Supply chain management framework for waste minimisation ...mams.rmit.edu.au/l38iegcy2i8s.pdf ·...

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE MINIMISATION FOR RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

1

A SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT SELF ASSESSMENT

FRAMEWORK FOR WASTE MINIMISATION FOR THE

RESIDENTIAL SECTOR

FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

March 2014

Centre for Integrated Project Solutions

Authors: London, Zhang, Khalfan, Maqsood and Siva

The research described in this report was carried out by

Chief Investigator: Professor Kerry London

Investigators: Associate Professor Malik Khalfan and

Associate Professor Tayyab Maqsood

Researchers: Jessica Siva and Peng Zhang

Industry Research fellow: Rob Anderson

Research Program: Cash funding by EPA Victoria through the Beyond Waste Fund

In kind contributions by Metricon, Australand, RMIT, FMG Engineering, MBA

V, Boral

Date: March 2014


2


3

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 5

4.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 8

5.0 Literature review ......................................................................................................................................... 8

5.1 Waste in Construction .................................................................................................................................... 8

5.1.1 Data and benchmarking .......................................................................................................................... 8

5.1.2 Sources and causes ................................................................................................................................ 15

5.1.3 Construction waste minimisation .......................................................................................................... 16

5.1.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 21

5.2 Supply Chain Management – an overview ................................................................................................... 22

5.2.1 Definitions ............................................................................................................................................. 22

5.2.2 Benefits and barriers ............................................................................................................................. 23

5.2.3 Lean Manufacturing .............................................................................................................................. 25

5.2.4 Supply Chain Management and the construction sector ...................................................................... 28

5.2.5 SCM in Australia..................................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.6 SCM Internationally ............................................................................................................................... 31

5.2.7 Current viewpoints and discussion ........................................................................................................ 32

5.2.8 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 33

5.3 SCM and waste minimisation in the residential sector ................................................................................. 34

5.3.1 Integrated SCM ...................................................................................................................................... 36

5.3.2 SCM & waste minimisation in the residential sector ............................................................................. 37

5.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 39

6.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 39

7.0 Data collection and analysis ...................................................................................................................... 42

7.1 Background to Development of Framework ................................................................................................. 42

7.2 Draft Framework Development .................................................................................................................... 42

7.2.1 Focus Group Interview .......................................................................................................................... 42

7.2.2 Individual Interviews ............................................................................................................................. 43

7.2.3 Coding Schema: Barriers and enablers .................................................................................................. 44

7.2.4 Rules of the game .................................................................................................................................. 45

7.2.5 Barriers .................................................................................................................................................. 45

7.2.6 Enablers ................................................................................................................................................. 46

7.3 Frameworks: Creation, Pilot and evaluation ................................................................................................ 47


4

7.3.1 Field testing ........................................................................................................................................... 52

7.3.2 Action Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 59

7.4 Distribution of outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 60

8.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 61

9.0 References ................................................................................................................................................ 63

Appendix 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 68


5

1.0 Executive Summary

This report on the development of the framework is the final research report for the research project

entitled ‘A Supply Chain Management Self Assessment Framework for Waste Minimisation for the

Residential Sector’. The project is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency Waste Fund and is

managed by Sustainability Victoria. RMIT University is the lead organisation for this project on behalf

of the Australian Housing Supply Chain Alliance. Members of this Alliance who are partners for the

project include Metricon, Australand, FMG Engineering, Boral, Master Builders Association Victoria

and RMIT University. The project has been undertaken from December 2012 to 28 March 2014 and

comprises of four phases. The report documents these four phases. The overall aim of the project is to

develop and test a new management framework that can be used by volume residential construction

organisations to develop staff benchmarking profiles, initially, then potentially to develop a model for

SME's in relation to:

(a) Practitioner/staff awareness/knowledge and capabilities of best practice in integrated SCM

across design, procurement, tendering and construction functions to achieve organisational

objectives for waste avoidance and reduction;

(b) Practitioner/staff capabilities to respond to changes in supply chain environments at a

project level; and

(c) Organisational capacity at a portfolio level to support policy, systems and procedural

changes to adapt to future waste avoidance and reduction strategies.

The outcome of the project will assist the building industry in Australia to reduce and avoid construction

material waste. In Australia, as with many other developed countries, waste from materials and the

building process is a significant environmental and economic issue. Over the past two decades, supply

chain management (SCM) has had increasing attention within the construction management literature.

However, there has been little real evidence of its adoption at a systemic level in the industry in any of

the construction sectors including; residential, commercial and civil.

The purpose of this document is to provide a summary on the action research project aimed at using

supply chain management principles that signifies the development of a management tool for an

organization in order to reduce physical waste generated as a result of housing construction. There are

four objectives in this research project, including 1) Current practices, 2) Self-assessment Framework,

3) Guidelines, and 4) Dissemination. This research completely achieved these objectives over four

different phases of the project.


6

2.0 List of Tables

Table 1 C&D Waste as percentage of all solid waste entering landfills in various countries ......................... 9

Table 2 Environmental performance indicators ............................................................................................ 11

Table 3 Benchmarking data in relation to amount of waste per hous .......................................................... 12

Table 4 Waste levies for Victoria .................................................................................................................. 13

Table 5 Sources and Causes of Construction Waste................................................................................... 18

Table 6 Potential Benefits of Supplier Partnerships ..................................................................................... 26

Table 7 FGI Attendees ................................................................................................................................. 43

Table 8 Overview of participants interviewed ............................................................................................... 44

Table 9 Top barriers in each organisation .................................................................................................... 46

Table 10 Top enablers in each organisation ................................................................................................ 47

Table 11 Sample Framework ....................................................................................................................... 48

Table 12 External Supplier Management Self-Assessment Framework for Organisation B ........................ 49

Table 13 Internal Workflow Management Self-Assessment Framework for Organisation B ....................... 50

Table 14 Supplier Management Self-Assessment Framework for Organisation A ...................................... 51

Table 15 Coding of the Supply Chain Management Waste Minimization Principles for Organisation A ..... 53

Table 16 Coding of Principles of the External Supplier Management Framework for Organisation B ........ 56


7

3.0 List of Figures

Figure 1 Assumed diversion responses of waste streams to increases in the price of landfill .................... 13

Figure 2 Allocation of target – baseline vs target waste per house .............................................................. 15

Figure 3 Blueprint Supply Chain Management project based industry ........................................................ 35

Figure 4 Action Research Methodology: Generic ......................................................................................... 40

Figure 5 Action Research Methodology ....................................................................................................... 41

Figure 6: Response distribution across various statements in the Self-Assessment Framework for

Organisation A .............................................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 7: Profile showing average level of maturity for Principles in the Self-Assessment Framework for

Organisation A .............................................................................................................................................. 55

Figure 8: Response distribution across various statements in the Self-Assessment Framework for

Organisation B .............................................................................................................................................. 57

Figure 9: Profile showing average level of maturity for Principles in the Self-Assessment Framework for

Organisation B .............................................................................................................................................. 58


8

4.0 Introduction

This research report has been developed as part of a research project entitled ‘A Supply Chain

Management Self Assessment Framework for Waste Minimisation for the Residential Sector’, which

was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency Waste Fund and managed by Sustainability

Victoria. The project has been undertaken from 21 December 2012 to 28 March 2014. A research

Ethics Application was submitted for the project to the Design and Social Context College Human

Ethics Advisory Network (CHEAN), a sub-committee of the RMIT Human Research Ethics Committee

(HREC) on 24 January 2013. The project was approved and was awarded the approval number of

CHEAN B-2000783-01/13, with conditions. After modification based on the conditions from the

CHEAN, the Ethics Application was re-submitted to the CHEAN on 19 February 2013. The research

team received approval on 28 February 2013 to conduct the research and commence data collection.

There are four objectives in the research project, including 1) Current practices, 2) Self assessment

Framework, 3) Guidelines, and d) Dissemination. This research will present the procedures of

achieving these objectives step by step.

5.0 Literature review

5.1 Waste in Construction

Waste in construction has been identified as a significant problem in Australia. Construction waste or

construction and demolition (C&D) waste includes a mixture of inert and non-inert materials arising

from construction, renovation, demolition activities including excavation, civil and building construction,

roadwork, site clearance, demolition and building renovation (Shen et al, 2004; Tam and Tam, 2008;

Poon, 2007; Yuan et al, 2011).

5.1.1 Data and benchmarking

The strategic approach to management of the problem of construction and demolition materials waste

is often underpinned by an analysis of data including such measures as; volume of waste generated;

volume of waste transported to landfill; volume of waste recycled; carbon dioxide equivalent and

embodied energy; cost of transportation to landfill and landfill levy cost. This type of data can then

provide baseline data, targets and action plans. The information can be provided at an industry level

on a regional basis which is often aggregated or can be developed at site and project level.

Aggregated data is more useful to consider when reporting or evaluating industry policy and sectoral

level interventions and the project level analysis is more useful for companies to use when they are

attempting to implement organizational benchmarking and developing and evaluating the impact of

their action plans. It has been noted by many that this type of data is not readily available (BRE, 2006).

It has been suggested that construction and demolition waste can account for approximately 30% of all

solid waste streams (Brooks et al, 1994; Mincks, 1994; Bossink and Brouers, 1996) and hence this has

prompted national and/or regional policy development and implementation strategies in various


9

countries in the past decade such as UK, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, United States of America

and the Netherlands.

Waste being transported to landfill in Australia increased from 2004 till 2007. In Australia, construction

waste has been estimated to account for 16-40% of total waste (Bell, 1998)with nearly one ton of solid

waste sent to landfill per person annually (Reddrop and Ryan, 1997). In 2004-05 C&D waste

generation in Australia totalled 15.1 million tonnes of which 7.5 million tonnes was residual waste to

landfill (WCS Market Intelligence, 2008). In 2006-2007 the C&D waste stream accounted for 38% of

total waste, amounting to approximately 16.6 million tonnes (DSEWPC, 2011). In 2008-2009 C&D

waste generation in Australia increased to a total of 19.0 million tones of which 8.5 million tones was

disposed to landfill while 10.5 million tones or 55% was recovered and recycled (Hyder, 2011). In

Victoria in 2008-2009 a total of 3.15 million tones of C&D material was recovered for reprocessing,

however, 47% of waste to landfill was generated from the C&D sector (Sustainability Victoria, 2010).

The problem of construction waste is an international problem. Construction waste is not limited to

Australia (Mills et al, 1999; Yuan et al, 2011). In 2006, in the UK, the volume of construction, demolition

and refurbishment waste accounted for approximately 100 million tonnes annually. In the UK almost a

third of all total waste each year is attributed to the construction industry, approximately 50% of which

is recycled (BRE, 2006) and the wastage rate in the UK construction industry was as high as 10-15%

(McGrath and Anderson, 2000). Furthermore, it is suspected that this is an issue which is identified to

worsen as the push to improve energy efficiency through refurbishment and demolition of properties

intensifies over the coming decades. The reduction of construction waste has become a priority in the

UK with a 20 year strategy to reduce construction waste developed in 2006 (BRE, 2006). In addition to

the environmental impacts of waste materials, there are also significant economic impacts as well. The

cost of waste disposal is predicted to increase in future years (BRE, 2006), further adding to the

economic impacts. Consequently the effective management of construction waste is high on the

agenda both in Australia and internationally. Table 1 provides some data on the amount of C&D waste

generated in a number of countries including The Netherlands, Australia, United States of America,

Germany and Finland.

Table 1 C&D Waste as percentage of all solid waste entering landfills in various countries (Bossink and

Brouwers, 1996)

Country C&D Waste (by weight) (%)

The Netherlands 26

Australia 20-30

United States 20, 23, 24, 29

Germany 19

Finland 13-15

In Singapore, the “… Housing and Development Board confirmed that wastage is indeed a problem for

the construction industry and estimated that material wastage accounts for approximately 2% of the

contract sum” (Ling and Lim, 1995). In Singapore construction materials waste is disposed of either

through incineration (90%) or landfill (10%). It is a significant problem for a country where land is at a

premium and so a national waste management strategy is critical for Singapore. The US


10

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2002) estimated that approximately 136 million tons of

building related C&D waste were generated in 1996 with demolition waste accounting for 48% and

renovation 44% of the total waste. “In Hong Kong, from 1993 to 2004, the annual generation of C&D

waste has more than doubled, reaching an amount of about 20 million tons in 2004 a single year”

(Poon, 2007).

Of particular interest to policymakers and industry practitioners alike is research in Ireland by Duran et

al (2006) where they explored the economic viability of construction and demolition waste recycling.

Through conducting surveys and interviews with 29 local authorities responsible for waste

management, 15 aggregate producers and general recycling centers, suppliers of crushers, waste

management companies and policy makers the study uncovered that economic viability is likely to

occur when the cost of land filling exceeds the cost of recycling. The study also identified that recycling

centres benefit from economies of scale whereby an increase in the scale of a centre implies a

decrease in recycling costs. Furthermore the study also analysed the use of taxes and subsidies as

tools to encourage recycling. One important conclusion of the study is a suggestion that market based

instruments are likely to be the best option for policy makers. “In order to encourage recycling, the

prices charged to users of landfills and primary aggregates should be high” (Duran et al, 2006, p. 319).

The findings of Duran et al (2006) were confirmed by work carried out by the Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities – Queensland Department of

Environment and Resource Management which identified that ‘high landfill disposal costs provide an

incentive to process mixed C&D waste in order to recover certain high value and high volume

components and avoid landfill disposal costs” (Hyder, 2011, p. 11).

A pilot project “Developing a Strategic Approach to Construction Waste” was established by the UK’s

Building Research Establishment (BRE) to identify activities and drivers to dictate the future direction

of the construction industry in relation to resource efficiency. The work carried out by the BRE has

produced some important data and environmental benchmarks in relation to construction waste in the

housing sector and some of these are reproduced below.

Some initial data on the amounts of waste produced from different types of construction have been

identified and a number of environmental performance indicators are outlined in Table 2 below. The

indicators are given as m3 waste per 100m2 floor area to enable like for like comparison; and

m3/£100,000


11

Table 2 Environmental performance indicators (BRE, 2006)

D: Demolition

E: Excavation

G: Groundworks

M: Mainframe

S: Services

P: Partitions

F: Fit-out

Civ

il

En

gin

ee

rin

g

Leis

ure

Healt

h C

are

/

Ho

sp

itals

Resid

en

tia

l

Off

ice

Ed

ucati

on

/

Sch

oo

ls

Benchmarks E, G, M G, M, S, P, F

G, M, S, P, F G, M, S, P, F

G, M, S, P, F

G, M, S, P, F

Key performance indicator (KPI) =

m3/£100,000 project value

52.3 6.1 7.9 17.3 8.4 13.2

Environmental performance

indicator (EPI) = m3/100m2

61.7 3.7 11.7 19.2 14.1 22.2

Benchmarking data on the amount of waste per house has been developed through BRE’s analysis of

23 housing projects. Table 3 presents this data in relation to the average amount of waste produced

across the sites which is 19.2m3 waste per 100m2 floor area. Using this figure and applying it to a

typical semi of 80m2, BRE (2006) estimated an average material waste generation of 15.36m3 of

waste per house. Furthermore “when adding in an average of 50% void space in the skips that would

collect this waste – this equates to around 30m3 of skipped waste. A typical skip has a volume of

6.125m3, so around 5 skips will be needed to contain the waste from 1 house. Based upon the

Envirronmental Agency conversion factors, the weight of waste from our generic house is 9.6 tonnes”

(BRE, 2006, p. 9).


12

Table 3 Benchmarking data in relation to amount of waste per house (BRE, 2006)

Project type Housing EPI (m3 waste/100m2)

Average

Waste Group Residential x 23 no Conversion factor Tonnes

Timber 1.3 0.3 0.39

Concrete 2.5 1.11 2.775

Inert 1.1 1.3 1.43

Ceramic 2.8 0.78 2.18

Insulation 1.0 0.16 0.16

Plastic 0.6 0.22 0.132

Packaging 2.9 0.55 1.59

Metal 1.3 0.8 1.04

Plaster & cement 3.2 0.4 1.28

Miscellaneous 2.5 0.4 1.0

Total EPI 19.2 11.997

Past work in the UK has shown that a typical construction skips costs £1343 when the cost of the skip

is added to the cost of labour and materials that fill it. The BRE (2006, p. 10) outline the breakdown of

this as:

1. “skip hire £85 (quite low compared to current prices) – 6.4% of cost

2. labour to fill it £163 - 12.1% of cost

3. cost of materials in skip £1095 – 81.5% of cost

Therefore the financial cost of waste for our generic house is for 5 skips, around £6715, and rising”.

In Australia it has been estimated that the cost of disposal of waste generated during the construction

of a residential house is between $2000 to $3000 per house. There has also a been suggestion made

on the volume of waste generated in the construction of a volume builder house on a flat block to be 18

to 23 m3 of waste per house in Victoria (Hyder, 2011, p. 47).

In Australia the management of environmental issues including the management of C&D waste is the

responsibility of Australian states and territory governments. The Australian Government does not

directly legislate management of C&D waste (DSEWPC, 2012). Research undertaken by the

Department of Sustainability Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC)(2012)

identified the cost of landfill as a significant driver for re-use and recycling of C&D Waste. According to

the DSEWPC, in 2009, “landfill costs in Australia ranged from $42 per tonne to $102 per tonne. In

addition to the cost of land-filling by operators, there can be an additional charge levied by the state

and territory jurisdictions. In New South Wales for example, the government’s Section 88 Landfill Levy

applies to regulated areas and ranged between $20.40 per tonne and $70 per tonne. The lower limit is


13

set to rise by $10 (plus adjustment for the consumer price index) per year until 2015-18. It is expected

that this will drive additional re-use and recycling from the construction industry” (2012, p. 10).

Victoria has had a long history of landfill levy application (Hyder, 2011). Table 4 provides information in

relation to the waste levies charged for municipal solid waste (MSW) and industrial waste. The levy for

industrial waste is applied to C&D waste disposed to landfill that does not contain prescribed industrial

waste.

Table 4 Waste levies for Victoria (Sustainability Victoria, 2011)

Geographic area Waste levy (per tonne) Forecast waste levy increase

2010-2011 2011-2012

Metro/ provincial MSW: $30

Industrial: $30

MSW: $40

Industrial: $40

Increasing to $53.20 for both MSW and Industrial by 2014-15

Rural MSW: $15

Industrial: $25

MSW: $20

Industrial: $35

Increasing to $26.60 for both MSW and $46.60 for Industrial by 2014-15

Work undertaken by Hyder Consulting for Sustainability Victoria has uncovered the relationships

between amount of waste sent to landfill and an increase in landfill price. Figure 1 presents an

estimation of responses to the price of landfill for the three key waste streams of MSW, C&I and C&D.

According to Figure 1, there is a suggestion that C&D waste generation is likely to most rapidly

respond to a pricing signal thereby resulting in increased waste being diverted from landfill (Hyder,

2011).

Figure 1 Assumed diversion responses of waste streams to increases in the price of landfill (Hyder,

2011)

Furthermore it was identified that not only was pricing important but the geographic location of

reprocessors was also important in terms of facilitating C&D material recovery particularly in


14

metropolitan Melbourne (Hyder, 2011). A Sustainability Victoria commissioned study found that

“resource recovery from C&I and C&D waste streams in the North Eastern and Mildura regions of

Victoria was significantly hampered by the movement of wastes to landfills in NSW where landfill cost

were typically lower (in part due to landfill levies in the non-regulated area of NSW). The study

indicated this made landfill disposal a cheaper alternative for many materials, compared to separation

and recovery. The study indicated that in some instances the cost differential between townships in

Victoria could be double those in NSW” (Hyder, 2011, p. 96).

