A project manager's level of satisfaction in construction logistics

A project manager’s level of satisfaction inconstruction logistics

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

Abstract: Customer satisfaction and continuous improvement are the fundamental goals of construction logistics. Whilemuch research has been focusing on exploring the relationship between the contractors and the ultimate customers,known as the owner, to improve the understanding of the significance of customer satisfaction, the need to examine therelationship between material suppliers and contractors is highly in demand. The purpose of this study is to extend theframework for construction material logistics in customer satisfaction from owner to project manager level. This paperexamines how construction logistics affect a project manager’s level of satisfaction. A survey established the generalimportance that a project manager must place on the construction logistics. Accordingly, the most significantly correlatedfactors in customer satisfaction were obtained from a project manager’s point of view. Two hundred twenty-three experiencedproject managers provided valuable data to the study. Five important factors related to satisfaction were found throughinterviews with project managers and a literature review. These included personnel, material flow, schedule adherence,contractor’s organization, and information flow. The study results suggest that material flow and information flow areworthy of the most attention. Satisfying the above factors will greatly improve the construction logistics that will, as aresult, immensely increase the project manager’s level of satisfaction.

Key words: construction logistics, customer satisfaction, project manager, survey.

Résumé : La satisfaction de la clientèle et l’amélioration continue sont les objectifs fondamentaux de la logistique enconstruction. Bien que beaucoup de recherche cible la relation entre les entrepreneurs et le client en bout de ligne, oupropriétaires, afin d’améliorer la compréhension de l’importance de la satisfaction des clients, le besoin d’examiner larelation entre les fournisseurs de matériaux et les entrepreneurs est grandement en demande. Le but de la présenteétude est d’élargir le cadre de la logistique aux matériaux de construction pour englober la satisfaction des clients duniveau du propriétaire jusqu’au gestionnaire de projet. Le présent article examine comment la logistique en constructionpeut affecter le niveau de satisfaction d’un gestionnaire de projet. Un sondage a établi l’importance générale qu’ungestionnaire de projet doit accorder à la logistique en construction. De même, on a corrélé les facteurs les plussignificatifs à la satisfaction des clients, selon le gestionnaire de projet. Deux cent vingt-trois gestionnaires expérimentésont fourni des donnés précieuses à l’étude. Cinq facteurs importants reliés à la satisfaction ont été découverts durantles entrevues avec les gestionnaires de projet et dans une revue de la littérature. Ce sont le personnel, l’acheminementdes matériaux, le respect de l’échéancier, l’organisation de l’entrepreneur et la circulation de l’information. Les résultatsde l’étude suggèrent que l’acheminement des matériaux et la circulation de l’information méritent le plus d’attention.En répondant aux facteurs énumérés plus haut, la logistique en construction sera grandement améliorée ce qui, en retour,augmentera grandement le niveau de satisfaction des gestionnaires de projet.

Mots clés : logistique en construction, satisfaction des clients, gestionnaire de projet, sondage.

[Traduit par la Rédaction] Jang et al. 1142

Introduction

Logistics is the part of the supply chain process that plans,implements, and controls the efficient flow of goods, ser-vices, and related information to fulfill customers’ require-ments (CLM 1999). Efficient management of constructionmaterial planning tasks requires an integrated approach to-ward various logistical functions. In particular, the funda-

mental construction operations of facilities, inventorycontrol, and communication planning need to be closely co-ordinated. Thus, the role of the project manager (PM) whoexecutes these operations with all parties in a contract isvery important to the successful completion of a construc-tion project. Overall understanding and proper planning ofthe project are factors necessary to optimize satisfaction ofboth the construction company and the customer.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 30: 1133–1142 (2003) doi: 10.1139/L03-068 © 2003 NRC Canada

1133

Received 27 February 2003. Revision accepted 24 July 2003. Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at http://cjce.nrc.caon 18 December 2003.

H. Jang,1 J.S. Russell, and J.S. Yi. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Wisconsin-Madison,2320 Engineering Hall, 1415 Enineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.

Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 30 April 2004.

1Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).

