deux cent vingt-trois gestionnaires expriments
ont fourni des donns prcieuses ltude. Cinq facteurs importants relis la satisfaction ont t dcouverts durant
les entrevues avec les gestionnaires de projet et dans une revue de la littrature. Ce sont le personnel, lacheminement
des matriaux, le respect de lchancier, lorganisation de lentrepreneur et la circulation de linformation. Les rsultats
de ltude suggrent que lacheminement des matriaux et la circulation de linformation mritent le plus dattention.
En rpondant aux facteurs numrs plus haut, la logistique en construction sera grandement amliore ce qui, en retour,
augmentera grandement le niveau de satisfaction des gestionnaires de projet.

Mots cls : logistique en construction, satisfaction des clients, gestionnaire de projet, sondage.
[Traduit par la Rdaction] Jang et al. 1142

Introduction mental construction operations of facilities, inventory

Logistics is the part of the supply chain process that plans,
implements, and controls the efficient flow of goods, ser-
vices, and related information to fulfill customers require-
ments (CLM 1999). Efficient management of construction
material planning tasks requires an integrated approach to-
ward various logistical functions. In particular, the funda-
control, and communication planning need to be closely co-
ordinated. Thus, the role of the project manager (PM) who
executes these operations with all parties in a contract is
very important to the successful completion of a construc-
tion project. Overall understanding and proper planning of
the project are factors necessary to optimize satisfaction of
both the construction company and the customer.

Received 27 February 2003. Revision accepted 24 July 2003. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cjce.nrc.ca
on 18 December 2003.
H. Jang,1 J.S. Russell, and J.S. Yi. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Wisconsin-Madison,
2320 Engineering Hall, 1415 Enineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 30 April 2004.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: deanjang@hotmail.com).