Apart from the attempt to develop baseline data for benchmarking purposes, the other most significant

contribution underpinning the UK BRE report was that an holistic approach to the life cycle of products

and materials was needed. Waste is being produced through manufacture, distribution, design,

construction, refurbishment and demolition.

“Long term targets for waste reduction, reuse and recycling are the best way to define what can be

achieved and focus our combined efforts within the framework of a combined target. This is not easy to

do for a wastestream that is fragmented in the following ways:

1. Waste is being produced and sent to landfill by the actions of the whole supply chain –

manufacture, distribution, design, construction, maintenance, refurbishment, demolition,

(resource management).

2. Waste from manufacture, construction, refurbishment and demolition are lumped together for

reporting purposes but are different in terms of amounts, composition, causes, levels of

integration and separation.

However, different targets for each part of the supply chain or activity would be less meaningful unless

set against overarching, global targets i.e. each will have a role to play in reaching the target but the

actions and relative contribution may differ in accordance with their ability to deliver. An example of this

could be waste reduction and demolition waste, whereby the only realistic way to prevent demolition

waste would be to have a longer lasting building – this is not something the demolition sector can

achieve. It is more the design, durability of products/materials and maintenance of the building that can

achieve waste reduction in this instance.” (BRE, 2006; p8).

Significant reductions in waste will only be possible if they are accrued throughout the supply chain.

The BRE (2006) suggests an allocation of the target of 50% waste reduction across the relevant

supply chain, ie distributed in accordance with the ability to deliver those savings. An idea of what this

might look like is given by BRE in Figure 2 below.


15

Figure 2 Allocation of target – baseline vs target waste per house (BRE, 2006)

The DSEWPC developed a “Construction and Demolition Waste Guide – recycling and re-use across

the supply chain” which is underpinned by the idea that the myriad of supply chain stakeholders play

out their roles in delivering a sustainable built environment. The guide documented a series of case

studies to outline various C&D waste recycling and re-use initiatives across Australia and demonstrate

a range of opportunities at various stages of the supply chain. Whilst the case studies clearly

demonstrate the benefits and profits associated with the initiatives there is little discussion on the

actual strategies used to integrate the supply chain as well as the specific actions of supply chain

actors. The approach taken in our research project is underpinned by the strategy that it is the actions

of the whole supply chain that will ultimately reduce waste to landfill in the Australian housing sector

but is an attempt to go further than simply documenting case studies of outcomes. It is our contention

that there has been little research in housing waste minimization that moves beyond the rhetoric of

claiming that supply chain management is the answer to waste minimizationto towards developing and

piloting strategies that could be embedded in organisations.

5.1.2 Sources and causes

To be able to reduce the amount of waste generated it is important to know what the source and

causes are. The source and cause of construction and demolition waste has often been considered to

be the responsibility of the contractor however this is a simplistic view of a complex problem. Clearly

there are problems handed to the site operatives in relation to waste that are beyond their control. It

has been identified that project design, product manufacture, estimating, procurement and materials

handling as well as site construction practices all have a role to play in reducing on-site waste. The

construction process involves many players and all have a contribution to play in waste minimization.

This section explores the site operatives as well as upstream contributors to the challenge of waste

minimization. Often the focus is on waste recycling and much effort is expended on fixing the problem

at the end of the waste chain. Although these efforts are to be acknowledged it is also worthwhile to

examine the source and then identify the cause and develop strategies to address the root cause of

the problem to minimize waste and reduce effort in a ‘band-aid’ approach at the end of the construction

process.


16

In a study to examine the waste minimisation strategies and behaviour of main contractors in

Singapore as a way of curbing the waste problem caused by subcontractors, Lim (2005) identified the

four main causes of waste generation on site to include;

1. wasteful practice of subcontractors,

2. lack of integration and coordination of team players,

3. inefficient usage of construction materials by subcontractors and

4. incidence of rework.

However our contention in this study is that the source of waste can occur at any stage of a

construction project and can result from a variety of causes. We have to acknowledge that this

contention is not particularly new and valuable research work by Bossink and Brouwers (1996) began

in the mid 1990s where they examined the various activities in the Dutch supply chain to attempt to

identify possible options to reduce waste generation in construction activities ( Table 1). They identified

5 sources of waste related to 1) design 2) procurement 3) materials handling 4) operations 5) residual

and 6) other. Their analysis provided quantitative data on volume of waste, amount of waste material

as a proportion of the total cost of that material procured and then cost of removal of that waste from

site as a percentage of the total waste costs (including purchasing costs, transport to landfill sites and

waste management costs). This quantitative data is interesting for comparisons and will be useful to

our study and we shall use as a starting point for benchmarking in our two case studies. Further to the

quantitative work on 5 housing sites was a the small piece of research they conducted which included

brainstorming sessions with 8 representatives of contracting companies. This qualitative data provided

an inventory of the causes of production of waste created by the use of various construction materials.

This built upon a desk top review they had previously conducted and a compilation of a table of the

empirical results as well as the previous work by Gavilan and Bernhold (1994) and Craven et al (1994)

was produced. We have reproduced that table now (table 5) as it is provides a comprehensive listing of

various sources and causes of construction materials waste.

Knowing and understanding the causes of waste coupled with measuring the volume and cost of waste

are important steps in construction waste minimization. The next section explores the research

literature on construction waste minimization and in particular strategies and actions undertaken by

organisations.

5.1.3 Construction waste minimisation

Waste minimization is any systematic technique, process or methodology used to achieve waste

reduction primarily through avoidance or reduction at source (CIRIA, 1995; Crittenden, 1995). In the

previous section on Construction waste, we identified government approaches through policy

development, however, this section shall focus on the industry practices and organizational and project

level strategies and actions that can assist in waste minimization.


17

Construction waste minimisation involves many waste reduction activities which can lead to economic,

social and environmental benefits (Greenwood 2003). In terms of economic benefits, potential large

savings can be made by construction organisations through reductions in material expense and waste

disposal costs. In addition, an organisation’s involvement and experiences in waste minimisation could

be a valuable marketing tool for bidding on projects that participate in local and national green building

certification programs (Greenwood 2003). In regards to social benefits, construction waste

minimisation can help to create skilled employment, conduct knowledge-based business, and increase

work safety through cost savings and staff training related to waste management (Greenwood 2003)

Finally, environmental benefits of minimising construction waste can be achieved through the effective

use of natural resources and reduce waste to landfill (Greenwood 2003).


18

Table 5 Sources and Causes of Construction Waste ( Source: Table 8 Extended List of Sources and

Causes of Waste based on Tables 4 and 8 Table 4: Source and Causes of Construction Waste

Gavilan and Bernold, 1994; Craven et al, 1994 as cited in Bossink and Brouwers, 1996)

Source Cause

Design Error in contract documents

Design Contract documents incomplete at commencement of construction

Design Changes to design

Design Choices about specifications of products

Design Choice of low quality products

Design Lack of attention paid to sizes of used products

Design Designer not familiar with possibilities of different products

Design Lack of influence of contractors and lack of knowledge about construction

Procurement Ordering error, over ordering, under ordering, and so on

Procurement lack of possibilities to order smaller quantities

Procurement Use of products that do not fit

Materials handling Damaged during transportation to site/on site

Materials handling Inappropriate storage leading to damage or deteriorisation

Materials handling Throw away packaging

Operation Error by tradesperson or laborer

Operation Equipment malfunction

Operation Inclement weather

Operation Accidents

Operation Damage caused by subsequent trades

Operation Use of incorrect material requiring replacement

Operation Required quantity of products unknown due to imperfect planning

Operation Information about types and sizes of products that will be used arrives too late

Residual Cutting uneconomical shapes

Residual Offcuts from cutting materials to length

Residual Over mixing of materials for wet trades due to a lack of knowledge of requirements

Residual Waste from application process

Residual Packaging

Other Criminal waste due to damage or theft

Other Lack of on site materials control and waste management plans

Past work into construction waste minimisation have identified a number of key approaches or

practices for construction organisations seeking to reduce and avoid waste including:

1. Waste management integrated as part of the design process: Various measures which can be

used to reduce waste during the early stages of the design process including dimensional

coordination and standardisation, minimisation of the use of temporary works, provision of

detailed designs and limitation of design modifications (Poon, 2007)


19

2. Use of prefabricated materials and products: The use of prefabricated products reduces waste

generation on site and can also contribute to better quality and cost savings. Conduct of a

waste minimisation assessment which examines opportunities for waste avoidance reduction,

reuse and recycling (EPA, 1998)

3. Incorporation of waste minimisation targets and measures into organisations’ environmental

management plans (EPA, 1998)

Despite the potential benefits of adopting waste minimisation practices including cost savings, better

quality products and safer sites; substantial evidence has demonstrated that there is a gap between

theory and actual implementation of the suggested practices for waste minimisation by construction

organisations. Some of the barriers to effective implementation of waste minimisation practices

include:

a lack of economic incentives to reduce and avoid waste (Yuan et al, 2011):

the culture of the construction industry which is resistant to change (Maloney and Federle,

1993; Lingard et al, 2000)

the unique nature of each project, hostility and unpredictability of the production environment,

fragmented nature of the project organisations used to procure buildings (Teo and Loosemore,

2001)

a lack of awareness, interest or commitment to environmental issues (Ofori, 2000) particularly

at senior management level

a perception that waste management is not cost-effective (Bossink and Brouwers, 1996;

Graham, 1996) and is actually a costly and a time consuming activity

lack of training and tools to implement waste minimization strategies

poor coordination and integration between various participants as projects progress

poor review and feedback loop mechanisms to provide information upstream to early decision

makers

The literature indicates that many of the barriers to effective waste management revolve around

underlying structural and behavioural characteristics of the construction industry. These barriers are at

sector, organization, project and individual level. Individuals are highly resistant in their behaviour and

attitude towards new work practices to minimize waste and are therefore not embracing the potential

benefits of effective waste management. However, it is not only the individual level there are systemic

and structural barriers that inhibit change such as the fragmented silo mentality of the industry and the

cultures that underpin organisations. At times the inertia of the industry appears overwhelming to

overcome to catalyse significant change in work practices.


20

Perceptions can play a key role in the diffusion of new practices. However, human behaviour and

perceptions are changed by work practices. One of the greatest influences on firm work practices is

the cluster of firms that they deal with on a daily basis; that is their clients, collaborators and suppliers.

Firm practices are also constantly being shaped by their competitors whereby firms can sometimes be

lead to change work practices when competitors are embracing change by adopting new practices.

Firms and individuals leading firms are of the perception that it can be too risky not to change when

working within such a competitive work environment that is the construction industry (London, 2008)

The attitudes of key players inevitably influence the level of waste generated on a project (Faniran and

Caban 1998). It has been argued that clients have the greatest influence over waste minimization

practices since clients set the environmental conditions and standards to which the project team must

comply (Dainty and Brooke, 2004). However, any effort to influence waste management practices on

projects would be of limited value if those further down the supply chain do not buy-in to effective

waste management practices (Teo and Loosemore, 2001; Dainty and Brooke, 2004). Within this

context, the frequently discussed fragmented nature of the construction industry is likely to pose as a

significant barrier to embedding a culture of waste minimization throughout the supply chain.

However, contrary to the traditional view that the construction industry is fragmented, unstructured and

unpredictable, London (2008) has identified that the project-based industry has a deeper level of

complexity in that there is an underlying structure to the activities of the supply chains, supplier firms

and procurement relationships, which can be classified based upon specific patterns of attributes.

Firms may not work on every project with the same customer and supplier connections; however, firms

are typically located within a cluster of business networks, which develop and are maintained over

numerous years (London, 2008). There is thus an indication that there are indeed longer-term

relationships between the different players within the supply chain who have a degree of influence over

each in other in their behaviour and attitudes towards the adoption of effective waste minimisation

practices. As such, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of how this takes place within the

supply chain that is specific to the residential C&D waste sector. It is proposed that those alliances

whether formally or informally constituted will provide the greatest opportunity for innovation to take

place in waste minimization.

Various factors have been identified in the literature as those which can influence the successful

implementation of a waste management plan by construction organisations including (Ling and Lim,

2002):

Involvement of senior site staff

Commitment of top level management

Cooperation of sub-contractors

Support of workers

Establishment of clear corporate policy, goals and objectives in waste management


21

Increasing workers’ environmental awareness

Support of clients

Presence of waste management experience

Support of government

Presence of clear and effective internal communication on waste management

Presence of waste management expertise

Availability of recycling facilities

Availability of proven successful plan

Support of design consultants

Through conducting 30 interviews and questionnaires with 30 construction professionals in Singapore,

Ling and Lim (2002) identified that the three most important factors were involvement of senior site

staff, commitment of top-level management and co-operation of subcontractors. The study concluded

that the critical factors influencing the success of a plan are directly linked to the internal environment

which the organisation has control over and therefore commitment and support throughout the whole

organisation is essential for successful implementation (Ling and Lim, 2002). These findings support

the earlier work of Teo and Loosemore (2001) which also identified top management supportiveness

as one of the most critical factors for waste reduction behaviour.

Another study conducted in Singapore (Lim, 2005) to examine main contractors’ waste minimisation

strategies for managing subcontractors uncovered seven key main strategies for influencing the

reduction of waste on site which are training of subcontractors, quality of documentation provided to

subcontractors, cooperation among team players, main contractor’s control over subcontractor’s

workmanship, main contractor’s control over subcontractor’s usage of materials, goal-setting with

subcontractors and main contractor’s control of suppliers’ material quality.

It has been identified that written waste management plans can be both an incentive and guide

towards encouraging best practice waste management on construction sites (Ling and Lim, 2002).

However there is often little verification of such plans and limited monitoring of any improvements

made (Tucker et al, 2005). It is thus important to not only implement waste minimisation practices but

to also monitor and evaluate its outcomes and effectiveness. It is also important to differentiate

between waste management onsite that is concerned with waste minimization and those activities that

are dedicated to managing the waste on site towards being recycled or transported off site to landfill.

5.1.4 Summary

Each process or stage of a construction project can produce construction waste. In order to minimise

construction waste, many governments around the world have sought to implement various waste


22

minimisation policies and best practice guidelines. A number of key approaches or measures for

reducing and avoiding waste have also been presented by various of scholars and experts.

Significantly the focus of these policies and best practice guidelines has tended to be on the

implementation phase of waste minimisation practices. The importance of monitoring and evaluating

the outcomes and effectiveness of the waste minimisation practices is largely neglected.

Furthermore whilst past studies have revealed the significance of organizational behaviour and

attitudes in the implementation of waste minimization plans, there is still limited research which

investigates the critical role that different players including competitors, suppliers,

collaborators/partners; within the supply chain play in influencing the perceptions and attitudes towards

waste minimisation. Waste minimisation involves the promotion of favourable attitudes and

encouragement of ownership of the process at all levels of the construction process (Tucker et al,

2005). Given that waste can arise at any stage of the process, from inception to design to construction

to operation of the facility (Dainty and Brooke, 2004) cooperation between various supply chain players

is critical in order to achieve an integrated approach to waste minimisation on projects.

5.2 Supply Chain Management – an overview

It is not the purpose of this review to detail the development of Supply Chain Management (SCM) and

its integration into the construction sector. Several seminal reviews and original research works

provide this information already. For example Hong Minh (2002), London and Kenley (2001) and

O’Brien et al(2009). This review builds upon these and provides developments in this area since these

publications. In doing so, a review of developments across the past 5 years (since 2008) is the primary

aim of this review. While the focus will be on post-2008 developments, pre-2008 publications will be

drawn upon where appropriate. Furthermore it is not the purpose of this review to detail the issue of

material waste in the construction sector as this will be the focus of the final section which attempts to

draw together key research themes in this area.

This review is structured into several sections. Firstly a brief overview of SCM is provided;

development of SCM and the construction industry are then presented and then the discussion is

narrowed to SCM and waste reduction and avoidance in the residential construction sector. A

summary of recent developments of SCM, the construction sector and waste minimisation concludes

this review.

5.2.1 Definitions

SCM has developed out of concepts such as logistics and operations management (Vidalakis, Tookey

and Sommerville, 2011) and has developed as a response to increasing competition (CSIRO, 2001).

Early criticisms of SCM were that it was not discernibly different to logistics management (McGeorge,

Palmer and London, 2002). It was initially applied within the manufacturing sector, with the key

example being that of Toyota Production System.

There are a range of definitions for SCM especially within construction industry applied within the

literature which has been described as confusing and have been criticised for being too vague

(Bankvall et al, 2010; Khalfan and Maqsood, 2012; Petrovic-Lazarevic, Matanda and Worthy, 2006;


23

Pryke, 2009). The lack of consistent definitions has been seen to be hampering the development of

SCM, both in theory and in practice (London, 2008).

Tennant and Fernie (2012) explore the definitions of supply chain management and summarize that

there are two broad schools of thought; a functional school and a philosophical school. The example

advocaters of a functional school are Cox et al (2006) and Spekman et al (1998). They believe supply

chain management is a sourcing strategy. This “involves the buyer undertaking proactive supplier

development work, not only at the first-tier of the supply chain, but also at all stages in the supply chain

from the first tier through to raw material supply” (Cox, et al., 2006 p.34).

Alternatively, commentators of a philosophical school (Cooper & Ellram, 1993) interpret supply chain

management as a ‘way of working’. This largely abstract interpretation traverses many organisational

and operational boundaries (Tennant and Fernie, 2012). Consequently, supply chain management is

not just about explicit corporate functions such as purchasing, logistics and production, supply chain

management also pervades tacit aspects of business such as teamwork, professionalism and

networking (CSCMP, 2013).

London (2008) identifies various definitions from four different approaches including distirubtion,

production, strategic procurement and industrial organisation economics and states that SCM is about

delivering superior outcomes at less cost to the supply chain as a whole. SCM involves the systematic

management and physical distribution of products from their raw material state, through the

manufacturing processes to the point of sale for the product (London and Kenley, 2001). The supply

chain is defined as the ‘network of organisations that are involved, through upstream and downstream

linkages, in the different processes and activities that produce value in the form of products and

services in the hand of the ultimate customer’ (Christopher, 1992). These organisations are dynamic

and interdependent and can quickly be reconfigured to respond to changing requirements from the

customer (CSIRO, 2001). However London (2008) was more targeted in producing a definition that

was more useful to the construction industry rather than a retelling and borrowing from lean

manufacturing or transport logistics sectors.

“Supply chain procurement is the strategic identification, creation and management of critical project

supply chains and the key resources, within the contextual fabric of the construction supply and

demand system, to achieve value for clients.” (London, 2008) This definition then provides a platform

for an innovation and productivity improvements that large organisations (such as volume house

builders) are seeking to achieve. It provides a useful starting point for our study on waste minimization

because without strategic identification, creation and management of critical project supply chains and

key resources seen within the context of the supply and demand economic system we can not hope to

reduce waste and bring key supply chain actors along on the journey. It is the influence that large

volume housebuilders have on the whole supply chain that will enable some transformations to take

place – both culturally, operationally and economically.

5.2.2 Benefits and barriers

Many benefits can be achieved through SCM including (Cheng et al, 2010):


24

Reduced costs,

Improved responsiveness and ability to changes;

Reduced uncertainty for project owners in cost savings

Increased service level; and ,

Facilitate decision making.

In an integrated supply chain, information is shared both up and down stream, improving efficiencies. A

responsive supply chain is able to deal with a range of elements including quantities demanded, short

lead times, large variety of products, achieve a high service level and account for uncertainty of

consumers and suppliers (Bankvall et al, 2010).

When Benton and McHenry (2010) present the potential benefits of supplier partnerships (see Table

6), they also state that due to the following barriers, the development of an integrated supply chain

remains an extremely difficult task. Barriers to SCM, include; failure to share project information; fear of

loss of control; lack of self awareness; lack of partner awareness; enormity of the project complexity;

inability to recognize project goals; lack of understanding project owner; lack of understanding of

supply chain; myopic thinking; myopic strategies; and deficiency of mutuality. The lack of critical

scrutiny of SCM and its integration into the original sectors has been raised as a significant issue with

SCM development (Bankvall et al, 2010).