I:\cjce\cjce3006\L03-068.vpDecember 11, 2003 2:13:52 PM

Color profile: DisabledComposite Default screen

A senior-level manager briefs the PM on the project, sothat the PM can have full understanding of where the projectfits in the general scheme of things in the parent organiza-tion and its priority related to other projects on the systemand to the routine work of the organization. The PM mustalso get to know the client to ensure that the proper facilitiesand any supplies required in the beginning of project processare available when needed and also take care of the routinedetails required to begin the project (Meredith and Mantel1995).

Literature review

While customer satisfaction studies have not been under-taken in the construction industry, the housing industry hasconducted such studies. Traditional construction manage-ment studies of housing refurbishment (Holm and Brochner1999) and home buyers (Torbica and Stroh 1999), have fo-cused on the relationship between the customer and the con-tractor. However, most of these studies have been undertakento characterize the relationship between the customer(owner) and the construction companies. Compared with thenotable scarcity of investigations concerning customer satis-faction in the field of construction, a rapidly growing num-ber of studies in the service industries have been publishedover the past few years. The results of the studies demon-strate strong correlation between customer satisfaction, orservice quality, and economic returns (Holm 2000). Logis-tics management and total quality management (TQM), ingeneral, appear to have many characteristics in commonwith operational service expectations. To establish the posi-tive correlation of logistics tasks and customer satisfaction,operational service management is reviewed in this paper inan attempt to identify principles with potential application toconstruction logistics. The goal of this investigation is toprovide practical suggestions for the logistics by gatheringinformation based on previous reviews of construction mate-rial logistics research.

Construction logistics

Logistics management research can be classified intothree broad perspectives: (i) competitive strategy, (ii) firm-focused tactics, and (iii) operational efficiencies. Competi-tive strategy issues have a long-term impact on the firm.Firms that focus upon tactical issues operate in a shortertime frame. Operational efficiencies involve day-to-day deci-

sions that can be altered quickly (Ganeshan et al. 1999). Theconstruction industry is greatly concerned with aspects ofdaily operations, which are typically operational decisions,reflecting day-to-day operations up to 2 weeks ahead. Theconstruction industry attempts to optimize daily operationsof facilities through careful planning, organizing, directing,and controlling activities before and during the construction.In terms of construction logistics, multidisciplinary processesare categorized as follows: (i) material supply, storage, process-ing and handling; (ii) manpower supply; (iii) schedule con-trol; (iv) site infrastructure and equipment location; (v) sitematerial flow management on a job site; and (vi) manage-ment of information related to all physical and servicesflows. Although implementation and operational servicemanagement are significant aspects of construction logisticsthat affect day-to-day operations, one must keep in mind thatlogistics is rooted in senior-level decision making.

Logistics functions

In general, logistics functions in a construction firm canbe divided into supply logistics and site logistics. Figure 1illustrates the construction logistics tasks. Supply logisticsare related to activities in the production process that are cy-clic. These activities include specification of supply re-sources (materials, equipment, and personpower), supplyplanning, acquisition of resources, transport to a site and de-livery, and storage control. Site logistics are related to physi-cal flow, namely, planning, organizing, directing, andcontrolling on-site processes. The management of handlingsystems, safety equipment, site layout, defining activity se-quence, and resolving conflicts among various productionteams related to the on-site activities are all part of site lo-gistics (Fred and Francisco 1999). The most appropriate sys-tem to describe the material logistic tasks is developed athierarchical levels at the point of interaction between inter-nal and external systems. It should always be kept in mindthat the main objective of a logistics process is to meet thecustomer’s requirements.

Juran’s triple role and construction logisticsprocess

Every party in a process plays three roles: supplier, pro-cessor, and customer. Juran (1988) defines this interchangingrole as the “triple role” concept. These three roles are carriedout at every level of the construction process — corporate,

© 2003 NRC Canada

1134 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 1. Construction logistics tasks.



division, department, and individual. This triple role conceptis illustrated by the right-hand side of Fig. 2. The owner is acustomer of the designer. Using the designer, the owner pro-cesses the design and supplies plans and specifications to theconstructor. In this process, the constructor becomes the cus-tomer of the designer, who uses the designer’s plans andspecifications, processes the construction, and supplies thecompleted facility to the owner. Traditionally, the roles ofthe three parties have not been viewed this way, but this as-sists in demonstrating that construction is a process. More-over, the logistics principles that have been applied to theprocesses of other industries are potentially applicable to theconstruction industry.

