Talent Development & Excellence 1510

Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

A Critical Review of Fragmentation Issues in the Construction

Industry

Salman Riazi Mehdi Riazi1*, Mohd Firdaus Zainuddin2, Mohd Nasrun Mohd Nawi3, Suria
Musa4 Angela Lee5

School of Housing, Building, and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Penang, Malaysia
1,2

3
School of Technology Management and Logistics, University Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
4
School of Technology Management and Logistics, University Utara Malaysia, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
5
School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, UK

*Corresponding author:[email protected]
2
[email protected] , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract: The construction industry has generally been regarded as one of the least productive sectors
worldwide, with issues ranging from the more common problems, such as delays and cost overruns, to more
inter-connected and complex, such as conflicts, safety, client satisfaction, quality, value for money and many
more. These poor performances have been closely attributed to the fragmentation that surrounds construction
industry practices, whereby construction processes often take place in a sequential manner, and parties typically
work in isolation with minimal interfaces between them. This fragmented scenario has ensued the industry as
unable to perform efficiently and as being synonymous with problems. This paper therefore aims to critically
review past research and literatures towards identifying the fragmentation issues that have been surrounding the
construction industry worldwide. The result: 46 factors were compiled from 27 sources, thus indicating that
fragmentation is indeed a significant and universal problem within the construction industry. The findings in this
paper is expected to provide a platform for effective solutions to be strategized in future towards improving
productivity rates in construction.

Keywords: Construction Industry, Critical Review, Fragmentation, Communication, Projects.

1.0 Introduction

Fragmentation has been commonly cited in the construction industry, worldwide, which
according to Abadi (2005), is prevalent in both internal and external aspects of the supply
chain. The author described internal fragmentation as collaborative issues between the many
alliances involved in projects, such as the clients and consultants; while at external level,
organizations such as the local authority which do not have a direct contractual relationship
with project teams but plays an important role towards proper completion of projects, should
be considered.

Fragmentation is a common descriptor of traditional practices (Evbuomwan & Anumba,

1998; Egan, 2002; Abadi, 2005) where construction processes often take place separately and
in a sequential manner, while contractors and designers generally work in isolation and
therefore lack interface between themselves (Nawi et al., 2014a). Furthermore, the lack of
continuity in project team setups (Dubois & Gadde, 2000) means that a new learning curve is
almost always forced to take place, thus further impacting on efficiency levels (Egan, 1998).

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1511
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

As a result, the fragmented traditional approach has been severely criticized due to it being
the most complicated, inefficient (Rowlinson, 1999) as well as being very poor in terms of
offering optimum time performance for the client (Masterman, 1992; Chang & Ive, 2002). Its
effect contributes to risk problems such as inadequate design (Yates, 2002), dimension
contradictions of plan and section drawings (Ogunlana et al., 1996) and also being prone to
opportunism (Scott, 2001) while during the construction phase, inefficiencies could occur in
form of increased project complexity, rework and poor time and cost performance
(Evbuomwan & Anumba, 1998). These fragmented scenarios inherently connected strongly
to the below par performance of the industry (Egan, 1998) and other problematic features
such as poor productivity, reduced value, low satisfaction for the client (Latham, 1994). In
fact, Xue et al. (2005) held fragmentation as the main culprit for most of the industry’s
performance-related problems.

This paper will therefore shed light into fragmentation issues surrounding the construction
industry worldwide based on a critical review of past research and literatures. Past studies
that highlight fragmentation of the industry are analyzed, extracted and presented towards
providing a clearer picture on the issues which is hoped to provide a platform for effective
solutions in future. With fragmentation being a major obstruction for the industry to improve
deliveries, it is therefore important that this matter is properly scrutinized, which is the
ultimate aim of this paper.