25

5.2.3 Lean Manufacturing

SCM has closely been linked to the “lean” approach. The objective of lean management is to achieve

‘zero waste’. A number of sources of waste have been identified including; overproduction, waiting,

transportation, Inappropriate processing, unnecessary inventory, unnecessary motion and defects.

Womack and Jones (1996) defined the five main elements of “lean thinking,” which are now widely

accepted. These five main elements that enable a lean approach are:


26

Table 6 Potential Benefits of Supplier Partnerships (Benton & McHenry, 2010)

Reduced Uncertainty for Project Owners in Cost Savings

• Material costs

• Quality

• Timing

• Reduced supplier, subcontractor base

easier to manage

• Economies of scale in

• Scheduling

• Purchasing

• Logistics

• Decreased administrative costs

• Fewer switching costs

• Enhanced project integration

• Technical or physical integration

• Improved equipment utilization

Reduced Uncertainty for Subcontractors and Suppliers in

Time Management

• Market

• Understanding of project owner’s needs

• Project specifications

• Faster project completion

• Improved cycle time for subcontractor

Reduced Uncertainty for Owners and Partners in

Shared Risks and Rewards

• Convergent expectation and goals

• Reduced effects from externalities

• Reduced opportunism

• Increased communication and feedback

• Joint capability and development

• Market shifts

• Increased profitability

• Project development

• Accident reduction

Joint Work Method Development Stability

• Increased shared technology

• Greater joint involvement of project

design

• Lead times

• Priorities and attention

Greater Flexibility


27

1. Value—Identify value since it is lean manufacturing’s role to deliver value to the customer.

2. Value stream—To create customer value, managers need to identify which activities add value

and which do not.

3. Flow—Managers must focus on the flow through the value chain in the factory and eliminate

non-value-adding activities. This usually involves a “single piece” flow concept.

4. Pull—The value chain is based on a pull approach; that is, customer demand drives

manufacturing activity and material flow.

5. Perfection—Continuous improvement in pursuit of perfection.

6. Past research has suggested that the lean approach aids competitiveness (Nystuen, 2002;

Parker, 2003; Liker 2004). Sheridan (2000) states that conversion to lean production could

bring four fold productivity after studying in Japanese companies.

Lathin (2001) suggests that a reduction of 90% in lead time, 90% in inventories, 90% in the cost of

quality and 50% increase in labour productivity could be achieved by adopting lean production for the

traditional mass producers. Lawson (2013) states that lean production could bring the benefit of the

elimination of all categories of waste. Through a comprehensive study of 72 manufacturing companies

including the top 50 organizations in Australia based on the number of employees, venue and

profitability and whose names were supplied by the “Business Council of Australia” and the “Australian

Chamber of Commerce”, Sohal and Eggleston (1994, p.6) suggest that: “Two-thirds of the companies

said that a strategic advantage had been generated...with the greatest improvements stemming from

market competitive positioning, customer relationships and quality constrains”.

Although lean production has many benefits, there are also drawbacks. It can be a challenge to record

and accurately track inventory and material usage, especially when material usage varies due to errors

or the nature of the process, or there are very long lead times. Lawson (2013) summarized the

concerns of lean production as follows:

1. Firstly, capacity utilization is often sacrificed in conventional JIT environments (Slack et al.

2001, p. 485) in favor of reducing inventory. One solution to this is to create an annual- hours

contract with staff so that capacity is elastic.

2. Secondly, there will be a bottleneck when kanban cards start piling up at a work cell due to the

longer task completion time than the task time. Furthermore, capacity planning is difficult in a

pull-based JIT or orderless environment, especially if there is different product portfolio and the

operation times vary.

3. Thirdly, there are not enough historical records for analysis of processes and continuous

improvement because the limits of lean manufacturing techniques, which is a main

disadvantage of lean manufacturing. Furthermore, techniques such as kanban are inadequate


28

among suppliers, customers, subcontractors and other partners in a global supply chain. Some

lean manufacturing techniques are limited within a factory.

4. Finally, lean production has to focus on total productive maintenance because there is no

safety buffer in a lean environment. If anything breaks down in the production process, the

entire material flow quickly stops.

In brief, lean manufacturing has often been seen as difficult to implement in construction because of

demand variations, changes of product mix and global distribution of supply partners (London, 2008).

5.2.4 Supply Chain Management and the construction sector

SCM has been proposed as a solution to the construction industry inefficiencies (Bankvall et al, 2010).

It is now an approach which is on the national agenda for many countries (London, 2008). While

emanating more recently from the manufacturing industries, improved efficiencies in the construction

sector have been flagged for almost as long as construction has been around. For example Henry

Ford, the founder of the Ford motor company,

‘dreamed about mass-producing homes using standard but modularised designs with the modules built

in factories to slash design and production costs while still providing variety. A number of

entrepreneurs actually created modular designs and briefly set up production lines in the Unites States

to make the modules for prefabricated houses immediately after World War II’ (Womack and Jones,

2003, p. 51).

Authors such as Lonngren, Rosenkranz and Kolbe, (2010) and Cheng et al, (2010) argue that the

construction sector is one of the least integrated industry and in order to achieve economic and labour

efficiencies in the construction sector there needs to be a restructure of the building supply chain.

However, others such as London (2008) question if the construction industry is as inefficient as

everyone claims given the complexity of the nexus of contracts that culminate on a construction project

and perhaps alternative measures of efficiency should be developed rather than adopting ill fitting

productivity measures from other sectors.

Since the early 1990s, the construction sector has begun to embrace SCM. However, Aloini et al

(2012) question if this has happened and state that attempted integration of SCM into the construction

sector has been met with significant challenges and is still too fragmented currently to claim any sort of

success. This is also surmised by others (Bankvall et al, 2010; Khalfan and Maqsood, 2012; Shin et al,

2011). To date, the construction industry is lagging behind with regards to the integration of SCM

approaches, in particular with achieving the required integration and managing the complex supply

chains (Bankvall et al, 2010). Bankvall et al (2010) in summarising the SCM in construction literature,

state that there are researchers who believe that the construction sector lacks the will to do what is

required to successfully implement SCM. Furthermore thy find that there are questions over the

assumptions embedded into SCM not fitting within fragmented industries such as construction.

The difficulty of applying SCM to the construction industry is well known (Doran and Giannakis, 2011;

Eriksson, 2010). As London (2008, p. 11) states


29

‘ultimately, effective SCM requires the ability to be able to identify and locate differing levels

and types of differentiation across various SM options. It is suspected that very few firms have

this holistic perspective of SC and typically manage on one tier; which is their immediate

suppliers’

Construction projects are highly dependent on the co-ordination of a large number of stakeholders.

Aligning all stakeholders to improve supply chain efficiencies is challenging, especially as many of

these actors do not have the power or ability to co-ordinate such a change (Formosa and Isatto, 2011).

On the other hand, Bankvall et al,(2010) provide an overview of the challenges of SCM integration into

the construction sector and what has occurred to date to attempt to overcome these challenges. Less

attention has been paid to the nature of the construction supply chains and their industrial

organisational economic environment because it is the nature of the power relationship between the

customer and the supplier that ultimately will drive the procurement relationship (London, 2008).

SCM involves a high level of expertise, knowledge and skills at executive and site operational level to

ensure that policies and processes support the desired practices. SCM involves four key sets of

activities; Developing supplier group strategy maps; Implementing strategic sourcing processes and

practices; Streamlining supplier coordination systems; and managing supplier performance for

improved alignment (London, 2008).

5.2.5 SCM in Australia

Until the early 2000’s, there had been limited application of SCM in the construction sector in Australia.

An early study into SCM and the construction sector was completed by CSIRO (CSIRO, 2001). This

study focused on improving client-supplier relations through the use of information technology. The

project developed a web-based system for Bovis Lend Lease to assist the company with SCM. The

aim of the tool was to improve the supply chain to become more efficient. While outcomes of the

project identified the importance of information technology and focusing on developing client-supplier

relationships to improve efficiencies, the research did not address the reduction or avoidance of waste

materials. However, it concluded that SCM was a useful approach to apply to the construction sector in

Australia.

Building upon this, Petrovic-Lazarevic et al (2006) interviewed eight Melbourne residential builders

regarding SCM and the role and importance of relationships within the supply chain. They found that

relationships and trust between building companies and suppliers is seen as important in achieving

and sustaining competitive advantage. In this regard the focus was on improving economic efficiencies

and ensuring timely completion of work for the companies involved and does not mention waste.

Interestingly, they found that while trust with suppliers was a key element in building relationships and

more efficient supply chains, many of the companies periodically searched the market for alternative

suppliers to ensure they were getting the most competitive price and quality for products and services.

They also found that smaller companies tended to have more personal relationships with suppliers.

The most comprehensive study in the area of construction supply chains was that produced by London

(2008) which involved mapping more than 1500 procurement relationships in the construction industry


30

on 5 major construction sites including the Federation Square, the state Hockey and Netball stadium, a

high rised housing apartment block, Etihad stadium (formerly known as the Colonial Stadium) and a

large greenfield housing development estate in Williamtown. The mapping involved identifying the way

in which the decision was made to procure the supplier at each successive tier including the

negotiating tactics during tendering and after tendering – the study focused on the simply act of

procurement as a means of defining the structural and behavior characteristics of the construction

supply chain. Through exploring tendering behaviours and procurement decisions the economic

market within which each procurement relationship was embedded was described – thus describing

the countervailing power of supplier and customer. Some 11 different product sectors were mapped

including bricks, timber, composite facades, insitu concrete, pre-cast concrete, air conditioning, fire

services, glazing, aluminium, structural steel and formwork.

London (2008) presents sectoral case studies of interest to this research project; one on concrete and

one on brick – two of the three materials which are the focus of this research. Both case studies

present the actors involved, their roles and the process of moving from a raw material to end product. It

provides a greater understanding of how the supply chain works for each material. For example it was

found that subcontractors typically purchased required concrete from the one manufacturer, therefore

once the subcontractor is selected, the supplier of the concrete is known. In addition the case study

found that for the three main concrete suppliers in the case study area, they all purchase products from

each other’s quarries, providing further complexities in attempting to develop an integrated supply

chain. While useful in terms of presenting the supply chain and a number of issues within these, the

focus is on understanding it from an economic efficiency point of view. There is no discussion on

material waste reduction or avoidance.

In addition Bankvall et al (2010) present a case study on the third material of this research:

plasterboard. Again there is no discussion in terms of waste material, although it is touched on in the

debate about ordering customised or standard sized plasterboards. The argument for customised

plasterboard is that it doesn’t require any cutting onsite, saving both materials (onsite) and time,

particularly as the manufacturer has the machinery to cut the boards, rather than relying on humans to

do it onsite. However, it reduces flexibility in that the plasterboard might not be able to be used on any

other projects if it can’t be used on the one it was designed for. It also takes longer for customised

plasterboard to be made by the manufacture. The plasterboard supply chain is thought to be a fairly

simple sequence of activities compared to other construction products and materials.

London's extensive study of more than 1500 procurement relationships described the structure and

behaviour of the Victorian construction industry [including housing residential and commercial sectors].

In this study (London, 2008), it was identified that although there is the perception that the industry is

highly fragmented, project oriented and consisting of temporary project transactional relationships

these relationships are actually often embedded within long term relationships between clusters of

subcontractors and contractors which have often extended for decades. Different trades have different

economic market structural and behavioural characteristics and supply chain management best

practice can only be developed with an understanding of these characteristics. This is most useful to

our study because it provides a starting point on how to focus on which supply chains the house

builder will have the greatest influence over in relation to waste minimization.


31

In summarising issues with the traditional house building processes, Womack and Jones (2003) state

that there is a significant portion of the construction time spent both waiting for other trades to arrive

and finish their work before the next phase can begin and in redoing work that was not done correctly

the first time. This has been allowed to go on as consumers feel powerless to do anything about it,

meaning that the system continues to be inefficient because there is a lack of anyone holding the

construction industry accountable. However, the authors argue that the processes required for

construction of a house are suitable to follow a lean thinking or SCM approach.

The problem is the manufacturing sector is a relatively more neat and easy process when compared to

the building industry, meaning that the application of SCM is proving more difficult (Aloini et al, 2012).

London (2008) adds that a lack of continuity between projects is a significant issue within the building

industry in relation to SCM. Furthermore the complex network of actors along the supply chain,

including customers, planners, designers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and government

agencies. These characteristics of the building industry in Australia (and internationally) have been

argued to be a reason both why SCM application will (CSIRO, 2001; London and Siva, 2012) or will not

work. Aloini et al (2012) state that these characteristics have hampered the adaptation of SCM from

the relatively more straightforward application in the manufacturing sector.

While SCM is emerging as an alternative management approach in the construction industry in

Australia, it is yet to be embraced by Australian Government policies. The Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPC, 2011) released a

construction and demolition waste guide in 2011. In this there is a strong focus on recycling and re-use

across the supply chain with only limited attention paid to reducing and avoiding waste to begin with.

Similarly, SCM is only briefly discussed in this guide. This shows that the concept of SCM in the

construction sector in Australia, is not yet entrenched in the governments thinking and policy

development.

5.2.6 SCM Internationally

Internationally, countries such as the UK have begun to discuss and assess the benefit of applying

SCM in the construction sector. The application of SCM in the UK emerged after the Latham report in

1994 (Kalfhan and McDermott, 2006). For example BRE (2006) (although pre-2008) suggests that it is

critical to improve the efficiencies of supply chains across the building industry as it is the cumulative

actions of the supply chain which determine total outcomes. They have set a 50% waste reduction

target over current best practice. While not specifically discussing SCM, the report does list a number

of actions needed across the supply chain which include:

Quantifying the effects of different types of contracts and procurement on resource efficiency,

also exploring the use of incentives and penalties to reach targets

Greater use of consolidation centres to maximise resource use, minimise over-ordering and

surplus materials

Producer responsibility – voluntary agreements with manufacturers and other stakeholders that

are based upon reducing the life cycle resource impacts of products


32

Local collections or milk rounds for surplus products and materials, with resulting local supplies

of small/part packages of products/low impact materials – possibly with community sector but

health and safety risks would need to be mitigated.

Another seminal piece of research, also from the UK, is the PhD work of Hong-Minh (2002). Hong-

Minh investigated the re-engineering of the UK private house building supply chain and found that a

reduction of the supplier base and the centralisation of supply greatly improved the performance of the

supply chain. This compressed the ordering cycle and construction time required resulting in reducing

total supply chain inventory costs by 20% and the amount of labour required by 49%.

This was more than the efficiencies found by Khalfan and McDermott (2006) whose research of the

application of SCM in the UK construction industry found economic efficiencies of 1-2% on

professional fees and time efficiencies of 10-15%. Further benefits identified from this process include

the ability to apply lessons learnt in future projects, improved performance management systems,

fewer delays and added value. In addition, the application of SCM and narrowing of suppliers was

found to improve relationships, improve work quality (through increased certainty about future work

and ability to retain skilled and quality workers) and improve resource organisation due to knowing in

advance.

5.2.7 Current viewpoints and discussion

SCM is difficult to implement correctly. Aloini et al (2012 p. 736) state that SCM ‘must be properly

formulated, strategically planned, organized and executed. Thus, the adopting organizations (mainly

the general contractor and its subcontractors) have to deal with managerial, organizational, relational

and technological issues which must be appropriately managed in order to effectively apply SCM

principles, models and techniques and to overcome the barriers to construction SC application.’

Walker (2012) argues that to achieve efficiencies in the construction sector, there needs to be a focus

on developing ‘value’. This is because having required resources does not guarantee optimum value.

To achieve this optimum value, there is a requirement for commitment and social capital exchanges,

an approach which goes beyond current SCM approaches. The basic premise, in moving from SCM to

value chain management, is to consider each and every supply chain participants as value generating

actor for both, the final client as well as to other participants, thus assuming each participant is a client

of another participants when jobs are done and services or materials are supplied in this value chain.

The introduction of SCM from other industries (e.g. manufacturing) has meant that there has been

significant focus in the research and in practical applications of SCM in the construction sector of

testing the management approach and evaluating outcomes. In doing so, there has been ‘particular

emphasis on the development of normative ideal types for effective SCM’ (Vidalakis et al, 2011, p.

215) however London (2008) identified quite early on that this was perhaps not the most effective way

to introduce supply chain management into a project based industry. A project and portfolio based

blueprint of key construction supply chain activities was proposed and this is presented and briefly

discussed in the following section.


33

The focus of research and application of SCM in the construction sector has typically been on

understanding and developing relationships between suppliers and clients across the supply chain in

the anticipation of overcoming the barriers to the integration of SCM (Bankvall et al, 2010; Bygballe,

Jahre and Sward, 2010; CSIRO, 2001; London, 2008; Meng, 2010; Petrovic-Lazarevic et al, 2006). It

has long been recognised that poor relationships in the building supply chain stem from the

fragmented nature of the building industry and the lack of guarantee of future work (CSIRO, 2001). In

particular it is about building these relationships early enough in the project (or before it even starts) to

ensure that maximum efficiencies can be achieved throughout the project (Walker, 2012).

Meng (2010) has identified that there are limitations of previous research investigating relationships,

SCM and the construction industry. These limitations include; lack of rigorous criteria and indicators for

defining relationships; lack of description of relationships; and actual assessment has proved

problematic. In the research, Meng (2010) found that there are 18 key relationship indicators. Of these

there are some which are more important than others. Furthermore, London (2008) adds that there is

limited understanding of the wider complexities of relationship development and decision making, with

the focus to date being on understanding the cost element of this rather than the sociopolitical

economics underpinning the way relationships are fomed, negotiated and enacted.

There has been a focus on the relationship between site productivity and improved material

management (London and Kenley, 2001). A recent development on the importance of building

relationships in SCM has been the research of Khalfan and Maqsood (2012) who explore the idea that

through improved knowledge management and long-term relationships with suppliers, ‘supply chain

capital’ is built. Through repeated use of the same suppliers and the ongoing improvement in

relationships and knowledge management, the supply chain capital continues to build. This results in

efficiencies, a reduction in waste and an increase in innovation and learning from previous jobs. There

is a continued failure to advance the discussion beyond this focus and attempt to explore these

elements in greater detail. Indeed, London and Siva (2012) argue, in their research study on

developing a methodology for creating an innovation underpinned by a supply chain approach, that

there is much rhetoric stating ‘that SCM will solve problems, however, we know little beyond this’.

5.2.8 Summary

The building industry in general has been described as being resistant to change and failing to take a

more holistic view of the industry and associated problems (London and Siva, 2012). Vidalakis et al

(2011) discuss how a significant gap in the current SCM and construction literature and practice is the

lack of logistical focus. Due to the temporary nature of projects and short-term nature of work, it is at

times difficult within the construction industry to build up a reliable supply chain (Khalfan and Maqsood,

2012). Vidalakis et al, (2011, p. 215) argues that there has been too much focus on the strategic

aspects of SCM and ignoring the ‘fundamental implicit assumption of logistics management expertise

inherent within SCM’. Furthermore, the focus on contractor organisations has resulted in the role of

intermediary organisations (such as material suppliers) being overlooked (Vidalakis et al, 2011). There

is too much focus on understanding projects in isolation without taking the more holistic industry

approach (Bankvall et al, 2010).


34

The concept of SCM has been implemented in the manufacturing sector since the 1940s. However, its

transferability, adoption and diffusion in the construction industry especially in Australia has been slow

(London, 2008). In summary there are three key reasons for this in relation to the house building

sector:

1. Low levels of managerial skills and knowledge

2. Lack of implementation tools to support employees to develop SCM policies, processes and

practices

3. Lack of competitiveness in larger volume house build organisations and a subsequent lack of

incentive for change and continuous improvement

Existing research has highlighted the problems in applying SCM within the construction industry.