Customer service area

As shown in Fig. 2, the construction logistics process canbe divided into internal and external components. An exter-nal logistics component covers the relation between a con-structor and his(her) suppliers, whereas an internal logisticscomponent deals with the relationships among various par-ties involved in the project, namely, constructor, designer,and owner (Jones and Riley 1985). Generally, traditionalstudies have approached customer service areas based on therelationship between constructors and their final clients.However, this paper focuses on the customer service area be-tween the external logistics and internal logistics. Servicelevel is determined by the constructor’s capacity to provideresources to internal agents on a site at the right time and atthe right place while satisfying the correct specifications.Figure 2 illustrates the changing relationship between cus-tomers and suppliers in terms of service level. A constructorcan play the role of a customer in its relationship with a ma-

terial supplier, while it can also play the role of a supplier inits relationship with an owner. The customer service areathat this paper focuses on is represented in Fig. 2.

The issues of customer satisfaction and service qualitygenerally dominate theories of customer service manage-ment. If we consider the whole body of research in the fieldof service management, it is a fundamental and recurring ob-servation that higher customer satisfaction leads to bettereconomic returns. This can be explained by key conceptssuch as customer reliability and a positive reputation for thefirm.

Customer satisfaction

The function of the construction industry is to providecustomers with facilities that meet their needs and expecta-tions. One principle of logistics is a management philosophythat effectively determines the needs of the customer. En-suring operational quality at each stage in the constructionprocess should ensure that the quality of the final productwill satisfy the final customer.

How to achieve customer satisfaction

There is no general consensus on the relationship betweenlogistics and customer satisfaction, but the thrust of logisticsresearch has been focused in the area of operations servicemanagement (Ganeshan et al. 1999). Parasuraman et al.(1994) have proposed a model suggesting that the custom-ers’ overall satisfaction in a transaction results from a com-bination of operation service quality, product quality, andpricing. Other researchers also adhere to the idea that servicequality leads to customer satisfaction (e.g., Woodside et al.

© 2003 NRC Canada

Jang et al. 1135

Fig. 2. Juran’s triple role and construction logistics process.



1989; Reidenbach and Sandifer-Smallwook 1990; andAdersson et al. 1994). Furthermore, Cronin and Taylor(1992) state that an antecedent of consumer satisfaction isoperation service quality.

Survey summary

The survey instrument consisted of 43 questions and ad-dressed many facets of logistics processes and customer sat-isfaction, such as personnel, material flow, scheduleadherence, characterization of contractor’s organization, andinformation flow. Most respondents completed the survey bymail, although several faxed or e-mailed their responses. Thesurvey was distributed on 31 October 2001. A total of 1080surveys were distributed to various construction companiesin the United States, including design and (or) engineeringfirms, general contractors, mechanical and (or) electricalfirms, heavy construction firms, and construction manage-ment firms. Respondents were senior-level managers with ti-tles, such as owner–president, vice president, PM, projectengineer, or superintendent.

A total of 223 surveys from 180 different organizationswere returned (returned rate = 21%). Figure 3 shows thecharacteristics of the respondents. Respondent firms con-sisted of general construction, construction management,heavy construction, and mechanical and electrical construc-tion. The majority of respondents worked for general con-struction and construction management firms.

Measurement of customer satisfaction

Surveys indicate that material costs amount to approxi-mately 39% of the overall project cost. This demonstratesthe importance of the material logistics tasks and shows thatthey comprise a large segment of the construction industry.A survey was conducted to reconfirm the importance of thematerial logistics tasks. Two hundred twenty-three projectmanagers in the United States provided valuable data to thisstudy by participating in the survey. The survey consists offour main topics: (i) relationship between construction logis-tics and satisfaction of the PMs, (ii) variation in each satis-faction variable, (iii) measurement of project process, and(4) measurement performance management.

The first two parts, logistics and satisfaction section, useda questionnaire survey to collect customer satisfaction data

on material operational logistics in the construction industry.The results of this study indicate the areas that require mostattention to increase satisfaction level of PMs. Exhaustivelogistics literature reviews and interviews were conducted togain a better understanding of the relationship between lo-gistics and customer satisfaction and to determine which as-pect of logistics has the greatest impact on customersatisfaction.