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 30: 11331142 (2003) doi: 10.1139/L03-068 2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:13:52 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
1134
Fig. 1. Construction logistics tasks.
A senior-level manager briefs the PM on the project, so
that the PM can have full understanding of where the project
fits in the general scheme of things in the parent organiza-
tion and its priority related to other projects on the system
and to the routine work of the organization. The PM must
also get to know the client to ensure that the proper facilities
and any supplies required in the beginning of project process
are available when needed and also take care of the routine
details required to begin the project (Meredith and Mantel
1995).
Literature review
While customer satisfaction studies have not been under-
taken in the construction industry, the housing industry has
conducted such studies. Traditional construction manage-
ment studies of housing refurbishment (Holm and Brochner
1999) and home buyers (Torbica and Stroh 1999), have fo-
cused on the relationship between the customer and the con-
tractor. However, most of these studies have been undertaken
to characterize the relationship between the customer
(owner) and the construction companies. Compared with the
notable scarcity of investigations concerning customer satis-
faction in the field of construction, a rapidly growing num-
ber of studies in the service industries have been published
over the past few years. The results of the studies demon-
strate strong correlation between customer satisfaction, or
service quality, and economic returns (Holm 2000). Logis-
tics management and total quality management (TQM), in
general, appear to have many characteristics in common
with operational service expectations. To establish the posi-
tive correlation of logistics tasks and customer satisfaction,
operational service management is reviewed in this paper in
an attempt to identify principles with potential application to
construction logistics. The goal of this investigation is to
provide practical suggestions for the logistics by gathering
information based on previous reviews of construction mate-
rial logistics research.
Construction logistics
Logistics management research can be classified into
three broad perspectives: (i) competitive strategy, (ii) firm-
focused tactics, and (iii) operational efficiencies. Competi-
tive strategy issues have a long-term impact on the firm.
Firms that focus upon tactical issues operate in a shorter
time frame. Operational efficiencies involve day-to-day deci-
I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:13:59 PM
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003
sions that can be altered quickly (Ganeshan et al. 1999). The
construction industry is greatly concerned with aspects of
daily operations, which are typically operational decisions,
reflecting day-to-day operations up to 2 weeks ahead. The
construction industry attempts to optimize daily operations
of facilities through careful planning, organizing, directing,
and controlling activities before and during the construction.
In terms of construction logistics, multidisciplinary processes
are categorized as follows: (i) material supply, storage, process-
ing and handling; (ii) manpower supply; (iii) schedule con-
trol; (iv) site infrastructure and equipment location; (v) site
material flow management on a job site; and (vi) manage-
ment of information related to all physical and services
flows. Although implementation and operational service
management are significant aspects of construction logistics
that affect day-to-day operations, one must keep in mind that
logistics is rooted in senior-level decision making.
Logistics functions
In general, logistics functions in a construction firm can
be divided into supply logistics and site logistics. Figure 1
illustrates the construction logistics tasks. Supply logistics
are related to activities in the production process that are cy-
clic. These activities include specification of supply re-
sources (materials, equipment, and personpower), supply
planning, acquisition of resources, transport to a site and de-
livery, and storage control. Site logistics are related to physi-
cal flow, namely, planning, organizing, directing, and
controlling on-site processes. The management of handling
systems, safety equipment, site layout, defining activity se-
quence, and resolving conflicts among various production
teams related to the on-site activities are all part of site lo-
gistics (Fred and Francisco 1999). The most appropriate sys-
tem to describe the material logistic tasks is developed at
hierarchical levels at the point of interaction between inter-
nal and external systems. It should always be kept in mind
that the main objective of a logistics process is to meet the
customers requirements.
Jurans triple role and construction logistics
process
Every party in a process plays three roles: supplier, pro-
cessor, and customer. Juran (1988) defines this interchanging
role as the triple role concept. These three roles are carried
out at every level of the construction process corporate,
2003 NRC Canada
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
Jang et al.
Fig. 2. Jurans triple role and construction logistics process.
division, department, and individual. This triple role concept
is illustrated by the right-hand side of Fig. 2. The owner is a
customer of the designer. Using the designer, the owner pro-
cesses the design and supplies plans and specifications to the
constructor. In this process, the constructor becomes the cus-
tomer of the designer, who uses the designers plans and
specifications, processes the construction, and supplies the
completed facility to the owner. Traditionally, the roles of
the three parties have not been viewed this way, but this as-
sists in demonstrating that construction is a process. More-
over, the logistics principles that have been applied to the
processes of other industries are potentially applicable to the
construction industry.
Customer service area
As shown in Fig. 2, the construction logistics process can
be divided into internal and external components. An exter-
nal logistics component covers the relation between a con-
structor and his(her) suppliers, whereas an internal logistics
component deals with the relationships among various par-
ties involved in the project, namely, constructor, designer,
and owner (Jones and Riley 1985). Generally, traditional
studies have approached customer service areas based on the
relationship between constructors and their final clients.
However, this paper focuses on the customer service area be-
tween the external logistics and internal logistics. Service
level is determined by the constructors capacity to provide
resources to internal agents on a site at the right time and at
the right place while satisfying the correct specifications.
Figure 2 illustrates the changing relationship between cus-
tomers and suppliers in terms of service level. A constructor
can play the role of a customer in its relationship with a ma-
I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:14:19 PM
1135
terial supplier, while it can also play the role of a supplier in
its relationship with an owner. The customer service area
that this paper focuses on is represented in Fig. 2.
The issues of customer satisfaction and service quality
generally dominate theories of customer service manage-
ment. If we consider the whole body of research in the field
of service management, it is a fundamental and recurring ob-
servation that higher customer satisfaction leads to better
economic returns. This can be explained by key concepts
such as customer reliability and a positive reputation for the
firm.
Customer satisfaction
The function of the construction industry is to provide
customers with facilities that meet their needs and expecta-
tions. One principle of logistics is a management philosophy
that effectively determines the needs of the customer. En-
suring operational quality at each stage in the construction
process should ensure that the quality of the final product
will satisfy the final customer.
How to achieve customer satisfaction
There is no general consensus on the relationship between
logistics and customer satisfaction, but the thrust of logistics
research has been focused in the area of operations service
management (Ganeshan et al. 1999). Parasuraman et al.
(1994) have proposed a model suggesting that the custom-
ers overall satisfaction in a transaction results from a com-
bination of operation service quality, product quality, and
pricing. Other researchers also adhere to the idea that service
quality leads to customer satisfaction (e.g., Woodside et al.
2003 NRC Canada
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
1136
Fig. 3. Characteristics of the respondents.
1989; Reidenbach and Sandifer-Smallwook 1990; and
Adersson et al. 1994). Furthermore, Cronin and Taylor
(1992) state that an antecedent of consumer satisfaction is
operation service quality.
Survey summary
The survey instrument consisted of 43 questions and ad-
dressed many facets of logistics processes and customer sat-
isfaction, such as personnel, material flow, schedule
adherence, characterization of contractors organization, and
information flow. Most respondents completed the survey by
mail, although several faxed or e-mailed their responses. The
survey was distributed on 31 October 2001. A total of 1080
surveys were distributed to various construction companies
in the United States, including design and (or) engineering
firms, general contractors, mechanical and (or) electrical
firms, heavy construction firms, and construction manage-
ment firms. Respondents were senior-level managers with ti-
tles, such as ownerpresident, vice president, PM, project
engineer, or superintendent.
A total of 223 surveys from 180 different organizations
were returned (returned rate = 21%). Figure 3 shows the
characteristics of the respondents. Respondent firms con-
sisted of general construction, construction management,
heavy construction, and mechanical and electrical construc-
tion. The majority of respondents worked for general con-
struction and construction management firms.
Measurement of customer satisfaction
Surveys indicate that material costs amount to approxi-
mately 39% of the overall project cost. This demonstrates
the importance of the material logistics tasks and shows that
they comprise a large segment of the construction industry.
A survey was conducted to reconfirm the importance of the
material logistics tasks. Two hundred twenty-three project
managers in the United States provided valuable data to this
study by participating in the survey. The survey consists of
four main topics: (i) relationship between construction logis-
tics and satisfaction of the PMs, (ii) variation in each satis-
faction variable, (iii) measurement of project process, and
(4) measurement performance management.
The first two parts, logistics and satisfaction section, used
a questionnaire survey to collect customer satisfaction data
I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:14:27 PM
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003
on material operational logistics in the construction industry.
The results of this study indicate the areas that require most
attention to increase satisfaction level of PMs. Exhaustive
logistics literature reviews and interviews were conducted to
gain a better understanding of the relationship between lo-
gistics and customer satisfaction and to determine which as-
pect of logistics has the greatest impact on customer
satisfaction.
The study included a project process questionnaire to de-
fine the manner in which the contract and building process is
carried out. This section includes satisfaction with scope of
work, financial planning, requirement procedures, and
submittal methods.
The performance survey played an important role in deter-
mining the opinions of the respondents and visions for suc-
cess of the construction material logistics tasks. The survey
also examined the concentration of managers on short-term
costs versus long-term benefits.
Key construction material logistics factors
Based on operational management in the logistics process,
five critical areas of managerial planning and action that
must be practiced to achieve effective logistics management
in a company have been identified. Five critical factors were
selected based on interviews with the PMs. Table 1 shows
the five critical factors and their description: (i) personnel
(PER), (ii) material flow (MAT), (iii) schedule adherence
(SCH), (iv) contractors organization (ORG), and (v) infor-
mation flow (INF).
The survey questionnaire contains several operational
measures for each of the logistics factors. Each dependent
variable measures the level of satisfaction of PMs that corre-
sponds to each of the five logistics factors. Although the five
factors (PER, MAT, SCH, ORG, INF) were selected as the
most significant issues for effective logistics management in
a company, each factor could have different levels of satis-
faction. Therefore, 17 additional questions were asked to
measure the level of satisfaction of PMs regarding each fac-
tor. Four questions were asked on PER and INF variables
and three questions were asked on MAT, SCH, and ORG
variables. The average values were denoted as PERSA,
MATSA, SCHSA, ORGSA, and INFSA, respectively. Each
dependent variable was rated from 5 to 5 including 0 (5
2003 NRC Canada
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