Issues such as short-term working arrangements, lack of trust/information sharing, limited customer

focus, price-based selection and inefficient use of emerging and existing technologies (Bankvall et al,

2010; Doran and Giannakis, 2011; Khalfan and maqsood, 2012; Petrovic-Lazarevic et al, 2006; Shin et

al, 2011). Issues such as lack of co-ordination and communication amongst supply chain actors has

been said to be a limiting factor in the successful uptake of SCM in the construction industry (Bankvall

et al, 2010). The construction sector has been described as being fragmented, highly reliant on short-

term contracting work, unreliable supply of materials, and often resulting in long and costly project

overruns (London and Siva, 2012; London and Kenley, 2001; Vidalakis et al, 2011). All of which mean

there are significant inefficiencies in the Australian construction industry (CSIRO, 2001). A fragmented

supply chain and resultant inefficiencies have been stated as a barrier to the Australian construction

industry competing internationally (Petrovic-Lazarevic et al, 2006).

‘The development of integrated supply delivery solutions have not been extensively recognised in the

Australian residential sector. Ad hoc examples and applications by some major building companies

have seen some limited success. However, this has not been diffused throughout the sector and thus

has had little real impact on overall sector performance and individual company competitiveness.

Whole-scale industry improvement requires a concerted effort to undertake a stepwise change. A key

to the solution is to investigate successful examples of integrated supply chains which have resulted in

productivity and/or innovation performance improvements’ (London and Siva, 2012).

The following Blueprint was developed and partially tested for the Qld government for the supplier

group strategy map. It attempts to identify portfolio and project based activities.

5.3 SCM and waste minimisation in the residential sector

There has been an explosion of interest in the area of green or sustainable supply chain management

with more than 300 publications produced in the last 15 years in this area (Seuring, 2012). Not all of

these publications are directly related to the construction industry or more specifically the residential

construction sector, however, it does provide an indication of the growing significance of this topic

area.


35

Figure 3 Blueprint Supply Chain Management project based industry (London, 2008)

A generic definition of sustainable supply chain management is provided by Seuring and Muller (2012)

as “the management of material, information and capital flows as well as cooperation among

companies along the supply chain while integrating goals from all three dimensions of sustainable

development ie economic, environmental and social, which are derived from customer and stakeholder

requirements. In sustainable supply chains, environmental and social criteria need to be fulfilled by the

members to remain within the supply chain, while it is expected that competitiveness would be

maintained through meeting customer needs and related economic criteria”.


36

Past work in sustainable SCM has tended to focus on external elements rather than the firm’s internal

elements such as resources and capabilities (Gold et al, 2010). Effective sustainable SCM requires

flexible interaction between various supply chain actors as well as a long-term approach between the

different actors underpinned by mutual dependency (Hult et al, 2007; Spekman et al, 1998).

5.3.1 Integrated SCM

Integrated supply chains are increasingly being recognised as a win-win approach to achieving waste

minimisation in construction. In discussing the potential of greening the construction supply chain in

Singapore, Ofori (2000, p. 204) suggested a number of actions or initiatives including:

Education: develop expertise in SCM within industry, train purchasing officers in key aspects of

green procurement including performance evaluation and monitoring, increase knowledge of

relevant environmental issues among construction practitioners

Case studies: document successful local and overseas examples of green procurement in

construction, disseminate case studies using appropriate media

Support and promotion: government should provide direct support through its procurement

policies and procedures, offer incentives to support clean production processes and practices,

generally promote environmental responsibility among all construction agencies, enterprises

and practitioners

Best practices and award: distil and disseminate best practices in green procurement, institute

an annual competition to recognise excellence in green procurement as an adjunct to the

existing award in the broad area of the environment

Whilst SCM can help to effectively green the construction supply chain in Singapore, Ofori (2000)

indicates that a number of major challenges need to be overcome including conceptual problems of

designing the appropriate supply chain and practical issues associated with entrenched business

practices and attitudes and lack of knowledge about SCM and its benefits.

According to Zu and Zhou (2011) construction firms seeking to implement green supply chain

management should consider their management and choice of suppliers in terms of how the

collaboration with the supplier can contribute towards greening the supply chain. Furthermore, “green”

SCM involves examining the whole life cycle of a project. A framework for strategy development for

firms seeking to introduce sustainable SCM was proposed by Kang et al (2012). The framework

included five key perspectives:

Leadership for knowledge sharing

Innovation for product and process corresponding to the lifecycle of sustainable supply chain

Integration of operations by the supply chain and its components

Improvement along with the management lifecycle of process


37

Compliance of socioeconomic requirements and governmental regulations

In a study to explore the waste minimisation strategies utilised in high profile construction projects in

the UK (Dainty and Brooke, 2004), it was identified that a wide range of waste minimisation techniques

are currently being employed by large construction organisations. The study revealed that the three

most effective waste management solutions employed by construction firms include:

1. the development of alliances with suppliers and recycling companies by forming relationships

with suppliers and secondary users of waste materials

2. increased use of off-site fabrication to control waste and damage

3. use of standardisation to improve buildability and reduce the quantity of off-cuts

Dainty and Brooke (2004, p. 27) pointed out that the two of the three most popular strategies revolve

around ways to avoid waste at the source and deal with waste as it is produced on-site, which

suggests that there is scope to remove waste throughout the design and specification project phases

within what is terms “waste minimisation partnerships”. Through the development of integrated waste

management strategies project stakeholders can work together to achieve significant improvements in

waste management performance. A key to the solution is to embed the importance of waste

minimisation as a key performance criteria throughout the supply chain whereby all project

stakeholders need to be committed to waste management as part of an integrated supply chain. This

aligns well with the national policy developed by Building Research Establishment in 2006 and

discussed in the first section of this report on Waste in Construction.

5.3.2 SCM & waste minimisation in the residential sector

While this review has presented a number of articles and research regarding SCM and the

construction sector, there is little attention to waste reduction and avoidance in the residential

construction sector. While there is limited focus within the research addressing waste reduction and

avoidance in the construction industry from a SCM perspective, one emerging discussion in this area is

with regards to pre-fabrication of dwellings (Eriksson, 2010). Eriksson (2010) discusses the benefits of

‘lean construction’ as a method of SCM. While focusing primarily on the economic and labour

efficiencies achievable, he touches upon the fact that such an approach would also lead to a reduction

of material waste. However this point is not discussed in detail. However, London and Kenley (2001) in

their review of SCM and its application in the construction industry, highlight that there are issues with

lean construction. For example while lean production had been embraced by the auto industry, it was

criticised for the negative impact it had on workers.

Another more recent article discussing SCM and pre-fabrication (or modular) construction is that by

Doran and Giannakis (2011). The authors argue that although there is increasing engagement with

SCM from the construction industry, there are still inefficiencies and further work is required. They

discuss the benefits of offsite versus onsite construction. They discuss the role which SCM can play

with regards to offsite construction. Again, this is more focused upon economic and time efficiencies

but they do state that waste material reduction is a benefit of modular construction although there is


38

little real data to evidence this and the waste may simply be shifted from site operations to a more

controlled environment.

In the UK’s government’s, 20 year construction waste reduction strategy, it was identified that a move

towards factory produced building will reduce construction waste and that this type of construction will

play an important role in the future in reducing construction waste (BRE, 2006). However, while such

examples seem to be pushing for the benefits of prefabrication in the construction industry, others

drawing upon SCM argue that onsite construction allows for greater outcomes through the ability for

more flexibility and questions the gains in efficiency of prefabrication (Bankvall et al, 2010).

The discussion of waste reduction in the SCM and construction literature is primarily in regards to

wasted economic, time and labour rather than wasted materials (Eriksson, 2010). An holistic approach

to waste avoidance and reduction is required whereby we must examine upstream decisions and

behaviour in the supply chain as the problem of waste although evident at the site in many cases is not

the root cause of the problem. Some key reasons why waste materials are generated can be attributed

to the following:

design sub-optimisation [as evidenced by simple matters such as cut bricks and plasterboard

sheets etc]

ordering inaccuracy through lack of skills and adequate documentation provided to project

procurement officers

wastage through ordering inaccuracy due to low confidence levels in the design and design

development documentation

incorrect usage of materials onsite and poor management and construction technique skills

site reworks due to a range of factors including design changes, poor constructability, poor

workmanship and client changes

site ground conditions and associated preparation [cut and fill poorly engineered] as well as

contaminated soil

over packaged construction materials

Clearly participants at each phase of the project can provide input into solving the problems of wastage

- specifically the concept and developed design functions [architectural, civil engineering and

environmental engineering], tendering and procurement functions and pre-site preparation and onsite

construction operational functions. In the housing sector these various functions are internal to the

organisation as well as outsourced externally. A SCM framework will begin to solve such problems at

each of the 5 cascading levels:

intra-organisational function;

inter functionional,


39

inter-organisational,

supplier network and

regional clustering

Different participants will exert varying degrees of influence at each level of the supply chain. The

causes and the current practices of volume residential house builders need a closer examination as

they shall provide the aligned objectives between the organisations and their designers, subcontractors

and suppliers when developing a supplier group strategy. In the broader Australian construction sector,

as well as the volume housing construction organisations, these supply chain management activities

have had limited attention.

5.4 Conclusion

There has been increasing research interest in the area of sustainable supply chain management.

Significantly though much less attention has been paid on the investigation of integrated supply chain

management for construction waste minimisation or avoidance in the residential housing industry.

Given the increasing costs charged for construction waste disposal and recycling and limited landfill

capacity; innovative approaches to avoiding and reducing waste by housing construction organisations

has never been more urgently needed.

There has been some limited ad-hoc success of SCM integration into the construction industry in

Australia and internationally (London and Siva, 2012). However, there remains a dearth of research,

understanding and application of SCM in the Australian construction sector. This is even more so the

case with regards to SCM and waste reduction and avoidance in the construction sector specifically.

This review has identified various policy level approaches in various countries and interesting data for

benchmarking purposes in our study. The sources and causes of materials waste research is useful as

it highlights clearly the role of various supply chain participants. Various strategies in supply chain

management and sustainability research also provides a contribution to developing organizational and

project level strategies to frame our study. There is no research that specifically investigates the

development of individual and organizational capability in relation to exploring a holistic supply chain

approach to waste minimization although this is clearly on the agenda of numerous governments.

There appears to be useful organizational supply chain management level strategies that we can build

upon but little action research case study oriented material that has been evaluated within house

building organisations in Australia or internationally. Our study is well placed to make a practical and

theoretical contribution to the field of waste minimization using supply chain management strategies.

6.0 Methodology

The methodology for the project draws upon an action research (learning by doing) approach. The

method is based on previous research addressing the Victorian construction industry and supply


40

chains conducted in 2000-2002 (London, 2008) and partially tested in a national research study from

2005-2007 (London and Chen, 2008).

Action research is a flexible enquiry process carried out by individuals, professionals and/or educators

within a professional practice to continually understand, evaluate and change to improve practice

(Frost, 2002; Bassey, 1998; Dick, 2002). It involves implementing actions which change existing

programs and practices, and the subsequent analysis of what happens (Rossman, 1998). The

following diagram summarises graphically the core philosophy of the action research methodology:

Figure 4 Action Research Methodology: Generic

There are four key phases to this study:

Phase 1. Audit: Background to Development of Framework.

Includes a literature review, finalisation of research design and undertaking preliminary stakeholder

communications regarding the project.

Phase 2. Creation: Draft Framework Development.

Undertake initial data collection through desktop analysis and conducting focus group and/or semi-

structured interviews with up to 5-8 organisation A and organisation B employees. Analysis from these

activities informed the development of the draft framework.

Phase 3. Implementation: Pilot and evaluation.


41

Conduct framework piloting with organisation A and organisation B including interviews with

approximately 10 employees, the development of framework user guidelines and then in-house piloting

of these guidelines with up to 40 employees (including evaluation and analysis through focus groups)

and final modifications of the framework if required.

Phase 4. Dissemination: Distribution of outcomes.

Undertake finalisation of the framework based upon outcomes. Develop and present synthesis of key

learnings and outcomes, and disseminate to a broader industry audience via public forums to be

organised with RMIT University, MBAV, HIA and others as appropriate. Present outcomes in wider

media such as conference and journal papers.

The following diagram summarises graphically the action research methodology undertaken in this

study.

Figure 5 Action Research Methodology


42

7.0 Data collection and analysis

7.1 Background to Development of Framework

Besides the literature review, three other activities were conducted in Phase 1. Firstly, an Ethics

Application was submitted to RMIT College of Design and Social Context Human Ethics Committee for

approval. The Ethics application included a description of the Action Research methodology employed

on this project. It also documented the various phases of the project and the associated data collection

and analysis methods. The application was approved which was then followed by data collection in

Phase 2.

Secondly, during the Phase 1, the Action Research methodology was finalised through a refinement of

the specific data collection and analysis methods for the various phases of the project. The data

collection instruments in the form of interview schedules were developed for various phases of the data

collection process.

In addition, two project launch meetings/information sessions were held with the partner organisations.

An overview of the project including the Self Assessment Framework was provided. Specific staff from

the two organisations were identified as project champions, who would contribute towards the creation,

piloting and evaluation of the Self Assessment Framework.

7.2 Draft Framework Development

In the second stage of the research project, Focus Group Interviews (FGI) and individual interviews

were conducted to collect data on the experiences and perceptions of staff members from the two case

study organisations.

7.2.1 Focus Group Interview

One Focus Group Interview (FGI) was conducted with each of the case study organisations. The aim

of the FGIs was to officially launch the project and obtain buy-in from key champions of each

organisation. The FGIs were chaired by the project leader and attended by the research team,

research project coordinator and a number of staff members identified as champions by the research

project coordinators (refer to Table 7).


43

Table 7 FGI Attendees

Organisation A Organisation B

National Purchasing Manager GM National Building and Business Improvement

Building Supervisor Senior Residential Home Designer

Victorian HSE Manager National OH&S Manager

Estimating Manager – Victoria BOQ & Estimating System Manager

Project Design Manager Procurement Category Manager

Sustainability Manager. Commercial & Industrial Division Area Manager North - Greenfields

Corporate Sustainability Manager

National HSE Manager

The FGIs were divided into four main parts:

Background: Introduction of the research team and the project to the staff members.

Waste reduction and avoidance: General discussion and brainstorming of issues around waste

minimisation in the organisation based on the staff member observations and experiences.

Participants were asked to comment on their roles in relation to waste minimisation as well as

the organisation’s current capacity in minimising waste.

Supply chain management: The participants were presented with a Supply Chain Management

Blueprint diagram which represents a holistic integrated framework for the management of

project-based industries (refer to Figure 3). The Blueprint was developed as a result of a

previous study (London, 2008) and was used towards developing the Self Assessment

Framework for waste minimisation for this study. The FGIs sought to identify the supply chain

activities from the Blueprint which each organisation would focus during this study.

Comments: Their thoughts on how to bring waste management and supply chain management

together in developing the self assessment tool

7.2.2 Individual Interviews

A total of 12 interviews were conducted across the two case study organisations between one and two

hours duration (refer to Table 8). Participants were asked questions in relation to four main topic areas

including:

Their role within the organisation

Their views on waste reduction and avoidance


44

Their understanding of supply chain activities

Their thoughts on how to bring waste management and supply chain management together in

developing the self assessment tool

Table 8 Overview of participants interviewed


National Purchasing Manager GM National Building and Business Improvement

Building Supervisor Senior Residential Home Designer

Victorian HSE Manager National OH&S Manager

Estimating Manager – Victoria BOQ & Estimating System Manager

Senior Design Manager Procurement Category Manager

Corporate Sustainability Manager

National HSE Manager

7.2.3 Coding Schema: Barriers and enablers

All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Following the transcription of all interviews, the first stage

of analysis involved the identification of barriers and enablers; related policies, processes and

practices for waste minimization; and supply chain management processes in the two organizations.

The general approach in the C&D waste management literature has been to classify the causes and

sources of waste into categories for example, waste is caused by “Error in contract documents” in the

design phase or “Ordering error, overordering, underordering” in the procurement phase (refer to Table

5). Our proposition was that the sources and causes of waste and the challenges associated with

achieving waste minimisation is more complex than already highlighted with the literature review,

however, our analysis began by mapping the barriers revealed by the interviewees to the barriers

identified in the literature.

A coding schema was developed for the analysis of the interviews which adapted and built upon Table

3. The process in which coding schema was developed involved the following:

each research team member took at least one transcript and coded it

each transcript had two research team members coding

we met to compare coding

similarities and differences identified and new codes were added

coding schema expanded based on the discussions


45

research assistants then proceeded to complete all coding

Each organisation was analysed as individual case studies [within-case analysis] prior to a cross case

comparison across the two organisations [cross-case analysis].

7.2.4 Rules of the game

The second stage of analysis involved Professor London and Jessica Siva revisiting the data towards

developing the External Supplier Management Framework which is included in this report. This

Framework was then presented to Organisation B including all participants who had been interviewed

for verification. Modifications were then made to the framework and was further validated with

Organisation A’s original research participants as well as with additional short interviews with new

research participants in each organisation.

The Framework was organised in 4 levels of implementation ranging from a lack of implementation to

systemic implementation. It was also organised in three key categories: 1) Know the Rules; 2) Apply

the Rules and 3) Change the Rules. These are simplified expressions for awareness and knowledge of

organisational policies; implementation of the policy and general processes and practices and

mechanisms to change the policies and procedures within the organisation.

7.2.5 Barriers

The following themes were identified from the interviews with the two case study organisations when

they were asked to identify challenges related to policies, processes and practices for waste

minimisation and supply chain management in their organisations. Table 9 lists the five most common

and significant causes of physical materials waste onsite as perceived by the research participants. In

Appendix 1 Table 1 Summary of Barriers to Waste Minimisation in Organisation A and Table 2

Summary of Barriers to Waste Minimisation in Organisation B provide a complete list of all the barriers

which were identified. Each barrier is mapped to the phase in the project delivery process as the

source.

Clearly, in both organizations, communication between functional units was the significant barrier as it

was considered in both organisations to be a major cause of waste. The following are some examples

of quotes that illustrate this:

That’s classic. About 100 site managers in Victoria, probably about 15 to 20 construction managers

and 5 building managers in Victoria, it’s a big ship. I guess having an agreement on something and

having that being transposed all the way down the line is very difficult. So that for leadership

management, I think it’s a lack of our ability to communicate effectively as well so we have the building

managers sitting in a room and all agreed on something and then they may be unable to communicate

that to construction people.(GM, Org B)

We haven’t gone through a review process yet. You’ve heard throughout the project that some things

have been popped up. But it's not a very formal process. (HSE Mgr, Org A)


46

Yeah it really comes back to the estimators. Well it starts with the sales people. Sales people don’t

understand sometimes what variations mean and sometimes they don’t actually get put into the job,

and then that makes an error to the site. And then you get your estimators and again you get those

variations. If the estimators aren’t hitting those variations or they don’t understand them, then they’ll

miss-estimate the site and you’ll end up with varying amounts of material on that. (National OH&S Mgr,

Org B)

The attitude of only considering direct costs as important factor versus whole of life costs was also

perceived in both organisations as being a major cause of waste. Organisation B staff considered the

inertia of the organisation to be a problem as well and suggested that there was often knowledge of the

problem but difficulties were experienced in changing the situation coupled with a perception that there

was resistance to change due to a lack of incentives to make change. Clearly in Organisation A the

strategic direction was also considered an inhibitor for change.

Managing the external supply chain was also considered to be important by organisation A in particular

with lack of cooperation/maturity from suppliers and lack of strategic procurement and partnerships as

key inhibitors.