The study included a project process questionnaire to de-fine the manner in which the contract and building process iscarried out. This section includes satisfaction with scope ofwork, financial planning, requirement procedures, andsubmittal methods.

The performance survey played an important role in deter-mining the opinions of the respondents and visions for suc-cess of the construction material logistics tasks. The surveyalso examined the concentration of managers on short-termcosts versus long-term benefits.

Key construction material logistics factors

Based on operational management in the logistics process,five critical areas of managerial planning and action thatmust be practiced to achieve effective logistics managementin a company have been identified. Five critical factors wereselected based on interviews with the PMs. Table 1 showsthe five critical factors and their description: (i) personnel(PER), (ii) material flow (MAT), (iii) schedule adherence(SCH), (iv) contractor’s organization (ORG), and (v) infor-mation flow (INF).

The survey questionnaire contains several operationalmeasures for each of the logistics factors. Each dependentvariable measures the level of satisfaction of PMs that corre-sponds to each of the five logistics factors. Although the fivefactors (PER, MAT, SCH, ORG, INF) were selected as themost significant issues for effective logistics management ina company, each factor could have different levels of satis-faction. Therefore, 17 additional questions were asked tomeasure the level of satisfaction of PMs regarding each fac-tor. Four questions were asked on PER and INF variablesand three questions were asked on MAT, SCH, and ORGvariables. The average values were denoted as PERSA,MATSA, SCHSA, ORGSA, and INFSA, respectively. Eachdependent variable was rated from –5 to 5 including 0 (–5

© 2003 NRC Canada

1136 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003

Fig. 3. Characteristics of the respondents.



indicating the least satisfied, 0 normal, and 5 the most satis-fied). The scale of overall satisfaction (ALLSA) was con-structed in such a way that each dependent variable wassummed and divided by the number of items. In otherwords, ALLSA in this case was the average responses to the17 questions. The correlations of factors were examinedalso. Table 2 shows the correlation between each factor andits satisfaction. Since most values in the table do not repre-sent significant relationships among variables, the variablesare considered as appropriately selected.

Data analysis

This section outlines the results obtained from severalanalyses that were conducted on the empirical data gatheredfrom the survey. The goal of the survey is to determine therelative importance of each of the five factors on satisfac-tion of the PM. This was accomplished by developing a re-gression model for overall satisfaction of the projectmanager (ALLSA). A multiple regression model was per-formed to analyze these data. The majority of the statisticalanalysis for the current study used the statistical softwareMinitab® 12.

Relationship between construction logistics and senior-level manager satisfaction

To determine the influence of the five factors of construc-tion logistics on the ratings of overall satisfaction of the PM,a multiple regression was applied, with overall satisfaction(ALLSA) as the dependent variable and the five dimensionsof PM (PER, MAT, SCH, ORG, and INF) as explanatory in-dependent variables with eight control variables, which aretypes of position (MAN), specific work (AREA), types ofconstruction (TYPE), volume of project (VOL), the averagedollar value of work performed annually (DOL), self-performance (SP), self-management (SM), and years in cur-rent position (YEAR). To get effective analyses, the test as-signed three control variables, MAN, AREA, and TYPE, asdummy variables. The MAN variable combines PM, projectengineer, and superintendent. Also, general construction,heavy construction, and construction management were com-bined into CM_AREA, and the other areas were combinedinto Other_ AREA in the AREA variable. The TYPE variablewas divided into commercial, industrial, and others (i.e.,Comer_TYPE, Indus_TYPE, and Other_TYPE).

Equation [1] gives a multiple regression with 15 predic-tors. The model is

[1] ALLSA = 0.605 – 0.274 MAN + 0.340 CM_AREA + 0.079 Comer_TYPE + 0.082 Indus_TYPE

+ 0.210 Other_TYPE – 0.0620 VOL + 0.0789 DOL+ 0.0147 SP – 0.0932 SM + 0.0969 YEAR

+ 0.108 PER + 0.251 MAT + 0.108 SCH + 0.0589 ORG + 0.147 INF

The result of the analysis is presented in Table 3. Randomdistribution of a point in the plot indicates successful regres-sion. The resulting R2 value (coefficient of determination) of0.695 implies that approximately 70% of the variations inoverall satisfaction of the PM can be explained through thevariables, including PER, MAT, SCH, ORG, and INF. This

analysis deems all five dimensions important for overall sat-isfaction of the PM.