Jang et al. 1137

Table 1. Logistics factors and their description.

Factor
Personnel (PER)
Material flow (MAT)
Schedule adherence (SCH)
Contractors organization (ORG)
Information flow (INF)
Personnel satisfaction (PERSA)
Material flow satisfaction (MATSA)
Schedule adherence satisfaction (SCHSA)
Contractors organization satisfaction (ORGSA)
Information flow satisfaction (INFSA)
Description
Level of cooperation with skilled workers and subcontractors for successful completion
of projects
Required materials maintained to prosecute the work
Schedule changing and updating procedures
Team building, or partnering, is considered to be a commitment between two
organizations for the purpose of achieving specific business objectives for the
length of a project. The relationship is based upon trust, dedication to common
goals, and understanding of each others individual expectations and values
Sufficient information flow to prosecute the project manually or by computer
How satisfied are you with the performance of personnel you deal with?
How satisfied are you with the quality of raw materials (right things)?
How satisfied are you with material positioning of temporary facilities on the job site?
How satisfied are you with unnecessary movement of materials and equipment?
How satisfied are you with order cycle time?
How satisfied are you with on-time material delivery?
How satisfied are you with meeting and communications procedures?
How satisfied are you with management of material logistics tasks by manual means?
How satisfied are you with management of material logistics tasks by computer?