2.0 Project Fragmentation

The construction industry has generally been attributed as one of the least productive sectors
worldwide with problems ranging from the common problems such as delays and cost
overruns to other inter-connected issues such as conflicts, poor safety, poor satisfaction and
many more. These unsatisfying performances have been closely linked to its fragmented
nature (Latham 1994; Egan, 1998) and poor management (Munns &Bjeirmi, 1996) which has
been strongly linked to the inefficient conventional practices thus; it has been very hard for
the industry meet expectations in terms of improvement, innovation, completion time,
unburst costs, to reach quality standards, productivity and satisfaction (Latham, 1994; Egan,
1998; Chan et al., 2003). Fragmentation, has been regarded by Xue et al. (2005) as the culprit
of a vast majority of the industry’s performance-related problems; and is a major obstruction
to the uptake of Industrialized Building System (IBS) in Malaysia (Nawi et al., 2014a)
despite it being introduced since the 1960’s. Traditional system is synonymous with
fragmentation (Abadi, 2005) and construction processes are also often treated as separate and
sequential procedures (Nawi et al., 2014). Contractors are not typically involved early in
projects (Scott, 2001), and they also lack interface with designers (Nawi et al., 2014a).

According to Morledge et al. (2009), a number of idiosyncratic characteristics of the

construction industry, such as being one of a kind, passive and diversified, which relates back
to its disjointed physiognomies, are to be blamed for the poor performances of the industry.
These has led to the domination of subcontracting exercises which draws back to the scenario

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1512
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

of the industry that triggers the sense of insecurity among main contractors in term of
maintaining repeat jobs while also delivering other project prerequisites (Cox & Townsend,
1998). As a result, there is a higher congestion in terms of project entities involved in projects
which makes coordination even tougher therefore worsening the fragmentation scenario
(Mehdi Riazi, 2014) and consequently give rise to formation of non-functional project supply
chains (Love et al., 1999). On top of that, the temporary and ever-changing nature of project
supply chains from project to projects (Dubois & Gadde, 2000) forces participants to engage
in new learning curves (Egan, 1998) thus further contributing to poor performances of the
industry. When fragmentation worsens, it leads to emergence of multi-tiered lower level
supply chains (i.e. sub-contractor and supplier) competing on minor work packages (Mehdi
Riazi, 2014) thus may lead to opportunistic intentions and risk transferring culture among
parties towards minimizing their own risks (Morledge et al., 2009) thereby triggering
adversarial relationships and poor trust among project teams.

Construction projects are known to be one-of-a-kind and are very different than other
industries that typically have a controlled environment. In construction, no projects are the
same even if they are of the same type since factors such as locality, economy and policies
highly affect the variables involved. Granting jobs as well as allotting necessary resources to
execute them has lots to do with the physiognomies of projects thus, the needs in different
projects can vary a lot, for instance, material and expertise requirements between public
buildings and military bases can contrast significantly since both almost does not share any
similarities in term of their characteristics. On top of that, with the emergence of more
innovative construction methods in recent times, further adds to the complexity of its supply
chain environment and therefore makes effective coordination even more challenging.
Considering that there are numerous parties involved in and; that the organizational culture
and performance is solidly connected (Wood & Ellis, 2005), collaboration of all project
parties is vital for project success thus; it concern that should the disjointed conventional
practices be continually practiced, that the construction industry worldwide may never get to
fully enjoy the great benefits of cooperative and team-oriented approaches on managing
construction projects.

3.0 Fragmentation Issues in Construction

Many problems of the construction industry have a strong connection with its fragmented
nature (see Xue et al., 2005). A study by Dulaimi et al. (2002) also highlighted that
fragmentation and segregation in the designing and construction phase as the leading
obstruction from investment and development improvement. It is believed that the
construction industry’s characteristics itself which are special, inert and diversified, that
resulted in the fragmentation effect (Morledge et al., 2009). Not only that, the construction
product’s characteristics also determine its structure (Hillebrandt, 2000; Orange et al., 2005)
whereby many products have been characterized to be highly dependent upon the weather,
location and the client (Hartmann & Caerteling, 2005; Langford & Male, 2001). In general,
the fragmented nature of construction industry relates to the lacks of coordination, trust and

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1513
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

emphasis on the client objectives. The absence of proper setting to holistically discuss rising
issues (Alashwal et al., 2011; Pringle, 2012) further complicates the situation therefore
making the industry a rather wasteful and inefficient atmosphere.