Table 9 Top barriers in each organisation


Poor organisational communication across units to facilitate change

Poor organisational communication across units to facilitate change

Direct costs vs. Whole of life costs Knowledge of problem vs. Lack of action

Poor organisational communication of strategic objectives Direct costs vs. Whole of life costs

Lack of cooperation/maturity from suppliers to minimise waste

Ordering error, over ordering, under ordering

Lack of strategic procurement & Partnership Resistance to change (lack of incentives)

7.2.6 Enablers

The following themes were identified from the interviews with the two case study organisations when

they were asked to identify enablers related to policies, processes and practices for waste minimisation

and supply chain management in their organisations. Table 10 lists the five most common and

significant enablers for change to reduce physical materials waste onsite as perceived by the research

participants. In Appendix 1, Table 3 Summary of Enablers to Waste Minimisation in Organisation A and

Table 4 Summary of Enablers to Waste Minimisation in Organisation B provide a complete list of all the

enablers which were identified. Each enabler is mapped to the phase in the project delivery process as

the source.


47

Table 10 Top enablers in each organisation


Strategic procurement & partnerships Strategic procurement & partnerships

Knowledge of problem and take action Knowledge of problem and take action

Supplier development Supplier development

Organisational communication across units to facilitate change

Direct costs vs. Whole of life costs

Senior management support to drive change Off site manufacturing & prefabrication

7.3 Frameworks: Creation, Pilot and evaluation

Validation involved presentation of the Framework to two focus groups involving 6 organisation A staff

and 6 organisation B staff. The Frameworks were then revised based upon the feedback and were

then validated again with individual interviews and then revised again. A total of 15 interviews were

conducted across the two case study organisations between 0.5 and 1 hour duration. Participants were

asked questions in relation to two main topic areas including:

Their role within the organisation

Their views on the Frameworks (Where to change and How to change)

The key comments from them are:

Using simpler words for easily understanding

Do not use abbreviations

The frameworks were revised by discussion with the project coordinator in each organisation based on

the feedback from the interviews. The following are exemplars of Self-Assessment Frameworks that

have been generated, including:

Table 11 shows a sample Framework developed during the research project

Table 12 External Supplier Management Self-Assessment Framework for a large national house

builder (Organisation B)

Table 13 Internal Workflow Management Self-Assessment Framework for a large national house

builder (Organisation B)

Table 14 Management Self-Assessment Framework for a large national developer (Organisation A)


48

Table 11 Sample Framework


49

Table 12 External Supplier Management Self-Assessment Framework for Organisation B


50

Table 13 Internal Workflow Management Self-Assessment Framework for Organisation B


51

Table 14 Supplier Management Self-Assessment Framework for Organisation A


52

7.3.1 Field testing

After the Frameworks were developed, data was collected from staff in both organisations to

enable the creation of initial Benchmarking Profiles. The statements were coded as shown in

Table 15 and Table 16 for each organisation. Each of the four Levels are colour-coded; for

example Level 1 No awareness is coded Red and indicates that immediate action should be

taken to move from Level 1 to Level 2. The benchmarking data for the Supply Chain

Management Waste Minimisation Principles for Organisation A is provided in Figure 6. Each

of the four Levels are colour coded; for example Level 1 No awareness is coded Red and

indicates that immediate action should take place to move from Level 1 to Level 2. This data

was developed based upon 18 staff completing the Framework. The presentation of the data

in this figure is only for demonstration purposes. For statement coded as “A”, 4 staff indicated

to be at level 1 (red), 9 staff indicated to be at level 2 (orange), 5 at level 3 (yellow) and no

response for level 4 (green). From this data, an average level could be determined for each

statement in the self-assessment framework and a resulting profile was developed as shown

in Figure 7. This profile gives a snap shot of the average maturity levels across the

organisation for each statement in the self-assessment framework.

The benchmarking data of the External Supplier Management Framework for Organisation B

is provided in Figure 8. This data was developed based upon 21 staff completing the

Framework. Again the presentation of the data in this figure is only for demonstration

purposes and a more comprehensive data collection process would take place when

implementation begins. For statement coded as “A”, 3 staff indicated to be at level 1 (red), 16

staff indicated to be at level 2 (orange), 2 at level 3 (yellow) and no response for level 4

(green). From this data, an average level could be determined for each statement in the self-

assessment framework and a resulting profile was developed as shown in Figure 9. This

profile gives a snap shot of the average maturity levels across the organisation for each

statement in the self-assessment framework.

Supply chain management framework for waste minimisation for residential sector

53

Table 15 Coding of the Supply Chain Management Waste Minimization Principles for Organisation A

Code Principle

Know

the rules

Waste

Minimisation

Plan

A An environmental policy, including waste management and minimisation objectives and strategy that align to divisional business financial objectives and KPIs aligned to ISO 14001.

B An information management systems to capture and communicate waste minimization related data to maintain compliance and facilitate change

Strategic

Procurement

Plan

C A design development process that incorporates waste minimisation as a key design criteria.

D A supplier and contractor procurement approach that drives innovation and value creation to reduce waste through the tendering process.

Apply

the rules

Waste

Minimisation

E An environmental policy accepted into the ‘hearts and minds’ of all staff. on all projects and waste minimisation objectives and strategy are an inherent part of ‘how things are done’.

F All staff members are appropriately trained in the BPM process, which incorporates waste minimisation objectives and strategy.

G All staff feel empowered and have a voice regarding waste minimisation objectives. Staff feel that waste minimization suggestions will be validated and implemented where appropriate.

Strategic

procurement

H A proactive approach to strategic waste minimisation initiatives with contractors during and after the tender process.

Project

Coordination

I Innovative waste minimisation strategies regularly developed through knowledge sharing with contractors, project teams and other business units..

Change

the rues

Coordination

and Ongoing

Development

J An information management system that measure physical waste generated onsite and assists in the development of a strategy to enhance waste reduction outcomes.

K An information management system to make visible the volume and cost of waste material generated onsite to enable quality assurance reporting and internal benchmarking

L Construction site feedback in relation to waste minimization initiatives is captured and included in the Strategic Procurement Plan.


54

Level 4 The way things are done Progressing well Green

Level 3 Several examples Progressing Yellow

Level 2 Some implementation Needs attention Orange

Level 1 No awareness Needs immediate attention Red

Figure 6: Response distribution across various statements in the Self-Assessment Framework for Organisation A

Know the rules Apply the rules Change the rules


55

Figure 7: Profile showing average level of maturity for Principles in the Self-Assessment Framework for Organisation A


56

Table 16 Coding of Principles of the External Supplier Management Framework for Organisation B

Code Principle

Know the rules

Waste Minimisation Plan

A Sustainability policy including a waste management and minimisation objectives and strategy aligned to corporate business profitability objectives and KPIs

Strategic Procurement Plan

B Strategic partnerships with suppliers and trades critical to waste management efforts (eg. risk vs spend: timber, plasterboard, bricks and site spoil) to develop innovations that result in efficiencies, price reduction and/or value creation

C Supplier and Trade Council strategy aligned with corporate objectives

D Procurement process to select suppliers and trade subcontractors account for location and job differences.Contract Award criteria aligns to waste minimization amongst other key business objectives such as commercial, innovation, service, quality, and safety

Apply the rules

Waste Minimisation

E Sustainability policy accepted into the ‘hearts and minds’ of all staff on all jobs and waste minimisation objectives are part of ‘how things are done’

F Trades and suppliers are intrinsically linked into the waste minimization objectives of the organization and undertake action s to support these objectives

G Staff members appropriately trained based upon individual roles and responsibilities (for example in product knowledge, elite ordering skills)

Strategic procurement

H Consistent proactive approach to initiating strategic partnerships with waste minimisation business critical suppliers

I Seamless application of procurement process aligned with staff competencies and job contract award criteria consistently applied to achieve waste minimisation objectives

Project Coordination

J Employees feel empowered to do something to minimize waste

K Staff members comprehensively trained to work with suppliers to undertake project supplier performance monitoring during project delivery

L Post project supplier assessment monitoring & feedback on waste minimisation performance across projects

M Innovative waste minimisation strategies regularly developed through integration with suppliers to share knowledge of construction products and processes

Change the rules

Coordination and Development

N Business systems that measure and analyse and make visible physical waste generated onsite and a strategy to enhance waste reduction outcomes

O Strategy to make waste minimisation efforts part of renewal agreements

P Employees feel empowered to make a suggestion re waste minimisation opportunities

Q Formally integrate construction site supplier feedback into upstream processes and regular annual value creation forum to support creation, development and implementation of waste minimisation strategies.


57

Level 4 The way things are done Progressing well Green

Level 3 Several examples Progressing Yellow

Level 2 Some implementation Needs attention Orange

Level 1 No awareness Needs immediate attention Red

Figure 8: Response distribution across various statements in the Self-Assessment Framework for organisation B


58

Figure 9: Profile showing average level of maturity for Principles in the Self-Assessment Framework for Organisation B

Know the rules Apply the rules Change the rules

WMP Strategic

Procurement Plan Waste Minimisation Strategic

procurement Project Coordination Coordination and

Development

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1


59

7.3.2 Action Plan

The self-assessment framework maps the adoption of supply chain practices on four levels.

Level 1 No awareness Red

Level 2 Some implementation Orange

Level 3 Several examples Yellow

Level 4 The way things are done Green

The organisation shall devise action plans in order to progress from one maturity level to the next for each principle in the self-assessment frame work. The organisation shall endeavour to gradually transition from one level to the other. The following are provided as examples:

Know the Rules:

Principle: Sustainability policy including a waste management and minimisation objectives and

strategy aligned to corporate business profitability objectives and KPIs

Action Plan

Level 1 to Level 2

1. Gain senior level management support for drafting of the sustainability policy.

2. Develop a consultation process which includes transparent sessions where information is collected, synthesised and then translated into a Policy.

3. Communicate sustainability policy to all and the response to the ideas in the consultation process and policy is finalised and approved by senior management.

Level 2 to Level 3

1. Locate sustainability policy on organisation intranet. 2. Encourage staff to frequently read the policy and implement where

possible. 3. Ensure alignment of sustainability policy with Business objectives and

KPIs

Level 3 to Level 4

1. Ensure that staff work plans have an acknowledgement that staff member is aware of the policy and thoroughly understands it.

2. Link every outgoing communication to the sustainability policy 3. Organisation achieves national and international accreditation in relation to

waste management and minimisation 4. Organisation reviews the policy annually to make sure it is aligned to

business objectives and KPIs

Apply the Rules:

Principle: Cross functional teams meet regularly to evaluate waste minimisation objectives for new

product lines and feedback by supplier/trade product/process

Action Plan

Level 1 to Level 2

1. Gain senior level management support for creating cross functional teams

2. Identify a senior manager who takes responsibility for waste minimisation and the formation of the cross functional teams

3. Identify champions for cross functional management team membership

Level 2 to Level 3

1. Develop a process for regular meetings and obtaining feedback within the organisation

2. Communicate purpose and actions of cross functional teams within the organisation

3. Ensure staff work plans acknowledge role and performance in cross functional teams

Level 3 to Level 4

1. Introduce a rewards and incentives scheme is introduced to support cross functional teams

2. Communicate widely across the organisation the cross functional teams strategies and actions plans for waste minimisation


60

Change the Rules:

Principle: Business systems that measure and analyse and make visible physical waste generated

onsite and a strategy to enhance waste reduction outcomes

Action Plan

Level 1 to Level 2

1. Gain senior level management support for introducing business systems to measure and analyse waste

2. Educate staff and enhance their understanding of requirements for measuring physical waste generated onsite

3. Introduce the construction site supplier feedback into upstream processes

4. Gain consensus on the method for waste material measurement and analysis

5. Develop strategies to make waste minimisation efforts part of renewal agreements

Level 2 to Level 3

1. Introduce business systems to measure and analyse waste generated onsite

2. Introduce the processes to measure and analyse physical waste generated onsite

3. Integrate the construction site supplier feedback into upstream processes

4. Empower employees to make a suggestion regarding waste minimisation opportunities

5. Monitor the implementation of the strategy and monitoring practices to reduce waste based on agreed targets

Level 3 to Level 4

1. Introduce a rewards and incentives scheme to staff to identify and introduce changes to the methods and processes for waste minimisation

2. Review the business systems capability to measure and analyse waste generated onsite

3. Review the KPIs annually for waste minimisation with cross functional teams and set new targets

4. Empower employees to implement suggestions regarding waste minimisation opportunities

7.4 Distribution of outcomes

Two breakfast events were conducted in RMIT University. More than 100 people from academia, industry and government attended. The research team presented the preliminary findings of the research project. The project coordinators in each organisation also presented in these events.

In addition to the breakfast events, the two internal workshops were also conducted in both organisation. The synthesis of key learnings and outcomes of the project were developed and presented in these workshops. In total, 16 staff from both organisation attended the workshops. The attendances were from different departments of the organisation, including, General Manager, Building Supervisor, Estimating Manager, Project Design Manager, Sustainability Manager and HOS Manager. A survey was filled by each participant. There were following five questions in the survey:

Do you agree that this project helps to address the current waste minimisation problems? Do you agree that the project contributes to your company’s corporate aims? Did the project provide the knowledge to date on waste minimisation? Were people in your organisation given the opportunity to provide input to ensure relevance to

your organisation? Has the project produced guidelines for waste minimisation? The feedback for Question 1 and Question 4 is 100% positive. There is one negative response for Question 2. It means the positive response rate for Question 2 is 93.75%. There are two negative


61

responses for Question 3 and Question 5. It means the positive response rate for Question 3 and Question 5 is 87.5%.

In addition, a Supply Chain Management Waste Minimisation Toolkit has been generated. The aim of this toolkit is to explain the context of waste minimisation, principles of supply chain management practices and the steps involved in using the self-assessment Framework. The toolkit also details how to create benchmarking profiles of supply chain management practices within your organisation aimed at reducing physical construction waste. The Framework and Implementation Plan should and can be customised by other organisations.

Both specific advice on using the Framework and the philosophy and general design principles behind the Framework are covered. Background information on waste minimisation and supply chain management explain the ideas that have underpinned the development of the Framework.

Furthermore, a journal paper and a conference paper which present the outcomes of this research project have been drafted. They are:

London, K., Maqsood, T., Zhang, P., Khalfan, M., Anderson, R. & Siva, J., 2014, ‘Development of a Waste Minimisation Supply Chain Management Self Assessment Framework for Australian Homebuilders’, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building (Drafted)

London, K., Maqsood, T., Zhang, P., Khalfan, M., Anderson, R. & Siva, J., 2014, ‘connecting industry-academia in an action research project to improve supply chain management adoption’, The 2014 International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management (ICCREM 2014), September 27th-28th, 2014, Kunming, P.R. China (Drafted)

8.0 Conclusion

This research report has been written as part of a research project entitled ‘A Supply Chain Management Self Assessment Framework for Waste Minimisation for the Residential Sector’, which was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency Waste Fund and managed by Sustainability Victoria. The project had four objectives and four phases. The process of achieving the objectives through the four phases could be summaries as below:

A. Objective 1 Current practices

The first objective was to describe and analyse current practices, barriers and change drivers for supply chain management best practice to support waste avoidance and reduction in two volume residential construction organisations across three critical waste chains (plaster, brick and concrete). We achieved this objective in Phase 1 ‘Audit: Background to Development of Framework’ by conducting varies activities including: a literature review, finalisation of research design and undertaking preliminary stakeholder communications regarding the project.

B Objective 2 Self assessment Framework

The second objective was to develop a multi-level self-assessment Framework that can be used by volume residential construction organisations to develop benchmarking profiles in relation to:

(a) Practitioner/staff awareness/knowledge and capabilities of best practice in integrated supply chain management across design, procurement, tendering and construction functions to achieve organisational objectives for waste avoidance and reduction;

(b) Practitioner/staff capabilities to respond to changes in supply chain environments at a project level; and

(c) Organisational capacity at a portfolio level to support policy, systems and procedural changes to adapt to future waste avoidance and reduction strategies.


62

This objective was achieved in Phase 2 ‘Creation: Draft Framework Development’ by undertaking initial data collection through desktop analysis and conducting focus group and/or semi-structured interviews with up to 5-8 organisation A and organisation B employees. Analysis from these activities informs the development of the draft framework.

C. Objective 3 Guidelines

Next, the project sought to develop, pilot and evaluate the self-assessment framework and develop user guidelines. The purpose of the framework is to be part of a wider organisational strategy aimed at improving waste management practices.

In order to achieve this objective, in Phase 3 ‘Implementation: Pilot and evaluation’, the research team conducted framework piloting with organisation A and organisation B including focus group interviews with 12 employees, individual interviews with 15 employees, final modifications of the framework, field testing with 39 employees in both organisation and then the development of framework user guidelines.

D Objective 4 Dissemination

The final objective of this project was to disseminate project outcomes to the organisations involved in the research, wider residential construction sector and the academic community.

This objective was addressed in Phase 4 ‘Dissemination: Distribution of outcomes’ by presenting synthesis of key learnings and outcomes through two workshops conducted in the partner organisations, and disseminating to a broader industry audience via public forums that were organised with RMIT University, MBAV, HIA and others as appropriate. The research findings and outcomes are also being disseminated in wider media such as conference and journal papers.


63

9.0 References

Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., Mininno, V., & Ponticelli, S. (2012). Supply chain management: a review of

implementation risks in the construction industry. Business Process Management Journal, 18(5), 735-761.

Bankvall, L., Bygballe, L. E., Dubois, A., & Jahre, M. (2010). Interdependence in supply chains and projects in

construction. Supply Chain Management, 15(5), 385-393.

Bell N. (1998) Waste minimization and resource recovery. The environmental design guide, vol. 2. Canberra:

Gen 21, Royal Australian Institute of Architects

Benton, W. C., & McHenry, L. F. (2010). Construction purchasing & supply chain management. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

BRE. (2006). Developing a strategic approach to sonctruction waste. 20 year strategy draft for comment.

Garston, Watford: BRE.

Brooks, K., Adams, C. and Demsetz, LA (1994). Germany's construction and demolition debris recycling

infrastructure: what lessons does it have for the U.S? Sustainable Construction, Proceedings of the 1st

Conference CIB TG16, C.J. Kibert (ed). Centre for Construction and Environment, Gainesville, 647-656

Bygballe, L. E., Jahre, M., & Swärd, A. (2010). Partnering relationships in construction: A literature review.

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 16(4), 239-253. doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2010.08.002

Bossink, B. and Brouwers, H. (1996) Construction waste: quantification and source evaluation, Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 122, No. 1, pp. 55-60

CIRIA (1995). Waste Minimisation and Recycling in Construction – A Review. London: Construction Industry

Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Special Publication.

Cheng, J. C. P., Law, K. H., Bjornsson, H., Jones, A., & Sriram, R. (2010). A service oriented framework for

construction supply chain integration. Automation in Construction, 19(2), 245-260. doi:

10.1016/j.autcon.2009.10.003

Christopher, M. (1992). Logistics and Supply Chain Management Strategies for Reducing Costs and Improving

Services, Pitman, London.

Cooper, M. C., & Ellram, L. M. (1993). Characteristics of supply chain management and the implications for

purchasing and logistics strategy. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 4(2), 13 - 24.

Cox, A., Ireland, P., & Townsend, M. (2006). Managing in construction supply chains and markets. London:

Thomas Telford.

Craven, D., Okraglik, H. and Eilenberg, I. (1994) Construction waste and a new design methodology,

Sustainable Construction, Proceedings of the 1st

Conference CIB TG16, C.J. Kibert (ed). Centre for Construction

and Environment, Gainesville, 89-98

Crittenden, B. and kolaczkowski, S. (1994) Waste minimisation: a practical guide, Rugby, Warwickshire:

Institution of Chemical Engineers


64

CSCMP (2013). CSCMP Supply Chain Management Definitions. Retrieved 08/01/2013, from

http://cscmp.org/aboutcscmp/definitions.asp

CSIRO. (2001). Building and construction industries supply chain project (domestic). Canberra: Commonwealth

Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on behalf of Department of Industry, Science and Resources.