indicating the least satisfied, 0 normal, and 5 the most satis-
fied). The scale of overall satisfaction (ALLSA) was con-
structed in such a way that each dependent variable was
summed and divided by the number of items. In other
words, ALLSA in this case was the average responses to the
17 questions. The correlations of factors were examined
also. Table 2 shows the correlation between each factor and
its satisfaction. Since most values in the table do not repre-
sent significant relationships among variables, the variables
are considered as appropriately selected.
Data analysis
This section outlines the results obtained from several
analyses that were conducted on the empirical data gathered
from the survey. The goal of the survey is to determine the
relative importance of each of the five factors on satisfac-
tion of the PM. This was accomplished by developing a re-
gression model for overall satisfaction of the project
manager (ALLSA). A multiple regression model was per-
formed to analyze these data. The majority of the statistical
analysis for the current study used the statistical software
Minitab 12.
Relationship between construction logistics and senior-
level manager satisfaction
To determine the influence of the five factors of construc-
tion logistics on the ratings of overall satisfaction of the PM,
a multiple regression was applied, with overall satisfaction
(ALLSA) as the dependent variable and the five dimensions
of PM (PER, MAT, SCH, ORG, and INF) as explanatory in-
dependent variables with eight control variables, which are
types of position (MAN), specific work (AREA), types of
construction (TYPE), volume of project (VOL), the average
dollar value of work performed annually (DOL), self-
performance (SP), self-management (SM), and years in cur-
rent position (YEAR). To get effective analyses, the test as-
signed three control variables, MAN, AREA, and TYPE, as
dummy variables. The MAN variable combines PM, project
engineer, and superintendent. Also, general construction,
heavy construction, and construction management were com-
bined into CM_AREA, and the other areas were combined
into Other_ AREA in the AREA variable. The TYPE variable
was divided into commercial, industrial, and others (i.e.,
Comer_TYPE, Indus_TYPE, and Other_TYPE).
Equation [1] gives a multiple regression with 15 predic-
tors. The model is

[1] ALLSA = 0.605 0.274 MAN + 0.340 CM_AREA + 0.079 Comer_TYPE + 0.082 Indus_TYPE
+ 0.210 Other_TYPE 0.0620 VOL + 0.0789 DOL+ 0.0147 SP 0.0932 SM + 0.0969 YEAR
+ 0.108 PER + 0.251 MAT + 0.108 SCH + 0.0589 ORG + 0.147 INF

The result of the analysis is presented in Table 3. Random
distribution of a point in the plot indicates successful regres-
sion. The resulting R2 value (coefficient of determination) of
0.695 implies that approximately 70% of the variations in
overall satisfaction of the PM can be explained through the
variables, including PER, MAT, SCH, ORG, and INF. This
analysis deems all five dimensions important for overall sat-
isfaction of the PM.
The study indicated that the five explanatory independent
variables play a significant role in the satisfaction level of
the PM. On the other hand, eight other control variables
were found insignificant to the satisfaction level of the PMs.

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:14:27 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

1138 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Table 2. Descriptive statistics show the correlation between each factor and its satisfaction.
Standard
Variable Mean deviation VOL DOL SP CM TEM PER
VOL 4.330 1.241 1.000
DOL 3.333 0.901 0.342 1.000
SP 2.405 1.199 0.035 0.200 1.000
CM 1.764 1.134 0.040 0.155 0.317 1.000
TEM 3.023 1.087 0.176 0.262 0.252 0.165 1.000
PER 1.058 2.437 0.062 0.002 0.107 0.096 0.006 1.000
MAT 1.574 1.774 0.036 0.087 0.004 0.144 0.007 0.456
SCH 0.995 2.685 0.138 0.163 0.235 0.199 0.243 0.309
ORG 1.160 2.575 0.083 0.061 0.127 0.098 0.191 0.338
INF 1.260 2.091 0.048 0.050 0.043 0.171 0.005 0.382
PERSA 1.762 1.227 0.004 0.036 0.090 0.049 0.008 0.537
MATSA 1.549 1.571 0.064 0.056 0.104 0.090 0.090 0.345
SCHSA 1.300 2.015 0.021 0.095 0.115 0.032 0.088 0.408
ORGSA 1.586 2.279 0.167 0.163 0.233 0.171 0.200 0.361
INFSA 1.880 1.951 0.110 0.048 0.048 0.023 0.091 0.324
ALLSA 1.586 1.275 0.022 0.037 0.071 0.115 0.051 0.540