Issues relating to fragmentation such as the professionals’ isolation, lack of design &
construction coordination, and construction process being executed in sequential conduct
(Evbuomwan & Anumba, 1998; Abadi, 2005; Egan, 2002, Nawi et al., 2014b; Nawi el al.,
2014c) have been seen to be caused by the traditional construction practice. Other than that,
Latham (1994) emphasized that parties involved in the traditional construction process
normally work separately thus causing the results to be inefficient. Moreover, the
construction processes often took place separately and in sequential manner while the
contractors and designers generally work in isolation and therefore lack interface between
themselves (Nawi et al., 2014a). Product specifications and plans, designed to order project,
heavy and projects that use components which were manufactured elsewhere may also be the
criteria that could lead to fragmentation (Hillebrandt, 2000; Lange & Mills, 1979).

According to Forgues et al. (2009), fragmentation occurs as a result of the lack repetition in
the design phase, lack of constraints of the subsequent process acknowledgment, and
leadership or accountability absence. The vast number of isolated cooperating companies and
the iteration of construction design are also used to determine the construction industry
structure (Hillebrandt, 2000). Moreover, issues or negative impact on the quality of the
construction design process and outcome may be due to the non-collaboration and co-
ordination between parties involved (Dulaimi et al., 2002). The temporary nature of
construction projects with the involvement of multi-disciplinary entities and numerous
stakeholders throughout its life cycle (Dave & Koskela, 2009) combined with the impromptu
affiliationof all participants leads to fragmentation (Dainty et al., 2005). Other than that, the
iteration of design and construction process, lack of coordinating and integrating between all
relating players, poor communications are all the associated factors that makes project
natures to be fragmented (Love et al., 2004; Xue et al., 2005).

Communication in construction industry have been identified as a complex issue since it

consists of many fragmented parties, long life cycle period and multiple organization
structure (Tai et al., (2009). Poor communication is one of the major issues in construction
industry (Mohamad, 1999) mostly due to the construction industry fragmented nature during
design phase and this is made worse by the linguistic disparities or the dialectal cultures itself
(Ngowi, 2000). In fact, ineffective communication between entities assigned for the design
tasks of projects have been regarded as a major cause the projects’ failure to meet client’s
expectations (Konchar & Sanvido, 1998; Hartman, 2000). When a project does not meet the
owner’s expectations there will be possibility for the consultants to redesign which then cause
project completion delay (Nawi et al., 2014b). Generally, issues related to communication
surfaces during the contractor-subcontractor-architect design interfaces (Muya et al. 1999)
due to the limited flow of vital information between parties related. Even the main contractor-
subcontractor-specialists communication were seen to be extremely low especially during

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1514
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

design phase (Konchar & Sanvido, 1998). Construction industry players consists of
geographically distributed team members and the lack of common language act as major
problems source for construction project communication (Karim Jallow et al., 2014).A
successful communication is when all cross-disciplines are able to interact with each other
and allows all parties to be aware whenever there is change in the project (Newton, 1995).
However, project verdicts are seldom made systematically and instead almost always adopts
the adhoc approach (Mohamad, 1999) thus it can lead to two (2) problems according to
Agapiou et al. (1998) which is firstly, purchasing materials in an ad-hoc manner can affect
interruption and delay to the schedule and secondly, large quantity material purchasing
without thorough consideration requirement may cause potential wastage and inventory
issues especially if the site has an inventory management or scarcity in space issue.