The study indicated that the five explanatory independentvariables play a significant role in the satisfaction level ofthe PM. On the other hand, eight other control variableswere found insignificant to the satisfaction level of the PMs.

© 2003 NRC Canada

Jang et al. 1137

Factor Description

Personnel (PER) Level of cooperation with skilled workers and subcontractors for successful completionof projects

Material flow (MAT) Required materials maintained to prosecute the workSchedule adherence (SCH) Schedule changing and updating proceduresContractor’s organization (ORG) Team building, or “partnering”, is considered to be a commitment between two

organizations for the purpose of achieving specific business objectives for thelength of a project. The relationship is based upon trust, dedication to commongoals, and understanding of each other’s individual expectations and values

Information flow (INF) Sufficient information flow to prosecute the project manually or by computerPersonnel satisfaction (PERSA) How satisfied are you with the performance of personnel you deal with?Material flow satisfaction (MATSA) How satisfied are you with the quality of raw materials (right things)?

How satisfied are you with material positioning of temporary facilities on the job site?How satisfied are you with unnecessary movement of materials and equipment?

Schedule adherence satisfaction (SCHSA) How satisfied are you with order cycle time?How satisfied are you with on-time material delivery?

Contractor’s organization satisfaction (ORGSA) How satisfied are you with meeting and communications procedures?Information flow satisfaction (INFSA) How satisfied are you with management of material logistics tasks by manual means?

How satisfied are you with management of material logistics tasks by computer?

Table 1. Logistics factors and their description.



In other words, when the five explanatory independent logis-tics variables are controlled, other predictors such as specificwork, types of construction, volume of a project, value ofwork performed, self-performance, self-management, oryear-at-current position were insignificant factors in deter-mining the overall satisfaction level of PMs. The other con-trolled variables were used in the equation to test thesignificance of those variables across different characteris-tics of companies. However, the survey has proved that onlythe five mentioned factors were significant in determiningoverall satisfaction level of PMs. When the regression testwas run without the eight controlled variables, the differ-

ences in the results were a minimum (resulting R2 value of0.659).

Variation in each satisfaction variableAlthough ALLSA measured the significance of the five

factors, significance of satisfaction of the individual factorshas been measured as well, namely important factors relatingto personnel satisfaction (PERSA), material flow satisfaction(MATSA), schedule adherence satisfaction (SCHSA), thecontractor’s organization satisfaction (ORGSA), and impor-tant factors relating to the information flow satisfaction(INFSA). Comprehending the relative importance of each ofthe five factors on the satisfaction level of the PMs is valu-able in determining analytical areas in which to focus im-provement efforts. Table 4 presents the result of the analysis,where the dependent variable is personnel satisfaction(PERSA). As a result of ALLSA, control variables are insig-nificant to the satisfaction model of the PMs. Thus, furtheranalysis was not directed to the control variables. This anal-ysis indicates that MAT is the most significant dimension,influencing cooperation between skilled workers and sub-contractors in successful completion of projects. The resultsuggests that to be most effective on logistics task, the PMshould have the potential of simultaneously influencing allfive dimensions, especially MAT, ORG, and INF. Equation[2] shows a multiple regression with five significant predic-tors. The model is

[2] PERSA = 1.09 + 0.151 PER + 0.156 MAT

+ 0.0511 SCH + 0.0570 ORG + 0.102 INF

The dependent variable MATSA measures satisfactionlevel regarding quality of raw materials, material positioningof temporary facilities on the job site, and unnecessarymovement of materials and equipment. Results of the analy-sis, where the dependent variable is PERSA, are illustratedin Table 5. This analysis rates SCH with higher significancethan MAT. The results suggest that to be most effective on

© 2003 NRC Canada

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

Variable MeanStandarddeviation VOL DOL SP CM TEM PER

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

Table 2. Descriptive statistics show the correlation between each factor and its satisfaction.