Table 3. The result of statistical analysis of overall satisfaction ences in the results were a minimum (resulting R2 value of
(ALLSA). 0.659).
Dependent variable ALLSA
Variation in each satisfaction variable
Standard T-test or
Although ALLSA measured the significance of the five
Predictor Coefficient deviation distribution P-value
factors, significance of satisfaction of the individual factors
Constant 0.6050 0.4770 1.2700 0.2060 has been measured as well, namely important factors relating
MAN 0.2735 0.2939 0.9300 0.3530 to personnel satisfaction (PERSA), material flow satisfaction
CM_Area 0.3399 0.1440 2.3600 0.0190 (MATSA), schedule adherence satisfaction (SCHSA), the
Cmer_ty 0.0788 0.1333 0.5900 0.5550 contractors organization satisfaction (ORGSA), and impor-
Indus_ty 0.0824 0.1628 0.5100 0.6130 tant factors relating to the information flow satisfaction
Other_ty 0.2098 0.2469 0.8500 0.3960 (INFSA). Comprehending the relative importance of each of
VOL 0.0620 0.0457 1.3600 0.1760 the five factors on the satisfaction level of the PMs is valu-
DOL 0.0789 0.0666 1.1800 0.2380 able in determining analytical areas in which to focus im-
SP 0.0147 0.0522 0.2800 0.7790 provement efforts. Table 4 presents the result of the analysis,
SM 0.0932 0.0512 1.8200 0.0700 where the dependent variable is personnel satisfaction
YEAR 0.0969 0.0532 1.8200 0.0700 (PERSA). As a result of ALLSA, control variables are insig-
PER 0.1082 0.0261 4.1400 0.0000a nificant to the satisfaction model of the PMs. Thus, further
MAT 0.2511 0.0436 5.7600 0.0000a analysis was not directed to the control variables. This anal-
SCH 0.1078 0.0264 4.0900 0.0000a ysis indicates that MAT is the most significant dimension,
ORG 0.0590 0.0233 2.5300 0.0120b influencing cooperation between skilled workers and sub-
INF 0.1473 0.0380 3.8700 0.0000a contractors in successful completion of projects. The result
Note: S = 0.7244; R2 = 69.5%; R2(adj) = 67.0%. suggests that to be most effective on logistics task, the PM
b
< 0.05. should have the potential of simultaneously influencing all
a
< 0.01. five dimensions, especially MAT, ORG, and INF. Equation
[2] shows a multiple regression with five significant predic-
tors. The model is
In other words, when the five explanatory independent logis-
tics variables are controlled, other predictors such as specific [2] PERSA = 1.09 + 0.151 PER + 0.156 MAT
work, types of construction, volume of a project, value of
work performed, self-performance, self-management, or + 0.0511 SCH + 0.0570 ORG + 0.102 INF
year-at-current position were insignificant factors in deter-
mining the overall satisfaction level of PMs. The other con- The dependent variable MATSA measures satisfaction
trolled variables were used in the equation to test the level regarding quality of raw materials, material positioning
significance of those variables across different characteris- of temporary facilities on the job site, and unnecessary
tics of companies. However, the survey has proved that only movement of materials and equipment. Results of the analy-
the five mentioned factors were significant in determining sis, where the dependent variable is PERSA, are illustrated
overall satisfaction level of PMs. When the regression test in Table 5. This analysis rates SCH with higher significance
was run without the eight controlled variables, the differ- than MAT. The results suggest that to be most effective on

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:14:28 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