Fragmentation is strongly linked to traditional procurement. It has been linked with numerous
downside and inefficiencies (see Abadi, 2005; Dainty et al., 2001; Rowlinson, 1999; Egan,
1998; Anumba et al., 1997; Orr & McKenzie, 1992; Russell et al., 1994; Yates, 2002;
Ogunlana et al., 1996; Scott, 2001) thus the construction industry has been criticized as
lacking continuousness and having poor retorts to fluctuationsof delivery processes (Baiden
et al., 2006). This therefore hinders the effective team formation which will lead to project
delivery process inefficiency (Jha, &Iyer, 2006; Love et al., 2004; Parda, 1996; Dainty et al.,
2001; Gunasekaran & Love, 1998; Latham, 1994) in form of increased project complexity,
rework and poor time and cost performance (Evbuomwan & Anumba, 1998). Furthermore,
the lack continuity in project team setups (Dubois &Gadde, 2000) means that a new learning
curve is almost always forced to take place, thus further impact on efficiency levels (Egan,
1998). As a result, the fragmented traditional approach has been severely criticized due to it
being the most complicated, inefficient (Rowlinson, 1999) as well as the worst time-effective
choice for the client (Masterman, 1992; Chang & Ive, 2002). Other negative side effects of
fragmentationinclude that it could possibly lead to projects suffering from inconsistencies
from aspects of performance, efficiency, design, mistakes and omissions (Anumba et al.,
2002; Baiden et al., 2006).

Fragmentation and project-based contracts in construction industry lacks networking closures

and have many structural holes (van der Vlies & Maas, 2009) while the traditional design and
build practices obstructs efficient knowledge management thushindering the constructors and
other professionals to contribute to design decisions (Song et al., 2006; Egan, 1998) thus
loosing on opportunities to maximize erudition, innovation and new knowledge (Egbu, 2006;
Den Hertog & Brouwer, 2001). There will cause difficulties to achieve effective knowledge
transfer between the different contributors to the design and construction of a project due to
gaps created by fragmentation (Dulaimi et al., 2002). Design partners within project alliances
for example, unless otherwise stated by the client, are not allowed to participate in the design
phase or to influence the design. This is due to the nature of conventional exercises that
regards all parties as distinct entities thus it lacks a thorough administration and organisation
in the procurement process (Tenah, 2001). Other than that, failure of the design team to take
into consideration on the contractor’s method statement during the design phase may

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1515
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

consequently lead to other issues when works start on site such as scheduling issues, delays
and disputes in construction process (Arditi et al., 2002).Traditional procurement
fragmentation also affects some other issues, for instance –(a) insufficient identification,
arranging, prioritizing and implementing client needs; (b) possibilities of late and pricey
design adjustments and irrelevant claims; and (c) classification of design procedure with an
inflexible sequential activity (Anumba et al., 2002; Evbuomwan & Anumba, 1998; Clarke,
1999; Kong &Gray, 2006)

Latham (1994) and Nelson (2004) stated that during the preliminary stages of projects, there
is a need for expert contributions from professionals such as from aspects of mechanical,
engineering and facility management. This is important to ensure that all client want and
needs are properly delivered with the utmost efficiency in term of cost, time and quality,
which in this case it is very important that all parties in the project are on the same page in
term of the deliverables they are going to produce. For example, during the design and
construction stage the goal of designers may be to build a building that reflects their
philosophical yet functional however the builders will want to build a reasonable and limited
risked building which clearly shows the diversification of goals between them (Mendelsohn,
1998; Nawi et al., 2014b). These diversification practice of goals that are typically as a result
of the traditional design and construction working culture may lead to misinterpretations or
assumptions (Gardiner& Simmons, 1998) which will consequently lead to conflict,
discrepancies and misalliancesamong the parties involved in a project (Hegazy et al., 2001).
Further skirmishmay also surface as a result of this scenario due to the tendency of parties to
pass risks to others (Nawi et al., 2014b).

Table 1 summarizes the fragmentation issues in construction projects from past research and
literatures while Table 2 provides references to the remarks used to indicate references that
represent each fragmentation issue.

4.0 Methodology

Towards establishing the fragmentation issues that have been surrounding the construction
industry, a critical review was conducted on the existing research and literatures worldwide
from the past few decades. Search for keywords, statements and elements that indicate
fragmentation or issues caused by fragmentation of the industry were extracted and compared
against those found in other literatures. Issues that were similar to each other, even if were
sentenced differently, were combined and indicated in Table 1 as being identified from a
number of sources. In the end, a total of twenty-seven (27) sources were reviewed and tabled
out for ease of viewing, analysis and interpretation.