Dependent variable — ALLSA

Predictor CoefficientStandarddeviation

T-test ordistribution P-value

Constant 0.6050 0.4770 1.2700 0.2060MAN –0.2735 0.2939 –0.9300 0.3530CM_Area 0.3399 0.1440 2.3600 0.0190Cmer_ty 0.0788 0.1333 0.5900 0.5550Indus_ty 0.0824 0.1628 0.5100 0.6130Other_ty 0.2098 0.2469 0.8500 0.3960VOL –0.0620 0.0457 –1.3600 0.1760DOL 0.0789 0.0666 1.1800 0.2380SP 0.0147 0.0522 0.2800 0.7790SM –0.0932 0.0512 –1.8200 0.0700YEAR 0.0969 0.0532 1.8200 0.0700PER 0.1082 0.0261 4.1400 0.0000a

MAT 0.2511 0.0436 5.7600 0.0000a

SCH 0.1078 0.0264 4.0900 0.0000a

ORG 0.0590 0.0233 2.5300 0.0120b

INF 0.1473 0.0380 3.8700 0.0000a

Note: S = 0.7244; R2 = 69.5%; R2(adj) = 67.0%.bα < 0.05.aα < 0.01.

Table 3. The result of statistical analysis of overall satisfaction(ALLSA).



personnel, the PM should focus more on SCH than any otherpredictors.

Equation [3] shows a multiple regression with dependentvariable MATSA. The model is

[3] MATSA = 0.862 + 0.0671 PER + 0.178 MAT

+ 0.182 SCH + 0.0364 ORG + 0.0895 INF

The result of the analysis with SCHSA as a dependentvariable is presented in Table 6. The result indicates thatSCH is closely correlated with material flow and overall lo-gistics process. Equation [4] illustrates a multiple regressionwith SCHSA as a dependant variable. The model is

[4] SCHSA = 0.013 + 0.0907 PER + 0.734 MAT

– 0.115 SCH + 0.0328 ORG + 0.0908 INF

Communication is the key to team building or partneringbecause it is considered as a commitment between two orga-nizations having a common purpose and business objectivesthroughout the duration of a given project. This relationshipis based on trust, dedication to common goals, and an under-standing of each other’s individual expectations and values.The result of the multiple regression with ORGSA as the de-pendent variable is presented in Table 7. Contractor’s organi-zation satisfaction can be explained by the variability in thePER, MAT, SCH, ORG, and INF. This analysis indicatesthat SCH and INF are the most significant dimensions foroverall satisfaction of the PM. This suggests that to be most

effective the PMs should have the perspective of SCH andINF among all dimensions in particular.

Equation [5] shows a multiple regression with dependentvariable ORGSA. The model is

[5] ORGSA = 0.708 + 0.0776 PER – 0.0894 MAT

+ 0.426 SCH + 0.150 ORG + 0.275 INF

For a successful completion of the project, sufficient INFamong workers or subcontractors must be accomplished ei-ther through conventional communication method or withthe assistance of computer technology. Table 8 shows the re-sult with INFSA as a dependent variable. In this analysis,the satisfaction of a PM is explained with the variables PERand INF. Equation [6] illustrates a multiple regression withINFSA as a dependant variable. The model is

[6] INFSA = 1.28 + 0.156 PER – 0.090 MAT

+ 0.149 SCH – 0.0724 ORG + 0.173 INF

Table 9 shows a summary of independent and dependentpredictor variables accounting for the variation in the vari-ables. The implication is that addressing each of the five fac-tors appears to be the best strategy for PMs to improve thelevel of MAT, SCH, and INF of construction logistics.

Measurement of project processThe major criteria of the project process are defined as

scope definition, financial planning, requirement procedure,and operating procedure. These criteria must be consideredbefore the contractor and owner commit to a binding agree-

© 2003 NRC Canada

Jang et al. 1139

Dependent variable — PERSA



Constant 1.0894 0.0837 13.01 0.000PER 0.1507 0.0302 4.99 0.000a

MAT 0.1561 0.0528 2.96 0.003a

SCH 0.0511 0.0281 1.82 0.070ORG 0.0570 0.0275 2.07 0.040b

INF 0.1018 0.0461 2.21 0.028b

Note: S = 0.9071; R2 = 46.2%; R2(adj) = 44.9%.bα < 0.05.aα < 0.01.