Jang et al. 1139

Table 4. The result of statistical analysis of personnel Table 6. The result of statistical analysis of schedule adherence
satisfaction (PERSA). satisfaction (SCHSA).
Dependent variable PERSA Dependent variable SCHSA
Standard T-test or Standard T-test or
Predictor Coefficient deviation distribution P-value Predictor Coefficient deviation distribution P-value
Constant 1.0894 0.0837 13.01 0.000 Constant 0.0131 0.1260 0.10 0.917
PER 0.1507 0.0302 4.99 0.000a PER 0.0907 0.0455 1.99 0.048
MAT 0.1561 0.0528 2.96 0.003a MAT 0.7339 0.0794 9.25 0.000a
SCH 0.0511 0.0281 1.82 0.070 SCH 0.1149 0.0422 2.72 0.007a
ORG 0.0570 0.0275 2.07 0.040b ORG 0.0328 0.0414 0.79 0.429
INF 0.1018 0.0461 2.21 0.028b INF 0.0908 0.0693 1.31 0.192
Note: S = 0.9071; R2 = 46.2%; R2(adj) = 44.9%. Note: S = 1.365; R2 = 55.3%; R2(adj) = 54.2%.
b
< 0.05. a
< 0.01.
a
< 0.01.
Table 7. The result of statistical analysis of contractors
Table 5. The result of statistical analysis of material flow satisfaction organization satisfaction(ORGSA).
(MATSA).
Dependent variable ORGSA
Dependent variable MATSA
Standard T-test or
Standard T-test Predictor Coefficient deviation distribution P-value
Predictor Coefficient deviation distribution P-value
Constant 0.7076 0.1401 5.05 0.000
Constant 0.8618 0.1179 7.31 0.000 PER 0.0776 0.0506 1.54 0.126
PER 0.0671 0.0426 1.58 0.116 MAT 0.0894 0.0883 1.01 0.312
MAT 0.1778 0.0743 2.39 0.018a SCH 0.4264 0.0469 9.09 0.0000a
SCH 0.1824 0.0395 4.62 0.000a ORG 0.1503 0.0460 3.27 0.0000a
ORG 0.0365 0.0387 0.94 0.348 INF 0.2747 0.0771 3.56 0.0000a
INF 0.0895 0.0649 1.38 0.169
Note: S = 1.517; R2 = 55.7%; R2(adj) = 54.7%.
Note: S = 1.277; R2 = 34.5%; R2 = 32.9%. a
< 0.01.
a
< 0.01.
effective the PMs should have the perspective of SCH and
INF among all dimensions in particular.
personnel, the PM should focus more on SCH than any other Equation [5] shows a multiple regression with dependent
predictors. variable ORGSA. The model is
Equation [3] shows a multiple regression with dependent
variable MATSA. The model is [5] ORGSA = 0.708 + 0.0776 PER 0.0894 MAT
[3] MATSA = 0.862 + 0.0671 PER + 0.178 MAT + 0.426 SCH + 0.150 ORG + 0.275 INF
+ 0.182 SCH + 0.0364 ORG + 0.0895 INF For a successful completion of the project, sufficient INF
among workers or subcontractors must be accomplished ei-
The result of the analysis with SCHSA as a dependent ther through conventional communication method or with
variable is presented in Table 6. The result indicates that the assistance of computer technology. Table 8 shows the re-
SCH is closely correlated with material flow and overall lo- sult with INFSA as a dependent variable. In this analysis,
gistics process. Equation [4] illustrates a multiple regression the satisfaction of a PM is explained with the variables PER
with SCHSA as a dependant variable. The model is and INF. Equation [6] illustrates a multiple regression with
INFSA as a dependant variable. The model is
[4] SCHSA = 0.013 + 0.0907 PER + 0.734 MAT
0.115 SCH + 0.0328 ORG + 0.0908 INF [6] INFSA = 1.28 + 0.156 PER 0.090 MAT
+ 0.149 SCH 0.0724 ORG + 0.173 INF
Communication is the key to team building or partnering
because it is considered as a commitment between two orga- Table 9 shows a summary of independent and dependent
nizations having a common purpose and business objectives predictor variables accounting for the variation in the vari-
throughout the duration of a given project. This relationship ables. The implication is that addressing each of the five fac-
is based on trust, dedication to common goals, and an under- tors appears to be the best strategy for PMs to improve the
standing of each others individual expectations and values. level of MAT, SCH, and INF of construction logistics.
The result of the multiple regression with ORGSA as the de-
pendent variable is presented in Table 7. Contractors organi- Measurement of project process
zation satisfaction can be explained by the variability in the The major criteria of the project process are defined as
PER, MAT, SCH, ORG, and INF. This analysis indicates scope definition, financial planning, requirement procedure,
that SCH and INF are the most significant dimensions for and operating procedure. These criteria must be considered
overall satisfaction of the PM. This suggests that to be most before the contractor and owner commit to a binding agree-

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:14:28 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

1140 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Table 8. Statistics result of information flow satisfaction. Fig. 4. Satisfaction level of the respondents for the major criteria
of the project process (scope definition, financial planning,
Dependent variable INFSA requirement procedure, operating procedure).
Standard T-test or
Predictor Coefficient deviation distribution P-value
Constant 1.2795 0.1688 7.58 0.000
PER 0.1565 0.0597 2.62 0.009a
MAT 0.0903 0.1048 0.86 0.390
SCH 0.1490 0.0554 2.69 0.008a
ORG 0.0724 0.0552 1.31 0.191
INF 0.1733 0.0905 1.92 0.057
Note: S = 1.756; R2 = 22.0%; R2(adj) = 20.0%.
a
< 0.01.

Table 9. Variation of each of the predictor variables.