5.0 Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendation

This paper presents the findings of a critical review on fragmentation issues surrounding the
construction industry based on past research and literatures. In overall, a total of 46
fragmentation issues were compiled from 27 sources which highlights the seriousness of

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1516
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

fragmentation problem within the construction industry worldwide - evident from the vast
number of performance-related problems also reported in other research worldwide i.e.
delays, cost overrun, low satisfaction, etc. – all of which are negative outcomes resulted from
the fragmented environment of the industry. Based on Table 1, it is also evident that some
issues are more dominant than others based on the number of times they were mentioned in
the literature. Out of the 46 issues that were identified, “isolation of project professionals –
geographically distributed at different locations” was the mostly mentioned factors - by six
(6) out of twenty-seven (27) sources while, “the sequential nature of construction process
execution” came out the second most dominant issue, mentioned in four (4) sources. Coming
the third highest was “confrontational culture between project parties” being mentioned three
(3) times; while the rest on the issues were either mentioned once or twice. The domination
of these three (3) fragmentation issues very much expected since the term “fragmentation”
itself refers to “separation”, which is the opposite to integration or amalgamation. When
parties are isolated from each other, especially from the geographical context, it makes
integration even harder since there will be numerous barriers to fast and effective
communication, coordination and collaboration. The sequential nature of operations on the
other hand makes things worse since the various inter-connected information and knowledge
that are available within the supply chain need to be properly communicated, transferred and
integrated to produce the best design, reduce reworks, reduce errors, avoid missed
information, prepare a good cost plan and many more. However, when an activity can only
start after the other completes eliminates the integration between the parties. In the end, the
result of poor interactions leads to confrontational behaviors due to the lack of opportunity to
build up trust, understanding and chemistry between the parties involved. It is therefore
recommended that the industry practitioners should be further exposed, educated and trained
on new and emerging working philosophies such as Supply Chain Management (SCM). This
is based on a statement by Riazi &Nawi (2018) that “SCM‘s philosophy opposes the
fragmented working environment and promotes integration as an integral aspect of a
successful work environment “. In fact, SCM has also been highly promoted by two famous
UK Government Funded Reports namely the Latham Report (1994) and Egan Report (1998)
as well as other researchers worldwide; and has been proven effective on project
performances in few applications

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1517
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

Table 1: Fragmentation Issues in Construction Projects from Past Literatures

Table 2: References for Number Remarks in Table 1

References Remarks References Remarks

Alashwal et al. (2011) 1 Xue et al. (2005) 15
Dave &Koskela (2009) 2 Alashwal& Hamzah (2014) 16
Forgues et al. (2009) 3 Dulaimi et al. (2002) 17
Hartmann &Caerteling (2005) 4 Mohammad (1999) 18
Tai et al. (2009) 5 Agapiou et al. (1998) 19
Dainty et al. (2005) 6 Egan (1998) 20
Evbuomwan&Anumba (1998) 7 Gardiner & Simmons (1998) 21
Abadi (2005) 8 Arditi et al. (2002) 22
Nawi et al. (2014b) 9 Kong & Gray (2006) 23
Nawi et al. (2014a) 10 Den Hertog& Brouwer (2001) 24
Hillebrandt (2000) 11 Song et al. (2006) 25
Ngowi (2000) 12 Tenah (2001) 26
Konchar&Sanvido (1998) 13 Hartman (2000) 27
Muya et al. (1999) 14

(see Brady et al., 2006; Potts, 2009; Building Megazine, 2004; p.40). Nevertheless, SCM
requires a major shift in mindset and working mentality of the industry players which
suggests that its uptake should be championed by parties that can highly influence the
construction industry of particular nations (e.g. public sector) – thus encouraging the other
ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)
© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1518
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

supply chains of the industry to follow suit. With proven successes via few targeted
implementations, there is a great optimism that SCM uptakes could lead to improved level of
team-oriented working culture thereby curing fragmentation scenario of the industry.

6.0 Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the UniversitiSains Malaysia (USM)

GeranUniversitiPenyelidikan RUI Grant (Account Number: 1001.PPBGN.8016066) for
supporting this research.