Dainty, A. and Brooke, R. (2004) Towards improved construction waste minimisation: a need for improved

supply chain integration?, Structural Survey, Vol. 22 Iss: 1, pp. 20-29

Doran, D., & Giannakis, M. (2011). An examination of a modular supply chain: a construction sector

perspective. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(4), 260-270.

DSEWPC. (2011). Construction and demolition waste guide - recycling and re-use across the supply chain.

Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Duran X, Lenihan H, O’Regan B. (2006) A model for assessing the economic viability of construction and

demolition waste recycling—the case of Ireland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 46(3):302–20.

EPA (1998). Construction and Demolition Waste Action Plan. NSW, Environment Protection Authority.

Eriksson, P. E. (2010). Improving construction supply chain collaboration and performance: a lean construction

pilot project. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(5), 394-403.

Faniran, O.O. and Caban, G. (1998), “Minimising waste on construction project sites”, Engineering Construction

and Architectural Management 5, Vol. 2, p. 183.

Formoso, C., Isatto, E. and hirota, E. (1999) Method for waste control in the building industry, Proceedings

IGLC-7, 7th Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Berkeley, CA, 26-28 July

Formoso, C. T., & Isatto, E. L. (2011). Three Theoretical Perspectives for Understanding Inter-firm Coordination

of Construction Project Supply Chains (Vol. 11).

Gavilan, R. and Bernhold, L. (1994) Source evaluation of solid waste in building construction, Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 120, 3, pp. 535-555

Gold, S., S. Seuring, P. Beske, Sustainable supply chain management and interorganizational resources: a

literature review, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17 (4) (2010) 230–245.

Graham, P. a. S., G. (1996). "Construction waste minimisation for Australian residential development." Asia

Pacific Construction Management Journal 2: 14-19.

Greenwood, R. (2003) Construction Waste Minimisation: Good Practice Guide, Centre for Research in the Built

Environment(CRiBE), Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff, UK, retrieved at 10/01/2013 from

http://wales.gov.uk/desh/publications/housing/constructwastemini/guide.pdf?lang=en

Hong-Minh, S. (2002). Re-engineering the UK private house building supply chain. University of Wales Cardiff.

Retrieved from http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/verlag/diss/hong-minh/hong-minh.pdf

Hyder Consulting (2011) Construction and demolition waste status report, Management of construction and

demolition waste in Australia, Report prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,

Population, Communities - Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management,

http://wales.gov.uk/desh/publications/housing/constructwastemini/guide.pdf?lang=en

http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/verlag/diss/hong-minh/hong-minh.pdf


65

Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Arrfelt, M. (2007) Strategic supply chain management: Improving performance

through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal,

28(10);1035–1052

Kang, S., Kang, B., Shin, K. K., Kim, D. and Han, J. (2012) A theoretical framework for strategy development to

introduce sustainable supply chain management, The 2012 International Conference on Asia Pacific Business

Innovation and technology Management, Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 40, 631-635

Khalfan, M., & Maqsood, T. (2012). Supply chain capital in construction industry: coining the term.

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(2), 300-310.

Khalfan, M., & McDermott, P. (2006). Innovating for supply chain integration within construction. Construction

Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 6(3), 143-157.

Lathin, D. (2001), "Lean manufacturing", American Society for Quality Journal, December, pp. 2-9.

Lawson (2013). White Paper: Lean Manufacturing Retrived at 10/01/2013 from

http://www.lawson.com/lpod/white+paper/english/6218

Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way - 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer,

McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Lim, K. (2005) Causal model for management of subcontractors in waste minimisation, PhD thesis, National

University of Singapore

Lingard, H., Graham, P. and Smithers, G. (2000) Employee perceptions of the solid waste management system

operation in a large Australian contracting organisation: implications for company policy implementation,

Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 383-393

Ling, F and Lim, M (2002) Implementation of a Waste Management Plan for Construction Projects in Singapore,

Architectural Science Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 73-81

London, K. (2008). Construction supply chain economics. London: Taylor & Francis.

London, K., & Siva, J. (2012). Housing supply chain model for innovation. Melbourne: Australian Housing

Supply Chain Alliance.

London, K. A., & Kenley, R. (2001). An industrial organization economic supply chain approach for the

construction industry: a review. Construction Management and Economics, 19(8), 777-788. doi:

10.1080/01446190110081699

Lönngren, H.-M., Rosenkranz, C., & Kolbe, H. (2010). Aggregated construction supply chains: success factors in

implementation of strategic partnerships. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15(5), 404-411.

Maloney, W.F. and Federle, M.O. (1993), “Practical models for organizational assessment”, Journal of

Management in Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-81.

McGeorge, W. D., Palmer, A., & London, K. (2002). Construction management: new directions. Oxford:

Blackwell Science.

http://www.lawson.com/lpod/white+paper/english/6218


66

McGrath C, Anderson M. (2000) Waste minimizing on a construction site. Building Research Establishment

Digest, 447.

Mills TH, Showalter E, Jarman D. (1999) A cost effective waste management plan. Cost Engineering, 41(3):35–

43.

Mincks, WR (1994) The construction contractor's waste management plan: optimising control and cost,

Sustainable Construction, Proceedings of the 1st

Conference CIB TG16, C.J. Kibert (ed). Centre for Construction

and Environment, Gainesville, 765-774

Meng, X. (2010). Assessment framework for construction supply chain relationships: Development and

evaluation. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 695-707. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.12.006

Nystuen, T. (2002). Big results with less. Quality Progress, October, pp.1-9

O'Brien, W. J., Formoso, C. T., Vrijhoef, R., & London, K. A. (2009). Construction Supply Chain Management

Handbook. London: CRC Press. Taylor and Francis Group.

Ofori, G. (2000) Greening the construction supply chain in Singapore, European Journal of Purchasing and

Supply Management, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, pp. 195-206

Parker, V. (2003). Burt's bees implementation of production process. Ttibune Business News, Nos. 1-3, pp. 2-4

Petrovic-Lazarevic, S., Matanda, M., & Worthy, R. (2006). Supply chain management in building and

construction industry: Case of Australian residential sector: Monash University.

Poon CS. (2007) Reducing construction waste. Waste Management, 27(12):1715–6.

Pryke, S. (2009). Construction Supply Chain Management (1 ed.). Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Reddrop A, Ryan C. (1997) Housing construction waste, vol. 2. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of

Industry, Science and Tourism

Seuring, S. (2012) A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain management, Decision

Support Systems,

Shen LY, Tam VWY, Tam CM, Drew D. (2004) Mapping approach for examining waste management on

construction sites. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(4):472–81.

Sheridan, J. (2000), "Growing with lean", Industry Week, October, pp. 1-5.

Shin, T.-H., Chin, S., Yoon, S.-W., & Kwon, S.-W. (2011). A service-oriented integrated information framework

for RFID/WSN-based intelligent construction supply chain management. Automation in Construction, 20(6),

706-715. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.12.002

Slack N, Chambers, S. and Johnston, R. (2001). Operations Management, third edition, Pearson Education

Limited, Harlow, England.

Sohal, A. and Eggleston, A. (1994), "Lean production: experience amongst Australian organisations",

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14, pp. 1-17.


67

Spekman, R. E., Kamauff, J. W. J., & Myhr, N. (1998). An empirical investigation into supply chain management:

A perspective on partnerships. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 28(8),

630 - 650.

Sustainability Victoria (2010) Towards Zero Waste Strategy Progress Report 2005-2009

Tam VWY, Tam CM. (2008) Waste reduction through incentives: a case study. Building Research & Information,

36(1):37–43.

Tennant, S. and Fernie, S. (2012). An emergent form of client-led supply chain governance in UK construction:

Clans. International Journal of Construction Supply Chain Management 2(1), 1-16

Teo, M. and Loosemore, M. (2001) A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry, Construction

Management and Economics, vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 741-51

Tucker, S. Seo, S, Johnston, D., Williams, A., Mitchell, P., Watson, P., Jones, D., Newhouse, O, Ambrose, M.,

Lawther, P., O'Donnell, A. (2005) Waste Minimisation in Construction, Final Report, CRC for Construction

Innovation, Icon.Net, Brisbane, Australia.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2002) Waste wise update: building for the future, Available

from http://www.epa.gov/wastewise/pubs/wwupda16.pdf.

Vidalakis, C., Tookey, J. E., & Sommerville, J. (2011). Logistics simulation modelling across construction supply

chains. Construction Innovation, 11(2), 212-228.

Walker, D. (2012). Innovation and value delivery through supply chain management. In A. Akintoye, J. Goulding

& G. Zawdie (Eds.), Construction innovation and process improvement. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-

Blackwell.

WCS Market Intelligence. (2008). The blue book: Australian waste industry: 2007/08 industry and market

report. North Sydney, N.S.W., WCS Market Intelligence

Womack, J., & Jones, D. (1996). Lean thinking(1st Edition). London: Simon and Schuster UK Ltd.

Yuan, HP, Shen, LY, Hao, JJL and Lu, WS (2011) A model for cost-benefit analysis of construction and demolition

management throughout the waste chain, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55. pp. 604-612

Zhu, M., and Zou, Z. (2011) Green supply chain management in construction industry, M. Dai (eds), ICCIC 2011

Part 2, CCIS 232, 81-86, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Appendix 1

Table 1: Summary of barriers to waste minimisation in Organisation A

Barrier Participant

(People/Times)

Example quote

Source Cause

High Organisation Poor organisational

communication across units to facilitate change

Senior Design Manager, HSE Manager, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager (4/10)

Senior Design Manager: Sometimes a post construction review has not been done.

HSE Manager: We haven’t gone through a review process yet. You’ve heard throughout the project that some things have been popped up. But it's not a very formal process.

Corporate Sustainability Manager: We don’t get involved with value management.

Building Supervisor: Definitely because to give you an idea, we had problems the other week. Half of the people in there probably only have ever seen a building site, probably three quarters of them haven't, so when they come in and see piles and piles of timber and this and that they are going to understand this is all the stuff I have ordered and why is this happening, so I will need to get involved and say, look this is something that is really wrong. You need to look at your figures

Feasibility Direct costs vs. Whole of life costs

Senior Design Manager, Building Supervisor HSE Manager, Corporate Sustainability Manager (4/9)

Senior Design Manager: We need to ensure that the business case for everything is sound. In Organisation A, it is not just about saying we need to have a system that is sustainable or produces more waste material. It has to be recalculated to what impact that does have on the business case really. We need to have a wall or flooring system that does everything all the competitors do, but at the same cost.

HSE Manager: And then you get influences with pressure and money and that tends to skew people’s wants because it comes down to needs. So yeah the training was OK. Phil came along for an hour and a half so you’re pulling a subbie out for an hour and a half you’ve lost them already. So there are the battles that you’re going to find and trying to help out waste management process

Corporate Sustainability Manager: If you want to pay for it, any company will do a proper recycle for you. It always comes down to ‘the more you pay the more service you get’.

Organisation Poor organisational communication of strategic objectives

HSE Manager, National Purchasing Manager, Corporate Sustainability Manager (3/11)

HSE manager: At the moment there’s nothing there. You can print off things and full pages and what I’ve learnt is full pages of writing no one absorbs in the industry

HSE Manager: more of informal conversations. Nothing really formal especially with our design teams – they’re the one who actually choose the products that we use…there was actually no discussion but some products they do come in and say why we’ve actually used it. The sit down with the actual design team in regards to waste we haven’t gone through that process with training.

Corporate Sustainability Manager: We haven’t got a waste policy as such… We have an environmental one. We have draft sustainability one…we haven’t communicated to all staff about that.

HSE Manager: we do have a policy signed off by our managing director but it comes off to someone who probably hasn't even met the director you know and they’ve read something briefly – does that share the same enforcement as your CEO coming down to talk to you about it? All that type of stuff.

Procurement Lack of cooperation/maturity from suppliers to minimise waste

HSE Manager, National Purchasing Manager, Corporate Sustainability Manager (3/6)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: I know that National Purchasing Manager and Corporate Sustainability Manager are supposed to be going out doing an audit on the Melbourne companies at the moment to get a bit more idea of what’s going on, and try to get a better idea of what the companies can offer from our point of view. We had a national agreement with a company and they said they can do all these wonderful things. But it didn't actually happen.

HSE Manager: We’re using a product at the moment called Promat. It's a cement sheet type of base product, but very good. When I spoke to the supplier, I said ‘it is a great product, thank you very much. Now what are we doing with your rubbish?” And he said “What do you mean?” I said “Well, there’s going to be leftover of this, which is still your rubbish. What do you do with it?” and he stopped.

Feasibility Lack of strategic procurement & Partnership

Building Supervisor，National Purchasing Manager , HSE Manager (3/6)

Building Supervisor: I feel I should do some more work on it and possibly work on better ways of doing things. Giving an example, I’ve just started using a new product up there on the floor, which is called “Promat”. I think it’s a James Hardie product. It is not recyclable as far as I know. So I can’t recycle it. Like plastic, I got a truck and picked it up. That stuff goes into our bins at our cost and goes through to the recycling plant. Now I think it gets recycled somewhere. But I think James Hardie should be taking that off from our site.

HSE Manager: And I know that National Purchasing Manager and Corporate Sustainability Manager are supposed to be going out doing an audit on the Melbourne companies at the moment to get a bit more of an idea of what’s going on. Just to try to get a better idea as to what the companies can offer from our point of view. We had a national agreement with a company and they said they can do all these wonderful things and it didn't actually happen

Building Supervisor: what I like is it is to get a new brick supplier over these normal brick suppliers who will not come to site and take back excess bricks because they just don’t want to do it. So look, I’m happy to give this product a go they are going to want it. But I don’t want to rebate or a refund but they wouldn’t come and pick them up which is really bad for a company. They’re happy to send it out and bill us for it but they would not take back say a wrong batch or something.

Medium Feasibility Lack of resources

allocated in organisation to support change

HSE Manager, National Purchasing Manager, Corporate Sustainability Manager(3/4)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: It is challenging when you don't have the manpower to then explore opportunities and research further into material selection.

Feasibility Lack of Training/Education

HSE Manager, Building Supervisor (3/4)

HSE Manager: I haven’t gone through the details of that process. They haven’t relayed it to me

Building supervisor: Not a written policy. I’ve never been trained on how to minimise or how to do better this kind of stuff. I probably picked it up myself over the years, but they are open for you to implement anything if you can think of a better way to do something, then they will welcome that. So you got to ask yourself the question does the company as a whole, have a policy to give to me. We are policy driven. Everything we have is policies but that’s one area we haven’t tucked in to

Procurement Low quality of suppliers

National Purchasing Manager, Corporate Sustainability Manager(2/3)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: Ten years ago, I went to a recycling company to check out the way that the company did. The answer was always like “what do you want on the report? If you want 50%, I’ll give you 50%. If you want 100%, I’ll give you 100%”. They had a process for doing it. But when you asked them about timber. They will say “We won’t recycle timber.”

National Purchasing Manager: In the fifth container, the bricks were all oversized.

Corporate Sustainability Manager: It's a full time job because trades have the tendency to say “Oh, there’s a bin and I’ll throw it in”. Of course, it becomes contaminated. So you have to have a labourer or a construction worker to get in and take out all the stuff. It becomes quite onerous.

Feasibility Young industry – lack of knowledge in waste reporting

HSE Manager, Corporate Sustainability Manager(2/3)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: I think the industry is quite young in terms of reporting on waste. There are only a few of the main waste contractors that have a more robust reporting. But most of them only have a rough estimate.

Feasibility Lack of Supplier development

HSE Manager, Building Supervisor(2/3)

HSE Manager: I think you have to really push through with the training. The training package is there – the slideshow. But do we get suppliers involved? Part of our tender package is to watch our DVD. Here’s an information pack about our business prior to your coming to tender. But I think this training or information flow should be conversational – someone speaking to you rather than give you a DVD and say “Here’s your scope of work”.

Planning Resistance to change (lack of incentives)

HSE Manager, Corporate Sustainability Manager (2/3)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: Timber automatically goes to landfill because we can’t recycle it. Steel, concrete paper and plastic, we can recycle them quite easily because lots of companies are available to take it. But for timber, they can put pellets or firewood out the front. People won’t even come in and take it. And it is the same with green waste. A lot of the companies now are working on green waste, so that they can recycle that part of it because there’s money in it. They can sell it back to council for the gardens and stuff like that. So, if there’s money in it, the industry will pick it up and make it work.

Planning Lack of on site materials control and waste management plans


Corporate Sustainability Manager: And as I said, at the present the practical way for us to manage waste is actually just to put one bin on site and it becomes a mixed bin, and have it taken away by a supplier who picks it up and gets them sorted, and does the recycling and gives us the report back.

Feasibility Lack of knowledge about waste – recyclers / contractors


Corporate Sustainability Manager: When materials leave site and go back to the recyclers, it is difficult to know how much of that stuff is actually recycled. It becomes mixed waste unfortunately, when it goes to them. So, they’ll pick out, mix it and give us an estimate. That’s always going to be the situation

Operation Lack of quality control

HSE Manager, National Purchasing Manager(2/2)

HSE Manager: For the waste minimisation, I think we need to be pickier. When I say picky, we need to dabble deeper into the people we engage, rather than just taking things on face value. Unfortunately, a lot of things aren’t like that because of time.


Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager(2/2)

Building Supervisor: Yes, quite a lot of offcuts [on construction sites]. We use MDF which has to be cut to fit. Lots of waste is produced.

Planning Downstream response vs. Upstream solution

HSE Manager, National Purchasing Manager (2/2)

HSE Manager: and the thing is the waste on site it’s a visual you see the results. And now in that middle that management where we need new direction change that there they don’t see a physical end result. They’re taking a belief that if I do it this way I’ll save more on waste without even seeing the result because they’re trying to avoid it. It’s just trying to get them to understand that you’re not doing nothing, you’re actually doing something but can’t compare the end result unless it’s a figure of some sort but they probably won’t get to that figure because they’ve done that proactive approach because on site is reactive. You waste on site and you reactively remove it and recycle it. Being proactive you don’t see the consequence of not doing it and that’s unfortunate because that’s how people usually operate. You’ve got to see the consequence before you react so you’re jumping the gun there

Low Planning Knowledge of

problem vs. Lack of action

HSE Manager (1/2) HSE Manager: With the suppliers, I think we have got a fair bit to go regarding how to change them, but no activities has been taken.

Organisational communication across units

Inappropriate communication method

HSE Manager (1/2) HSE Manager: People like to have information fed through them rather than “here’s an email please find attachment”. Those people don't like to click four clicks on the intranet page to find it.

Procurement Ordering error, over ordering and under ordering

Building Supervisor (1/2)

Building Supervisor: More than likely over ordering

Building Supervisor: we had 50 odd houses under construction at the building site and we would’ve gone through something like 4 bins a day and no doubt that could’ve been cut down a lot. That was very out of control last year and lot of stuff was just getting ordered, they were just ordering, ordering, and ordering and we had all these leftovers straight in the bin and that was very badly organised.

Feasibility Lack of skilled labour HSE Manager (1/1) HSE Manager: When you’re talking to people on site, it’s a whole different ball game. It’s like a school yard. They’re kids that need to be taught the right things, and disciplined when necessary

Design Designer not familiar with possibilities of different products

HSE Manager (1/1) HSE Manager: So it’s really about trying to educate our senior design manager about the processes involved, because a lot of them are architects. You should study the reason behind the materials that you use, rather than just saying “OK, we need that type of beam”. They actually should understand what alternative products we can use that’s better for the environment. I don't think we actually have a trigger for that.

National Purchasing Manager: The biggest problem we’ve got was the designers sat in isolation and were oblivious to the end results of their decision making.