Dependent variable (satisfaction) Independent variable

Personnel (PERSA) Material flow, contractors
Fig. 5. Self-rating of managers own performance.
organization, information
flow
Material flow (MATSA) Schedule adherent
Schedule adherent (SCHSA) Material flow
Contractors organization (ORGSA) Schedule adherent, infor-
mation flow
Information flow (INFSA) Personnel, schedule
adherent

ment or a contract. This research quantified the satisfaction

level of each of the four project processes. Figure 4 illus-
trates satisfaction level of respondents for each of the four
processes. The results show that most respondents (senior-
level PMs) were very satisfied with the project process. Fur-
ther descriptions of these criteria are as follows:
Scope definition This category measures how well the
owner defined and documented the scope of the project.
An inappropriately defined project scope may increase the
number of disagreements and disputes during the project.
Financial planning This considers another planning ac-
tivity associated with financial backing and planning. In
consideration of the size and existing economic situation
of the project, financial planning should be able to antici-
pate cost overrun, change orders, and contingencies.
Requirement procedure This category measures the
limits of the actual project site, the individual ability of
the local workers (carpenters, ironworkers, etc.), and the
ability and expertise of the subcontractors. Site limitations
include storage consideration, access, and staging for
setup.
Operating procedure This category considers the con-
tract by examining whether the operating procedures for
contract administration are reasonable and well-defined.
These typical processes include schedule submittals and
updates, the submittal process, meeting, and communica-
tion procedures. Well-defined, reasonable procedures
yield better planning and management during the con-
struction logistics process.
Measurement performance management
This research is focused on the satisfaction level of the
PMs and how the PMs rate their own performance in terms
of productivity. Figure 5 shows self-rating of the managers
own performance. In considering construction logistics
tasks, over 36% of respondents rated themselves as level
three in personal performance and 24% as level four.
To maximize the impact on performance management,
this study investigated the strategy on short-term costs ver-
sus long-term benefits and computer usage for logistics man-
aging and organizing work.
Short-term costs versus long-term benefits
Almost everything that happens in a construction com-
pany that relates to productivity loss has an association with
the project process: scope definition, financial planning, re-
quirement procedure, and operating procedure. Construction
material logistics management aims to make project pro-
cesses easier and quicker and at the same time more visible
and controllable. Occasionally, these goals can conflict, and
managers must decide whether to assign more value to the
short-term or long-term goals. To determine the relative im-
portance of short-term costs vs. long-term benefits, respon-
dents were asked on which of the two factors they put more
emphasis. Approximately 50% of the respondents answered
that they concentrate more on long-term benefits (Fig. 6). A
large number of respondents (31%) indicated that they also
assign equal value to both short-term cost and long-term
benefits strategy.
This issue in the construction industry is related to the use
of information technology (IT). Even though rapidly emerg-
ing new technology immensely helped professionals in the
IT business for the past decade with one breakthrough tech-

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:14:29 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen

Jang et al. 1141

Fig. 6. Short-term costs and long-term benefits strategy. Table 10. Planning for dealing with the fast-moving changes in
software.
Planning to deal with the fast- Percentage
moving changes Respondents (%)
Not available 1 1
Develop in house 11 7
Watching and evaluate openings 13 8
Make changes when it makes sense 19 12
Training classes 19 12
Do not buy, do not change 30 19
Existing software serve upgrade 54 34
(keep update current)
Others 11 7
nology after another promising to solve IT problems, the
construction industry only lately began to implement infor-
mation technology. Recently construction companies began
to invest billions of dollars in everything from faster com- Other comments
puter networks and Web Sites on the Internet to wireless Respondents were asked to comment on the areas that re-
connectivity solutions, in an attempt to improve their pro- quire major focus to improve and simplify the material lo-
cess efficiency. The issue of buying reliability is not new. gistics process. Sixty of the 223 respondents (27%) provided
What is new is the demand from PMs to have guarantees written comments, indicating strong interest in the topic.
and accountability up front, before purchases are made. Fur- The eight most frequently mentioned comments are as fol-
thermore, many construction companies are demanding inte- lows:
gration training from the suppliers to keep staff abreast of minimization of handling of the construction materials,
newly implemented technologies. which reduces cost and chances of damage or misplace-
ment
Be on the leading edge but not the development of relationships with the vendors, which al-
bleeding edge and read/listen/test what lows flexibility in packaging, shipping, and delivery such
is out there a survey response as online access, use of computer software, and automa-
tion
The topics above represent the vision of a company in- prioritization of material logistics in up-front planning
ferred from the survey responses. This study surveyed con- provision of up-front detailed design, scope of work,
struction industry personnel concerning their plans to deal plans, and specifications for better understanding of total
with the constant and fast-moving changes in software pro- requirements, design, and value engineering
grams (Table 10). Many companies hastily purchase the lat- continuous communication among all parties involved
est and the greatest technology, thinking that all new development of standards for information flow from man-
technology is good. Although implementing the right tech- ufacturers
nology is critical in the construction industry of today, find- advancements in E-commerce must be adopted by the
ing the suitable method of implementation is also an vendors and subcontractors
important factor. This study found that construction compa- sharing of lessons learned among project and team mem-
nies are blindly implementing new technologies as a reaction bers
to the growing complexity of the construction logistics pro-
cess without thoroughly considering their needs. This needs Summary and conclusions
to be improved. As mentioned earlier, technology is only a
tool for achieving a better construction process. To make the This study has resulted in new insights regarding the con-
technology work positively for the construction process, a struction logistics process and PM satisfaction. The research
thorough examination and external consulting is necessary to results found a significant relationship between the construc-
decide which technology is most suitable for a particular tion logistics process and satisfaction of a PM. This paper
company. also presented statistical regression results to predict overall
The survey showed that a large percentage of the respon- satisfaction of a PM and the relative importance of each of
dents (34%) use existing software and plan to update the the five variables on the satisfaction of a PM. The subse-
software. Some respondents (19%) were satisfied with their quent results indicated that all five variables of PM satisfac-
software and do not want to make any changes. About 12% tion (PER, MAT, SCH, ORG, and INF) are significant
respondents update their software and provide training to predictors of overall satisfaction for the construction logis-
their employees, while others (8%) were watching and eval- tics process. This suggests that to be most effective the PM
uating openings. Other opinions included (i) hire a techni- should have the potential for simultaneously influencing all
cian to maintain and upgrade the software, (ii) use both five variables. Even if a manager indicates a high level of
manual and computer software, and (iii) purchase very care- satisfaction with the overall construction logistics tasks, pro-
fully. cess, and performance, the possibility or even necessity for