7.0 References

[1]. Abadi, M. (2005). Issues and challenges in communication within design teams in the construction
industry: Investigation into the use of virtual teams and information and communication technologies
(ICTs) in the UK construction industry (Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester: University of
Manchester).
[2]. Agapiou, A., Flanagan, R., Norman, G., &Notman, D. (1998). The changing role of builders’
merchants in the construction supply chain. Construction Management & Economics, 16(3), 351-361.
[3]. Alashwal, A.,& Hamzah, A. R. (2014). Developing a Conceptual Framework of Fragmentation in
Construction.
[4]. Alashwal, A. M., Rahman, H. A., &Beksin, A. M. (2011). Knowledge sharing in a fragmented
construction industry: On the hindsight. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(7), 1530-1536.
[5]. Anumba, C. J., Baugh, C., & Khalfan, M. M. (2002). Organisational structures to support concurrent
engineering in construction. Industrial management & data systems, 102(5), 260-270.
[6]. Anumba, C. J., Kamara, J. M., &Evbuomwan, N. F. O. (1997). Construction in the UK petrochemical
industry - Aspects of concurrent engineering practice.
[7]. Arditi, D., Elhassan, A., &Toklu, Y. C. (2002). Constructability analysis in the design firm. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 128(2), 117-126.
[8]. Baiden, B. K., Price, A. D., & Dainty, A. R. (2006). The extent of team integration within construction
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 13-23.
[9]. Brady, T., Davies, A., Gann, D., & Rush, H. (2006). Learning to manage mega projects: The case of
BAA Heathrow Terminal 5. In: IRNOP VII Project Research Conference 2006, 11-13 October 2006,
Xi’an, China.
[10]. Building Megazine. (2004). How Heathrow Terminal 5 has rebuilt the building. Terminal T5
Supplement. A Template for the future.
[11]. Chan, A., Chan, D., & Ho, K. (2003). An empirical study of the benefits of construction partnering in
Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 21(5), 523-533.
[12]. Chang, C. Y., &Ive, G. (2002). On the economics characteristics of construction procurement systems.
In Procurement Systems & Technology Transfer: CIB W92 Procurement Systems Symposium (pp. 689-
710). Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
[13]. Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project
management. International journal of project management, 17(3), 139-145.
[14]. Cox, A., & Townsend, M. (1998). Strategic procurement in construction: Towards better practice in
the management of construction supply chains. London: Thomas Telford Publishing.
[15]. Dainty, A. R. J., Briscoe, G. H., & Millett, S. J. (2001). New perspectives on construction supply chain
integration. Supply Chain Management. 6(4), 163-173.
[16]. Dainty, A. R., Cheng, M. I., & Moore, D. R. (2005). Competency-based model for predicting
construction project managers’ performance. Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(1), 2-9.

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1519
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