Operation Error by tradesperson or labourer

HSE Manager(1/1) HSE Manager: You’re engaging a domestic contractor who has got no idea about the way you’ve set up your sheet planning. So he comes and there is a shortfall of 4 sheets because he has cut it wrong.


National Purchasing Manager(1/1)

National Purchasing Manager: So much stuff is stolen from construction sites it’s frightening.

Feasibility No enough space on site

National Purchasing Manager(1/1)

National Purchasing Manager: It’s more for the future because some of the sites didn’t have enough room to facilitate the closure.

Other Knowledge management/knowledge transfer

HSE Manager(1/1) HSE Manager: We still need to do more training. For anything you’ve just got, you should keep using it till you understand it. Unfortunately it’s usually like that “I’ve used it once. I’ve done it and I won’t go back.” However, the next time, they forget how to use the new technology.

Feasibility Absence of Mechanism to bring improvement

Building Supervisor(1/1)

Building Supervisor: If we want to bring an issue up, we can give a phone call. There is really nothing to oversee all that as a whole. It might be expecting management to come to me at the end of the job and ask “why did you need all those bins”. So, they later ask all those questions. It really needs a full circle.

Feasibility Shifting of waste vs. Elimination of waste

HSE Manager(1/1) HSE Manager: I spoke to him and asked him “what do you do with your waste? On site we’ve eliminated [the waste], but have we really eliminated?” No. we’ve just moved it elsewhere. It’s the same philosophy as safety. You can get rid of someone, but have you gotten rid of the problem? No. You’ve given that problem to someone else.

Procurement Competition situation of suppliers

Building Supervisor(1/1)

Building Supervisor: In Melbourne there should be dozens and dozens of site plasterboard suppliers. However, there is not. You’ve only got two in Melbourne.

Other Illegal dumping resulting from high levy costs

HSE Manager(1/1) HSE Manager: Unfortunately, it [high levy costs] does lead to other behaviours of illegal dumping.

(4/7) means 4 interviewees mentioned this code 7 times

Table 2: Summary of barriers to waste minimisation in Organisation B Barrier Participant (People/Times) Example quote

Source Cause

High Organisational Poor organisational communication across units to facilitate change

General Manager, Estimator, Procurement Category Manager, National OH&S Manager, Senior Design Manager, BOQ Manager (6/17)

General Manager: That’s classic. About 100 site managers in Victoria, probably about 15 to 20 construction managers and 5 building managers in Victoria, it’s a big ship. I guess having an agreement on something and having that being transposed all the way down the line are very difficult. So that for leadership management, I think it’s a lack of our ability to communicate effectively as well so we have the building managers sitting in a room and all agreed on something and then they may be unable to communicate that to construction people.

National OH&S Manager: Yeah it really comes back to the estimators. Well it starts with the sales people. Sales people don’t understand sometimes what variations mean and sometimes they don’t actually get put into the job, and then that makes an error to the site. And then you get your estimators and again you get those variations. If the estimators aren’t hitting those variations or they don’t understand them, then they’ll miss-estimate the site and you’ll end up with varying amounts of material on that.

Design Manager: No, they haven’t. They only get back to us only if there is issue in pricing, so if we pitched a particular home and say for instance $200,000 and it comes in and says $250,000, then that’s an issue that’s $50,000 over the price. So we to go back at that time and have to recheck the design to sort of try to get things out to reduce the price.

Design Manager: I would assume they would but it’s never discussed between us. They haven’t come back to us and said that we are wasting too much timber because of design.

Estimator: This change may not get communicated to the production estimators in time and thus the documents will not be changed. So, quantities will still be as per the Estimators original Bill of Quantities. This can lead to over ordering.

Design Manager: we designed the new products and we release the new product. We expect people to understand it and get it. But we don’t sit with construction team and the sales team to explain why we have done certain things and how certain things come together.

Planning Knowledge of problem vs. Lack of action

General Manager, Procurement Category Manager, National OH&S Manager, Senior Design Manager, BOQ Manager (5/18)

Procurement Category Manager: There hasn’t been a lot of discussion around how to target the other two suppliers to have a similar model to Supplier X. And then, we can try and implement across Victoria.

Procurement Category Manager: We’ve always talked about we get so many cubic meters of bricks that are thrown out. We should really do something about that. But there’s never been a pro-activeness to change it.

National OH&S Manager: Going back to concreting, there are two issues with concreting. Left over reinforcement, quite often you will find a sheet of reinforcement or half a dozen lengths of rebar that’s actually left over on site and never really know how we actually get rid of that. Generally it’s done by the site cleaner. They’ll take it away or they’ll cut it off and take it away. But again it shouldn’t be there but it is.


General Manager, Procurement Category Manager, National OH&S Manager, Senior Design Manager, BOQ Manager

(5/15)

General Manager: What we didn’t calculate was the impact on the efficiency. It’s pre-fabricated off site and delivered to site. You can stand it up probably in 2 to 3 hours and then frame will take 3 to 5 hours minimum. So we didn’t calculate the time efficiency there. We didn’t calculate the fact that there is a lot of waste generated from building a stick home and from a stick build frame because it’s never perfect. Sometimes it’s over and sometimes it’s under. So people have to chase more length of material or there’s too much left over. So there is very little waste on pre-fabricated. It should be put into account.

Procurement Category Manager: It’s not proactively going to be said “well, our main aim is to reduce waste”. It’s always cost effectiveness. Our philosophy at Organisation B is purely cost.

Procurement Category Manager: Yeah so that’s kind of like something that it’s not proactively gone out to say “well, our main aim is to reduce waste”. It’s always cost effectiveness, but it is something which is in the back of...

National OH&S Manager: Fixing material is not high costing.

Graeme: Not really. I don’t have the cost of course, because the prefab frames, the big issue was whether it’d be right or wrong, saying that they are about $ 3000 a house lower price than a normal frame, but that’s only on the face of it and that’s where people don’t understand the full, the true cost, because they don’t know how much waste is involved in that against the price that’s taken into account, it’s really the cost and the safety side

Procurement Ordering error, over and/or under

GM, Estimator, Procurement Category Mgr, National OH&S Manager, BOQ Manager (5/7)

Estimator: Over ordering is sometimes a problem and it is a big concern in terms of waste

National OH&S Manager: Sometimes we have too much, sometimes we have too little.

Planning Resistance to change (lack of incentives)

General Manager, Procurement Category Manager, National OH&S Manager (3/9)

National OH&S Manager: It’s not worthwhile that somebody going back and actually picking up that amount of steel.

National OH&S Manager: Because it’s so cheap, it’s not something that anybody wants to save or reuse.

Procurement Category Mgr: But let’s be realistic, they’ve been in a boom time for the past 10-15 years. There is really not any need to move away.

GM: Previously we actually held the procurement team. Our aim was to get the team to be a national unit. However, there was a lot of resistance around it. People in the different states like to do their own things which are pretty standard. They did a fairly good job.

Procurement Category Manager: this whole discussion about category management and we find the way which we purchase for some people it does go over their head. I don’t think a lot of people really grasped what category management was about and how you’re not going to see anything for two years. You’re just going to see a lot of people asking questions and going around and presenting presentations. You might get some cost savings but the reality is that after two years you have this plan in place which you can then really target and have some stronger arguments to change the way suppliers work. So, that really I believe was not grasped in the organisation. So, once procurement moved outside of GMs control that kind of changed completely. So now it’s moving more to the old school purchasing of we have three different suppliers, we want paper, what’s your best price?

Medium Procurement Lack of maturity/ cooperation from suppliers to minimise waste

Procurement Category Manager, National OH&S Manager (3/8)

Procurement Category Manager: Where I find it’s difficult to communicate with the suppliers is that when you go and sit with them and say, “Let’s have a decision about waste” a lot of suppliers even wouldn’t understand what the waste percentage is of their own products.

Procurement Category Manager: So where I’m frustrated I guess is that nobody’s willing to have the open conversation of, “Yeah it does cost me ten bucks in waste whatever, it costs me three bucks in waste. Come in and spend three months to show me. So we can work together maybe brain storm some ideas on how we’ll reduce that waste. Should I be going back to my manufacturer of Pods and telling him makes smaller pods so I only buy smaller pods?” Whatever it is…But what is this, what’s an innovative strategy?

Planning Downstream response vs. upstream solution

Procurement Category Manager, Senior Design Manager, BOQ Manager (3/7)

Senior Design Manager: We can alter the things onsite if we build the first one of these new designs and tweak it. We go back to the original drawing, tweak that and make that measure up.

Feasibility Not taking a systematic and holistic view

General Manager, BOQ Manager (2/4)

BOQ Manager: Customers don’t want to spend their money on what goes underneath the house. They want to spend on up the road and all the flashy stuff. So, it’s hard to talk about that and justify that here. So I’m not quite sure how it fits into the whole.

Planning Resistance to change (champion credibility)

Procurement Category Manager, BOQ Manager (2/4)

Procurement Category Manager: It [Procurement Strategy] was in GM’s control and now it’s gone out of his control. It’s reverting back to the older ways.

Planning Lack of senior management support to drive change

Procurement Category Manager, BOQ Manager (2/4)

BOQ Manager: I think we failed in the past, because we used one of the stakeholders to be project manager. It shouldn’t necessarily be the stakeholder. It should be somebody who can sit above everyone and coordinate the whole project.

Procurement Category Manager: But I just feel that in a lot of the assignments that we’ve put forward so further up the chain into like a GM level sometimes up to MD or executive level. There is a bit of stalemate so you kind of go, “I thought everything was working fine.” “Well it’s not.”

Design Changes to design Estimator, National OH&S Manager (2/3)

Estimator: A client might wish to have a different eaves, different windows or different opening sizes.

National OH&S Manager: And there are a number of things that sort of happened because we are not a typical volume builder. We are sort of a more customised volume builder. We got a lot of changes in design. Now those bricks could have been left over because either the customer ordered bigger windows, or they change the actual eaves on the house

National OH&S Manager: With what we’ve got, and because we got so many different designs of houses and there are so many variations. That’s the nature of Organisation B that they offer a huge variety of houses to people and every house has got six different façades. So it’s very difficult to get it right.

Procurement Low quality of suppliers

National OH&S Manager, Estimator (2/3)

National OH&S Manager: The trades are all terrible.

Estimator: Some suppliers like to overestimate.

Design Lack of influence of contractors and lack of knowledge about construction

Estimator, National OH&S Manager (2/3)

Estimator: Sometimes the site managers are inexperienced.

organisational communication across units

Poor organisational communication of strategic objectives

Procurement Category Manager, Senior Design Manager (2/2)

Procurement Category Manager: It should be an interesting area to think about how to communicate around the reason of why we’re making these decisions.

Operation Error by tradesperson or labourer

Estimator, Procurement Category Manager (2/2)

Estimator: Plasterboard is hung differently sometimes with how the production people think it will be hung. So the construction methods are different to what are anticipated

Procurement Category Manager: We may be ordering enough on site. But the labour is not placing it well. So, we have to order more and therefore a lot gets wasted.

Operation Off site manufacturing/ Prefabrication vs. stick build

National OH&S Manager, BOQ Manager (2/2)

National OH&S Manager: The stick build is fixed by the carpenter on site. Pre-fab actually is that the suppliers bring the walls on site and put them up. So there is not a lot of waste in regards to that. We were experimenting with steel frames down here at the moment. The experience in Queensland is that there is a lot of waste with those steel frames.

Low Feasibility Absence of Mechanism to bring improvement

General Manager (1/4) General Manager: I’ve seen many companies working there, but the mechanism is not there.

Other Local resident dumping waste on the site

National OH&S Manager (1/3)

National OH&S Manager: I took green waste to the transfer station and they charged me $ 57. People are just dumping waste on the side of the road. It’s all on your sites.

Procurement Lack of possibilities to order smaller quantities

BOQ Manager (1/2) BOQ Manager: So, if you are a small builder and you want to really optimise your material usage, you would order your plate material in the length, you’d look at your wall lengths, you’d map out how you’re going construct your wall lengths, and you’d order you plate material in those lengths. Now we don’t have the luxury of doing that.

Estimating Variation National OH&S Manager (1/2)

National OH&S Manager: There’s so much variation [in design of different houses]. You have a variation in ceiling heights which can go from 2.7 up to 3.3. The bricks in there have to be estimated. The estimators don’t always get it right.

Other Size and complexity of business

General Manager (1/2) General Manager: Victoria is the biggest division in this company, accounted 60 to 70% of revenue. It’s probably the most complicated but lowest performing division, because of the scale and complexity.

Feasibility Strategic procurement & Partnerships

BOQ Manager (1/2) BOQ Manager: In fact, it is a handshake between your purchasing manager and your suppliers. The terms and conditions are not put down on paper.

Feasibility No enough space on site National OH&S Manager (1/2)

National OH&S Manager: You could be able to recycle it [the waste on site], but then it’s a matter of having two bins on site. That’s part of the problem because of the size of the sites. We don’t have all that much size [space on site].

Feasibility Lack of culture of innovation Procurement Category Manager (1/2)

Procurement Category Manager: I’m not really sure why we can’t improve the sales process and put a display home in the middle of Balwyn which was never done before. But when we introduced a labour only model, some people would think “Why did we do it like this? Maybe we should work more with our suppliers”.

Materials handling

Damaged during transportation to site/on site


National OH&S Manager: Now because of the design of the concrete pumps, we always get about 0.6 of a cubic meter left over.


Estimator (1/1) Estimator: Cutting bricks is different for different types of bricks

Residual Throw away packaging National OH&S Manager (1/1)

National OH&S Manager: We’re building about 300 sites. We see a lot of empty concrete bags. There’s probably an opportunity there to get the concrete delivered in bulk.


BOQ Manager (1/1) BOQ Manager: There’s theft. there’s vandalism [on site]

Planning Lack of on site materials control and waste management plans

BOQ Manager (1/1) BOQ Manager: Plastering is a very good example. We pay for supplying and installing. So they deliver their own materials - sheets of plaster - on site. So it would be interesting to measure how economical they are on the material usage, how much waste is actually left over from their perspective and what they have done to minimise it. I don’t think we really analyse that.

Feasibility Lack of Training/Education Estimator (1/1) Estimator: Site managers may not completely understand what is written down on paper. They may not be able to translate that into the physical construction.

Feasibility Lack of resources allocated in organisation to support change

BOQ Manager (1/1) BOQ Manager: Any project overlaps a lot of departments. It needs a dedicated project manager, needs someone as an integrator.

Design Complexity of design Estimator (1/1) One very important factor is the complexity of design and customisation. We are a mass customisation housing company. We are not a mass builder. We are not gaining efficiencies in repeating the same task. We do slightly different things on every house.

Other Poor site management practices and poor planning and coordination due to high workload

Estimator (1/1) The site managers are managing many projects at once and this could be up to 15 jobs at the one time. So, this can lead to poor practices and poor control on site

Operation Lack of skilled labour Procurement Category Manager (1/1)

Procurement Category Manager: [construction industry has] low-skilled labour. For example, the concreter is not licensed.

Operation Lack of quality control Procurement Category Manager (1/1)

Procurement Category Manager: We need to have that control, because the base of concreter isn’t well developed.

Feasibility Lack of awareness of waste avoidance

Senior Design Manager (1/1)

Senior Design Manager: At the start, it’s all about aesthetics, the way of rooms feel and look, and how you walk through the home and spaces around you. But we really don’t think about the waste.


Table 3: Summary of enablers to waste minimisation in Organisation A

Enabler Participant

(People/Times)

Example quote

Source Cause

High Feasibility Strategic procurement & partnerships

Senior Design Manager, Corporate Sustainability Manager, HSE Manager, Estimator, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager (6/40)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: In the past, we would find a supplier to supply all the roof tiles to us. The roof tiler didn't have to worry about it from a dollar factor. So if they keep breaking them, we have to order more tiles. And the waste will go to landfill at that point of time. Now what we do is that it is the tiler’s responsibility to provide the tiles. Suddenly, instead of having truckloads of tiles leftover, there may be only 3 tiles leftover per house.

Corporate Sustainability Manager: The trades like the idea of having the process of where the bins come and go. And then they will actually comply much better.

Building supervisor: All this stuff goes to this Konstruct place. I believe they are doing the right thing, which we never used to have so that being the first step. That is a big improvement as I said. The stuff that goes to the other guy, it looks okay. It might be slightly contaminated but they are going to sift through it.

Building supervisor: We have taken it up with Tillings. They are big-sized timber distributors. Bowens is one of the biggest for pre-fabricated of walls, foot walls, and truss manufacturers in Victoria. So we are a team now. And now we have got all this big names together. People are willing to spend time and give time to really develop and we are seeing the fruit of all these come together.

Building supervisor: Wastage in concrete seems to be more apparent when you supply the concrete for the concreter. If you pass on the accountability and responsibility to supply concrete to the concreter, he forms up a lot straighter. So once you do that you put it back on to these guys, your concrete wastage tends to reduce quite a fait bit because we used to allow extra three cubic meters of concrete per house just to allow for concrete blow outs. But now we started engaging concreters more. Concreters may take on the supply as well. We find that we’re not getting much wastage at all in that essence

Planning Knowledge of problem and take action

Senior Design Manager, Corporate Sustainability Manager, HSE Manager, Estimator, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager (6/32)

Senior Design Manager: Stick build is fraught. There is so much waste. We need a fundamental paradigm shift.

Corporate Sustainability Manager: From a waste point of view, the other thing is that we’ve only just started collecting the data. So we can’t start analysing the data and understanding where our waste is actually sitting. Also, we can’t really put in a waste reduction policy until we really know what we’re doing. So we’re really early in the stage of that process. So we’re just trying to figure out in the next few months. Hopefully we’ll get some good reports and some good information. And then from there we can actually say ‘OK we can try to reduce it by doing XYZ”.

National Purchasing Manager: Along the way, we also decided to get into ISO14001 qualification. And we received it October 2012. It is a good thing, because it shows that we have traceability in the processes and also we have more direct links to the company for outcomes. We put a lot of efforts on sustainable outcomes, not only to get the qualification, but to do something about it. It is good, because now a lot of processes, a lot of the decisions, and the activities which the qualification requires to be done are coming with a lot more authority, a lot more efficiency and a lot more professionalism. So that was a big change.

Feasibility Supplier development

Sen Designer, Corp Sustainability Mgr, HSE Mgr, Estimator, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Mgr (6/21)

National Purchasing Manager: We look at the suppliers and developed the supplier assessment program. One of the key elements of the measurement is in the sustainable area. Do the suppliers have a sustainable policy? If they don’t, theoretically, we don’t want anything to do with them. We are enforcing our suppliers to adopt a very sustainable outcome.

National Purchasing Manager: I always use other different measurement criteria. If they [suppliers] got a tick, there’s a good chance they’ll be used in another project. But if they get crosses in those boxes because they created a union problem or they held us up or they didn’t perform, it will affect the decision for the next project.

organisation Organisational communication across units to facilitate change

Corporate Sustainability Manager, HSE Manager, Estimator, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager (5/35)

Building supervisor: That’s the process we have. It goes through the design development process and having the design team right next to us, gives us the opportunities to capture these short circuits…these things before it happens on site. Consistently, our design team talks to me about cost and construction managers about buildability. So that’s good open relationships we have got internally

HSE Manager: Since then, we’ve started to do some environmental awareness within our business which is a bit of in-house training sessions. We sit with the site teams and go through it.

Corporate Sustainability Manager: The HSE managers have a really good relationship with each of the project. So I think the feedback is openly shared.

Building supervisor: it’s more the construction director and I were sort of going, how can we firstly reduce time onsite and reduce risk from an OH&S point of view on sites as well.

Building supervisor: It’s not just the design, I must say, it is also the guys from the site, this is such a labour intensive job so why we need to be doing this. So all of a sudden…ok we got two people saying similar things, let’s explore.