2003 NRC Canada

I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:14:29 PM
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen
1142
additional improvement through enhanced technology al-
ways exists.
People are the greatest asset in construction logistics
tasks. Therefore, they should be used in the most efficient
way. All activities involved in the construction process
within the implementation logistics should be built around
cross-functional teams, and everyone should be involved
right from the start when implementing the advanced tech-
nologies.
References
Adersson, E.W., Fornell, C., and Lehman, D.R. 1994. Customer
satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Swe-
den. Journal of Marketing, 58(July): 5366.
CLM. 1999. 21st Century logistics: making supply chain integra-
tion a reality. Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, Ill.
Cronin, J.J., Jr., and Taylor, S.A. 1992. Measuring service quality:
a reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(July):
5568.
Fred, B.S., and Francisco, F.C. 1999. Applicability of logistics
management in lean construction. Proceedings of the the Sev-
enth Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC-7), University of California, Berkeley, Ca-
lif., 26-28 July 1999.
Ganeshan, R., Jack, E., Magazine, M.J., and Stephens, P. 1999. A
taxonomic review of supply chain management research. In
Quantitative models for supply chain management. Edited by S.
I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vp
December 11, 2003 2:14:30 PM
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003
Tayur, R. Ganeshan, and M. Magazine. Kluwer Academic,
Boston, Mass.
Holm, M.G. 2000. Service management in housing refurbishment:
a theoretical approach. Construction Management and Econom-
ics, 18: 525533.
Holm, M.G., and Brochner, J. 1999. Satisfying the ultimate cus-
tomer in housing refurbishment. In Proceedings of CIB W70 In-
ternational Symposium on Management, Maintenance and
Modernization of Building Facilities, Singapore, 1820 Septem-
ber 1999. pp. 205212.
Jones, T.C., and Riley, D.W. 1985. Using inventory for competitive
advantage through supply chain management. International Jour-
nal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, 15(1):
1626.
Juran, J.M. 1988. Juran on planning for quality. Free Press, New
York, N.Y.
Meredith, J.R., and Mantel, S.J. 1995. Project management. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York..
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L. 1994. Reassess-
ment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring ser-
vice quality: implications for further research. Journal of
Marketing, 58(January): 111124.
Reidenbach, R.E., and Sandifer-Smallwook, B. 1990. Exploring
perceptions of hospital operations by a modified SERVQUAL
approach. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 10(4): 4755.
Torbica, Z.M., and Stroh, R.C. 1999. Impact of total quality man-
agement on home-buyer satisfaction. ASCE Journal of Con-
struction Engineering and Management, 125(3): 198203.
Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L., and Daly, R.T. 1989. Linking service
quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intention. Journal
of Health Care Marketing, 9(4): 517.
2003 NRC Canada