[17]. Dave, B., &Koskela, L. (2009). Collaborative knowledge management—A construction case
study. Automation in construction, 18(7), 894-902.
[18]. Den Hertog, P., & Brouwer, E. (2001). Innovation in the Dutch construction cluster. Innovative
Clusters, 203.
[19]. Dubois, A., &Gadde, L. E. (2000). Supply strategy and network effects—purchasing behaviour in the
construction industry. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 6(3), 207-215.
[20]. Dulaimi, M. F., Y. Ling, F. Y., Ofori, G., & Silva, N. D. (2002). Enhancing integration and innovation
in construction. Building research & information, 30(4), 237-247.
[21]. Egan, J. (2002). Accelerating change: a report by the strategic forum for construction. Rethinking
Construction. SF f. Construction, London.
[22]. Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking Construction, Report of the Construction Task Force on the Scope for
Improving the Quality and Efficiency of UK Construction, Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions, London. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, UK.
[23]. Egbu, C. (2006). Knowledge production and capabilities–their importance and challenges for
construction organisations in China. Journal of Technology Management in China, 1(3), 304-321.
[24]. Evbuomwan, N. F., &Anumba, C. J. (1998). An integrated framework for concurrent life-cycle design
and construction. Advances in engineering software, 29(7), 587-597.
[25]. Forgues, D., Koskela, L. J., &Lejeune, A. (2009). Information technology as boundary object for
transformational learning. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 14, 48-58.
[26]. Gardiner, P. D., & Simmons, J. E. L. (1998). Conflict in small-and medium-sized projects: Case of
partnering to the rescue. Journal of management in Engineering, 14(1), 35-40.
[27]. Gunasekaran, A.,& Love, P.E.D., (1998). Concurrent engineering: a multi-disciplinary approach for
construction. Logistics Information Management 11(5):295-300.
[28]. Hartman, F. (2000). Don’t park your brain outside. PMI, Newtown Square, Pa.
[29]. Hartmann, A.,&Caerteling, J. (2005). The influence of social networks on inter-firm exchange in
construction. Paper presented at the 11th Joint CIB International Symposium Combining Forces –
Learning from Experiences: New Challenges, Theories, and Practices in Construction, Helsinki,
Finland
[30]. Hegazy, T., Zaneldin, E., & Grierson, D. (2001). Improving design coordination for building projects.
I: Information model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(4), 322-329.
[31]. Hillebrandt, P. M. (2000). Economic Theory and the construction industry (3rd ed.): MacMillan Press
Ltd.
[32]. Jha, K. N., &Iyer, K. C. (2006). Critical determinants of project coordination. International Journal of
Project Management, 24(4), 314-322.
[33]. Karim Jallow, A., Demian, P., N. Baldwin, A., &Anumba, C. (2014). An empirical study of the
complexity of requirements management in construction projects. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 21(5), 505-531.
[34]. Konchar, M.,&Sanvido, V. (1998). Comparison of US project delivery systems. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 124(6), 435-444.
[35]. Kong, A.T.,&Gray, J. (2006). Problems with Traditional Procurement in the Malaysian Construction
Industry – A Survey. In Runeson, Goran and Best, Rick, Eds. Proceedings Australasian Universities
Building Educators Association Annual Conference, pp. 1-21, University of Technology, Sydney.
[36]. Lange, J. E., & Mills, D. Q. (1979). An introduction to the construction sector of the economy. In J. E.
Lange & D. Q. Mills (Eds.), The Construction Industry: Lexington Books.
[37]. Langford, D.A.,& Male, S. (2001). Strategic management in construction (Vol. 250). Oxford:
Blackwell Science.
[38]. Latham, M. (1994). Constructing the team: Final report of the government industry review of
procurement and contractual agreements in the UK construction industry. London: HMSO.
[39]. Love, P. E. D., Li, H., & Mandal, P. (1999). Rework: A symptom of a dysfunctional supply chain.
European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 5(1), 1–11.

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1520
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