HSE Manager: There’s a HSE working group and there’s a HSE council inside of Organisation A. So if there was an initiative raised it would work its way to the working group. The working group would have a look at it. It would go through to the council and then a recommendation for change. And like all the HSE managers and coordinates that fit in to the company from all the different positions they all have a HSE Manager who says they’ll communicate with each other they’ll send through ideas to me and I’ll back saying forget it or whatever. But it’s that type of process. It’s very open communication I think between everyone in the company. I don't think there’s a situation where you think I can’t raise that or someone will think I’m trying to cause a problem. People like to throw ideas up and 90% of the ideas don't necessarily get a leg up but you get 10% of them that you think – haven’t thought of that, that's a great idea, we’ll work on that.

Planning Senior management support to drive change

Corporate Sustainability Manager, HSE Manager, Estimator, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager (5/30)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: There’s a lot more awareness with the guys on site. People are more aware of what we’re trying to do from an environmental point of view. We’ve actually gone down the line of needing people to get trained for either a certificate for environmental or a diploma in environment. So, people are starting to understand that there is a full commitment to it and we’ve got to make it happen.

Building supervisor: We tend to look into a lot of innovations. So my GM in XXX, he always tells us to look into more of innovative ways to build in light weight construction. And that’s what me and my construction director…branching out, always looking for new material, new systems new methods of construction, we constantly do it in the background, making sure if there is anything new in the industry, that’s worthwhile then we trying to adopt them into our projects.

Building supervisor: I must say, there is a little bit of culture in Organisation A about where we are going with light weight construction so our general manager is always pushing boundaries of how we can build light weight construction.

Medium Feasibility Direct costs vs.

Whole of life costs Senior Design Manager, HSE Manager, Estimator, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing

Manager(5/20）

Building supervisor: Yeah because I don’t want the stuff. I want it off the site daily, so they’ll back the truck up to this loading bay throw all their offcuts in and

the truck drives away. Now it’s going to where it should be going. So for me that will be my preferred contractor on any site providing they performed as well.

Planning Champion credibility

Corp Sustainability Mgr, HSE Manager, Estimator, National Purchasing Mgr (4/12)

HSE Manager: Our estimating manager will work with all suppliers in negotiating costs and contracts. So, I got him on board and I’ve given him the information... He did all our work. He’s part of every tender package. He’s the key person in the middle of everything.

National Purchasing Manager: Well, in the case of Organisation A, I’ve become the champion in a lot of issues because of my authority and my enthusiasm. And I knew where to go when I hit blockers. I knew that I could go to Chris Warrell, the general manager of HR and use his influence to, because it was a sustainable problem.

Planning Downstream response vs. Upstream solution

Corporate Sustainability Manager, Estimator, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager (4/11)

Building Supervisor: We are talking a bit about supplier integration with the design, pre-concept styling, or before planning. It is also beneficial to do the design in conjunction with all parties in the beginning.

HSE Manager: We try to give some direction as to where we’d like to go. But we can’t literally go and say you will go and do this. We can suggest and we can try to give ideas but in the end the business units are the one who will have to make the final decision. And it works well for us from the point of view that the business units like that autonomy to be able to run their business the way they want to run it. [Researcher]: and you put in that guidance role for support and direction. HSE: Yeah. It’s more ownership from them also that way as opposed to corporates dictating what they should be doing.

Operation Off site manufacturing /prefabrication

HSE Manager, Estimator, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager (4/8)

HSE Manager: Our timber wastage is reduced on site because we’re dealing with a timber manufacturer. The timber wastage has been reduced on site because we’ve given it to the specialists who know exactly what they need.

National Purchasing Manager: Because you eliminate a lot of sustainable problems because you’re doing it in a controlled area. I think, you slave it on maybe doing it in a warehouse and not being affected by weather. And all you do is just take that completed or semi-completed product of art on a given day. And it’s put in the place like a meccano set. And that’s for certain. We looked at it very seriously and we do reports on that.

Planning Identification of incentives to drive change

HSE Mgr, Estimator, Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager (4/7)

HSE Manager: We are trying to put a comparison to something that they can actually say “wow that's a lot of waste”, make them try to think about that process rather than giving them a number, and try and put some type of relationship to their lifestyle and their wellbeing. Ten gallons of waste, this is what we’ve generated. With all these waste, we could build 10 homes. How much is the cost for us to build 10 homes?

Building Supervisor: The wastage on the floor is about 10%. But 10% out of 800 sheets is quite a lot.

Organisational communication across unites

Organisational communication of strategic objectives

Corporate Sustainability Manager, HSE Manager, National Purchasing Manager (3/24)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: We’ve run some sustainability awareness training and environmental training to the site. So, a majority of people are quite up to date. They understand we’ve got accreditation and we have to hold the accreditation. In order to do that, there are certain requirements that need to be done.

National Purchasing manager: And it’s a document that shows, I mean it’s a document that’s being prepared. But it clearly shows that there must be and will be a waste management plan decided before people go inside.

HSE Manager: PDR every 12 months – you sit down with your line manager and you have a chat. There is a formal process. I haven’t been privy to it. I deal with my team but with my previous direct manager it was more of an informal conversation just because of the commitment we had with each other which was positive for me because hopefully I was doing the right thing. But it talks about what you want to achieve out of your employment you know, it gives you an opportunity because it’s always us going down to tell them to do this and do that. If they want training I’m always happy to – to me it doesn’t have to be a formal process. It can just be in the form of communication. Just a bit more relaxed. But it’s a documented process and it talks about a few elements in there – safety. And I haven’t done it this year yet but there is a need to incorporate an environmental aspect to it. Previous to that there’s always say for a supervisor or someone on site its always cost, budget, smart objectives but the elements had more specific things to it and they started to put safety in it but then we’ve evolved to environmental now and its putting the environmental part and having that one on one conversation that’s the starting point. This is the direction of the business so you’ve taken away from emails or work and you really come down to our relationship and your position- their contribution to the agenda. It’s a starting point where you can sit with each person because you’re talking about their employment so they’re all ears now. They’re sweating, their palms are sweating because they think they’ve been – PDRs to me I don’t mind it. Look the general manager people might be sweating but I’m generally quite relaxed. I feel I’ve got nothing to worry about. But working down the chain of command they tend to think a bit more about it because just coming to see me –it’s about my performance so straight away it’s a worry. Unfortunately it has to go that way but it’s just a normal human reaction. Do I want to work do I want to keep my job? Yes I do. What do I need to do to keep my job? And you try and break it down but fundamentally at the back of their head they know their being interviewed on their performance so that’s one element where we’re driving a cultural change in the business.

Feasibility Training /Education Corp Sustainability Mgr, HSE Mgr, Build. Supervisor (3/16)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: It’s communicated through training programs. So we’ll deliver training program about the rules and guidelines.

HSE Manager: Anything that our corporate division puts in place, policies or supporting guidelines, my role is to implement it, and train and educate through the Victorian business unit.

Design Attention to sizes of products

Corp Sustainability Manager, Estimator, National Purchasing Manager (3/3)

Corporate Sustainability Manager: We’re looking at the type of Gyprock. We actually have a process where the supplier picks up the off cuts. It’s not done all that well but there is a process for them to pick it up. If it gets wet, they won’t pick it up. They need to think about the supply of Gyprock from the point of view. The supplier normally sends it all in 6m length sheet. They can send it in 3.6 length sheets instead, which would fit the room. So you will get less waste when you’re cutting.

National purchasing manager: Well I think that’s, I think that the waste minimisation activity was trying to get design people a lot closer to the action so we rather say that we would design materials that are cut supply to our site in a prescribed length since nothing is in past there was a stain of length and if you want to know half of that the other half well just serves the purpose, sort of so waste minimisation was happening and we were trying to get the design claims involved in these decisions so that they were firstly nominating sustainable materials in the first place and secondly trying to minimise the amount of waste by trying to describe a length of material or an aerial material which was precisely what we required without any waste.


Low

Planning

On site materials control and waste management plans

Building Supervisor, National Purchasing Manager (2/5)

Building Supervisor: Buildings are totally pre-fabricated. They may also come with lots of packs of bracing. We have a fair bit of timber leftover on this particular building because it’s a big building. On a house you will be lucky to have a dozen length of timber leftover at the end of the job. They are collected and reused in every way or chopped out for rails in bits and pieces. But in the end you would not get too much gone in the bin.

Design

Integrated systems solutions (modularisation) vs. fragmented supply

Estimator, Building Supervisor (2/3)

Building Supervisor: They have already talked about having everything pre-cut in the factory that comes in modular.

Other

Knowledge management /knowledge transfer

Estimator, Building Supervisor (2/3)

Building Supervisor: I would think it is good to think of things and better ways of doing things and if you can achieve it. When I started on building 1, we had some terrible problems there. In building 4, they just don’t exist anymore. We’ve achieved a lot in less than 3 years.

Design

Designer familiarity with possibilities of different products

Corporate Sustainability Mgr, National Purchasing Manager (2/3)

National Purchasing Manager: The designers should look at more sustainable materials. For example, we were trying to find a proper material for our cladding on a project. We’re using Company X’s product, which is a cement corporate. But they don’t have a sustainable green product. We then adopted a Company Y’s product which was pure wood. And that was 100% sustainable product. It just was cheaper than the X’s product.

Procurement

Cooperation/maturity from suppliers to minimise waste

Estimator (1/3) Estimator: We have CSP, who are the distributor of this particular product in Victoria. And we also have the plastering company to make sure that when we sandwich them altogether, it will meet our acoustic and fire rate requirements. Then we have the engineers here. So we had multiple amounts of people here. And then we say “can we do that or not?” Everyone around the table says “Yes, we can”. So, we start working with individual parties to bring certain pieces together.


Appropriate communication method

HSE Manager (1/2) HSE Manager: For PDR, every 12 months, you sit down with your line manager and have a chat. There is a formal process. I haven’t been privy to it. How I deal with my team and my previous direct manager was more of an informal conversation just because of the commitment we had with each other. It was positive for me. It doesn’t have to be a formal process. This form of communication is just a bit more relaxed.

Planning

Development of framework/guidelines to minimise waste


Building Supervisor: Since our ISO4001 accreditation, we have to keep getting better and better. The focus of our company is on the issue of waste reduction. For the last 6 to 8 months from what we have been talking about, waste reduction is just started coming on the radar.

Design Think strategically Sr. Design Mgr (1/1) Senior Design Manager: We have got to think about design and the role that smart design can play. We need to think strategically.

Design Smart design

Estimator (1/1) Estimator: Right now, for any future buildings, we are going to get the designs upfront with suppliers or partners and say “guys these are your parameters when we are setting out this design”. And from there, you will definitely going to pick up efficiency. You might be able to cut 15% of your cost down because you’re designing more effectively.

Operation Product use – accurate

HSE Manager (1/1) HSE Manager: Get your quality and experienced people down the line to use the product to ensure that it’s used correctly.

Feasibility

Enough space for waste storage and recycle on site


Building Supervisor: Once I worked on a site here, I built 200 homes and I was lucky that I had room for six bins.

Other

Information flow – providing accurate information to trade to use product

HSE Manager (1/1) HSE Manager: At the moment with evolutionary of technology, they all use computer. Now if the program is on the computer, it doesn’t work out the nominal amount of cuts. It could be another way of technology may help with waste reduction by simple cutting and giving better information to a trade to use a product.


Integrate into the field more


Building Supervisor: They [designers, estimators, etc.] get to see the site. They get to see how the things work.

Operation Equipment malfunction

HSE Manager (1/1) HSE Manager: In 2008 or 2009, we had a company come through and they purchased a mulched machine from the States. They brought it over and kept it on site. We were able to churn the concrete, bricks, wood chips or tiles and used them off site. That’s probably the first element in Victoria where we had some knowledge or initiative to say, “Look, let’s get some recycling. Let’s try to manage our waste”.

Table 4: Summary of enablers to waste minimisation in Organisation B

Enabler Participant

(People/Times)

Example quote

Source Cause

High

Feasibility

Strategic procurement & partnerships

Procurement Category Manager, National OH&S Manager, BOQ Manager , Senior Design Manager (4/24)

Procurement Category Manager: A supplier just off the book could call up and say “I’m starting a roofing business. I have this new product. It’s manufactured in this way. Are you interested?” We would talk to them.

Procurement Category Manager: When we go back to the supply base and say “we’re purchasing timber”, a lot of the questions come up “look, what other value can you give us?” Then we talk to them about that.

Senior Design Manager: Someone came up with the idea and said “I have seen this new product and it looks great”. We approached the supplier. We spoke to the company and set up a small prototype of the small house in the backyard.

Procurement Category Manager: Take for instance timber, which is one of our largest ones and that’s not a category I take care of. But timber itself obviously we get a lot of off cuts. What we’ve now done is partner up with Dawsons who manufactures timber, stick built and they could actually just give us the sticks and we could build them on site. We’ve actually moved them to produce the frames in the factory bring them and then prop them. The idea there is that those sites should stay.

Planning

Knowledge of problem and take action

General Manager, Estimator, National OH&S Manager, BOQ Manager (4/20)

Estimator: Over ordering can occur in timber. Pre-fab frame will solve this.

General Manager: As a practice, it’s very ad hoc. The aim was to get the best practice, at least the best practice in the industry.

Feasibility Supplier development

National OH&S Manager, BOQ Manager , Procurement Category Manager, Senior Design Manager (4/11)

National OH&S Manager: We actually changed their process to put more gravel around the pipes. Before, they all left more spoil.

BOQ Manager: We work with suppliers quite often by brainstorming, and come up with smart ways of introducing new systems and approaching them operationally.


General Manager, National OH&S Manager,BOQ Manager (3/7)

General Manager: We did some hypothetical modelling of waste. It should be X amount of all these different types of waste on an average house and suppliers need to take away all this amount of waste. And yet we were taking away 3-4 times of amount what we thought we would

BOQ Manager: Not so much about the selection, but how to optimise the use of a site. I think sometimes there are opportunities in the way of making costs a little bit more, but it may help to deliver a better site of home to the customer, better use of land, less cut, less landfill. It could really deliver a better site of home, more appropriate site of home for the customer.

Procurement Category Manager: Okay well when you look at the value of getting Dawsons to manufacture the timber frame, you’re seeing a price reduction, you are seeing cost avoidance. But other value creation is the reduction of waste on site, the training of carpenters so you have the same philosophy on building that frame across the range. So you don’t have different companies doing their own thing. And also there’s a base there which you can tap into and say, “This is our new initiative in Organisation B that we want you to carry through”. So you’re managing suppliers quite closely. That’s worked well.

Operation

Off site manufacturing & prefabrication

National OH&S Manager, BOQ Manager , Senior Design Mgr (3/4)

National OH&S Manager: We are training prefab frames at the moment. And we have done them in the country. Prefab frames take away a lot of the waste, so virtually no waste left over.

National OH&S Manager: Probably they generated a lot less waste there because they actually went into the pre-fab frames.

Medium Planning Senior management

support to drive change

General Manager, BOQ Manager , Senior Design Manager (3/3)

BOQ Manager: We are having a dedicated resource project manager on some of those big things, big initiatives because they can easily become too hard.

Planning Champion credibility

General Mgr, BOQ Mgr, Senior Design Manager (3/3)

General Manager: Probably general manager needs to gets more engaged and involved than others and make it happen. He’s the mechanism.

Organisational communication across units

Organisational communication across units to facilitate change

BOQ Manager , Senior Design Manager (2/14)

BOQ Manager: So our role is to support sales consultants, sale estimators, production estimators.

Senior Design Manager: The designers’ role is creating the product, and developing and releasing it to the business. So the design falls under the product development umbrella. Within product development, there is design, interior, landscaping, display documentation and anything to do with display home. We document any new products we master.

Senior Design Manager: As a product development team and people that head up different areas would probably get together and discuss the product/process and change in the process /ideas and “what do you recommend?” And people say yes or no or give opinions, what’s it looks like or feel or whatever and decisions made then and when you get ok from most of those guys and express it to the directors of the business and say, “listen, this is what we have been presented with and we got together and we think we should implement it in the business”, and then we work out ways of how we can implement it. Someone says in case, let’s try display steel frame in single and double story house and how would it go. Then you have some data to support the decision. In that instance of steel frame Campbell drove that project and so he met me on weekly basis and I had an issues in detailing kind of stuff and which is up in the way you need to champion the process for innovation but then also cluster of people who are willing to see on the table and discuss the new idea you need the likeminded people who are willing to give it a go ok.

Design Think strategically General Manager, Senior Design Manager (2/6)

General Manager: We have business units in each state. We are trying to get the best practice in the business, monitor our practices and then try to improve our thinking.

Senior Design Manager: We are involved in small parts. Basically Organisation B identified sites for potentially 40 townhouses. The brief to us would be “Can you design individual homes for this market?” It might be two levels, three levels, signal storey attached or detached housing and it just depends on size specific.

Feasibility Attractive nature of innovation (iPad)

General Manager, BOQ Manager (2/2)

General Manager: We recently introduced the iPads into the field and that’s gone very well.

Other Size of the house National OH&S Manager, Senior Design Manager (2/2)

National OH&S Manager: They build predominately single storey houses. So there is a lot less complexity in the actual design of the house. There are a number of reasons why they are actually lot cleaner in the country than they are elsewhere.

Feasibility Training /Education General Manager, BOQ Manager (2/2)

BOQ Manager: From that point of view, we need to train our estimating teams on how to use the assemblies.


Low

Feasibility Existence of desire to improve

General Manager (1/3)

General Manager: It would be really useful if we got building council to look at how we take waste out.

Planning

Development of framework/guidelines to minimise waste


General Manager: There will be some guidelines. I think that’s a part of the job in business improvement group. They will identify and draft some processes for our waste generators or potential waste generators on site.

Planning

Downstream response vs. Upstream solution


General Manager: There is a classic business improvement group to look after the high risk processes and try to engage the business units and stakeholders in our best practices or the best for our business. Now it is developing in collaboration with those processes across the sales functions, drafting, estimating, customer support, building, service and warranty. We look at all those areas and the high risk processes. We try to re-engineer all those. The ultimate aim is to get the best level of customer satisfaction and profitability for the organisation.

Organisational communication cross units

Organisational communication of strategic objectives


General Manager: We do top-down influencing. It’s actually very engaging of different lines, but it is effective. The decision is made in the end and then pushed down after engagement. Then I think it’s an experience on site where they are dealing with trades and suppliers who have heavy influences over what happens.

Design

Integrated systems solutions (modularisation) vs. fragmented supply

BOQ Manager (1/1) BOQ Manager: In terms of overall principles, the more Organisation B can modularise the construction process, the less waste will be produced theoretically.

Procurement

Cooperation/maturity from suppliers to minimise waste

BOQ Manager (1/1) BOQ Manager: I think there are opportunities to brainstorm with the suppliers and work out the issues with brick sizes

Feasibility

Enough space for waste storage and recycle on site


National OH&S Manager: There should be more space and a bit more care. They [the project team] can actually build a house about once every 20 months or whatever. Because they can store the offcuts and the bits and pieces, and then they reuse them.

Planning Labour only model

Procurement Category Manager (1/1)

Procurement Category Manager: Now we’re trying to change to labour-only model. We manage and purchase rather than having one supplier to do all these things.

Feasibility

Understanding of modern philosophies such as Lean


General Manager: What we doing with Lean is getting more on waste, in the name of waste elimination as in physical waste. But we are expanding it to full definition of waste, value of waste.

Operation Quality control BOQ Manager (1/1) BOQ Manager: You can be sure to cut a bricks just like that. It happens like quality control.

Supply chain management framework for waste minimisation ...mams.rmit.edu.au/l38iegcy2i8s.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Supply chain management framework for waste minimisation ...mams.rmit.edu.au/l38iegcy2i8s.pdf ·...