[40]. Love, P. E., Gunasekaran, A., & Li, H. (1998). Concurrent engineering: a strategy for procuring
construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 16(6), 375-383.
[41]. Love, P. E., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. J. (2004). A seamless supply chain management model for
construction. Supply chain management: an international journal, 9(1), 43-56.
[42]. Masterman, J. W. E. (1992). An introduction to building procurement systems (1st ed.). London: Spon.
[43]. Mehdi Riazi., S.R. (2014). The use of supply chain management to reduce delays as result of pre-
construction deficiencies in Malaysian publicsector construction projects (Doctoral dissertation,
Queensland University of Technology).
[44]. Mendelsohn, R. (1998). Teamwork—The key to productivity. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 14(1), 22-25.
[45]. Mohamad, M.I. (1999). The application of concurrent engineering philosophy to the construction
industry. Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University.
[46]. Morledge, R., Knight, A., &Grada, M. (2009). Construction supply chain management: Concept and
case study. Oxford: Blackwell.
[47]. Munns, A. K., & Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996). The role of project management in achieving project success.
International Journal of Project Management, 14(2), 81-87.
[48]. Muya, M., Price, A. D. F., & Thorpe, A. (1999, September). Contractor's supplier management.
In Proceedings of CIB W55165 Joint Triennial Symposium, Customer Satisfaction: A Focus for
Research and Practice in Construction (pp. 5-10).
[49]. Nawi, M. N. M., Baluch, N. & Bahauddin, A.Y. (2014a). Impact of fragmentation issue in construction
industry: An overview. MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 15.
[50]. Nawi, M. N. M., Lee, A., Azman, M. N. A., & Kamar, K. A. M. (2014b). Fragmentation issue in
Malaysian industrialised building system (IBS) projects. Journal of Engineering Science & Technology
(JESTEC), 9(1), 97-106.
[51]. Nawi, M.N.M., Osman, W.N., Che-Ani, A.I. (2014c) Key Factors for Integrated Project Team
Delivery: A Proposed Study in IBS Malaysian Construction Projects, Advances in Environmental
Biology, 8(5) 1868-1872.
[52]. Nelson, M. L. (2004). The Applicability of the Integrate to Innovate (i2i) model in Supply Chain
Management (SCM) in Facilities Management (FM) (Doctoral dissertation, PhD Thesis, University of
Salford, UK).
[53]. Newton, A. J. (1995). The planning and management of detailed building design (Doctoral dissertation,
© Andrew John Newton).
[54]. Ngowi, A. B. (2000). Construction procurement based on concurrent engineering principles. Logistics
Information Management, 13(6), 361-369.
[55]. Ogunlana, S. O., Promkuntong, K., &Jearkjirm, V. (1996). Construction delays in a fast-growing
economy: comparing Thailand with other economies. International journal of project
Management, 14(1), 37-45.
[56]. Orange, G., Onions, P., Burke, A., &Colledge, B. (2005). Facilitating Organisational Learning within
the Construction Industry. Knowledge management in the construction industry: A socio-technical
perspective, 130.
[57]. Orr, A.J., & McKenzie, P. (1992, January). Programme and project management in BT. British
Telecommunication Engineering, 10.
[58]. Parda, B. (1996). Managing change in a project environment. CMA Magazine, 70(4), 6-6.
[59]. Potts, K. (2009). Construction supply chain management: Concept and case study. Oxford: Blackwell.
[60]. Pringle, J. (2012). “Fragmented Construction
Industry”.https://www.building.co.uk/communities/fragmented-constructionindustry/5043358.article.
Cited on 20th January 2017.
[61]. Riazi, S. R. M., &Nawi, M. N. M. (2018). Project delays in the Malaysian public sector: causes,
pathogens and the supply chain management approach. International Journal of Technology, 9(8),
1668-1680.

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com
Talent Development & Excellence 1521
Vol.12, No.2s, 2020, 1510-1521

[62]. Rowlinson, S. (1999). A definition of procurement systems. Procurement systems: A guide to best
practice in construction, 27-53.
[63]. Russell, J. S., Gugel, J. G., & Radtke, M. W. (1994). Comparative analysis of three constructability
approaches. Journal of construction engineering and management, 120(1), 180-195.
[64]. Scott, B. (2001). Partnering in Europe: Incentive based alliancing for projects. Thomas Telford.
[65]. Song, L., Mohamed, Y., &AbouRizk, S. M. (2006). Evaluating contractor's early involvement in
design. AACE International Transactions, PMS61.
[66]. Tai, S., Wang, Y., &Anumba, C. J. (2009). A survey on communications in large-scale construction
projects in China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(2), 136-149.
[67]. Tenah, K. A. (2001). Project delivery systems for construction: An overview. Cost engineering-
annarbor then morgantown-, 43(1), 30-36.
[68]. Van der Vlies, R. D., & Maas, G. J. (2009). A social capital perspective to innovation management in
construction (pp. 214-219). International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction.
[69]. Wood, G. D., & Ellis, R. C. T. (2005). Main contractor experiences of partnering relationships on UK
construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 23(3), 317-325.
[70]. Xue, X., Li, X., Shen, Q., & Wang, Y. (2005). An agent-based framework for supply chain
coordination in construction. Automation in construction, 14(3), 413-430.
[71]. Yates, D. (2002). Reducing the incidence of claims and disputes in construction contracts. In T. M.
Lewis (Ed.), Procurement Systems & Technology Transfer: CIB W92 Procurement Systems
Symposium (pp. 221-234).

ISSN 1869-0459 (print)/ ISSN 1869-2885 (online)

© 2020 International Research Association for Talent Development and Excellence
http://www.iratde.com