Table 4. The result of statistical analysis of personnelsatisfaction (PERSA).

Dependent variable — MATSA


T-testdistribution P-value

Constant 0.8618 0.1179 7.31 0.000PER 0.0671 0.0426 1.58 0.116MAT 0.1778 0.0743 2.39 0.018a

SCH 0.1824 0.0395 4.62 0.000a

ORG 0.0365 0.0387 0.94 0.348INF 0.0895 0.0649 1.38 0.169

Note: S = 1.277; R2 = 34.5%; R2 = 32.9%.aα < 0.01.

Table 5. The result of statistical analysis of material flow satisfaction(MATSA).

Dependent variable — SCHSA



Constant 0.0131 0.1260 0.10 0.917PER 0.0907 0.0455 1.99 0.048MAT 0.7339 0.0794 9.25 0.000a

SCH –0.1149 0.0422 –2.72 0.007a

ORG 0.0328 0.0414 0.79 0.429INF 0.0908 0.0693 1.31 0.192

Note: S = 1.365; R2 = 55.3%; R2(adj) = 54.2%.aα < 0.01.

Table 6. The result of statistical analysis of schedule adherencesatisfaction (SCHSA).

Dependent variable — ORGSA



Constant 0.7076 0.1401 5.05 0.000PER 0.0776 0.0506 1.54 0.126MAT –0.0894 0.0883 –1.01 0.312SCH 0.4264 0.0469 9.09 0.0000a

ORG 0.1503 0.0460 3.27 0.0000a

INF 0.2747 0.0771 3.56 0.0000a

Note: S = 1.517; R2 = 55.7%; R2(adj) = 54.7%.aα < 0.01.

Table 7. The result of statistical analysis of contractor’sorganization satisfaction(ORGSA).



ment or a contract. This research quantified the satisfactionlevel of each of the four project processes. Figure 4 illus-trates satisfaction level of respondents for each of the fourprocesses. The results show that most respondents (senior-level PMs) were very satisfied with the project process. Fur-ther descriptions of these criteria are as follows:• Scope definition — This category measures how well the

owner defined and documented the scope of the project.An inappropriately defined project scope may increase thenumber of disagreements and disputes during the project.

• Financial planning — This considers another planning ac-tivity associated with financial backing and planning. Inconsideration of the size and existing economic situationof the project, financial planning should be able to antici-pate cost overrun, change orders, and contingencies.

• Requirement procedure — This category measures thelimits of the actual project site, the individual ability ofthe local workers (carpenters, ironworkers, etc.), and theability and expertise of the subcontractors. Site limitationsinclude storage consideration, access, and staging forsetup.

• Operating procedure — This category considers the con-tract by examining whether the operating procedures forcontract administration are reasonable and well-defined.These typical processes include schedule submittals andupdates, the submittal process, meeting, and communica-tion procedures. Well-defined, reasonable proceduresyield better planning and management during the con-struction logistics process.

Measurement performance managementThis research is focused on the satisfaction level of the

PMs and how the PMs rate their own performance in terms

of productivity. Figure 5 shows self-rating of the managers’own performance. In considering construction logisticstasks, over 36% of respondents rated themselves as levelthree in personal performance and 24% as level four.

To maximize the impact on performance management,this study investigated the strategy on short-term costs ver-sus long-term benefits and computer usage for logistics man-aging and organizing work.

Short-term costs versus long-term benefitsAlmost everything that happens in a construction com-

pany that relates to productivity loss has an association withthe project process: scope definition, financial planning, re-quirement procedure, and operating procedure. Constructionmaterial logistics management aims to make project pro-cesses easier and quicker and at the same time more visibleand controllable. Occasionally, these goals can conflict, andmanagers must decide whether to assign more value to theshort-term or long-term goals. To determine the relative im-portance of short-term costs vs. long-term benefits, respon-dents were asked on which of the two factors they put moreemphasis. Approximately 50% of the respondents answeredthat they concentrate more on long-term benefits (Fig. 6). Alarge number of respondents (31%) indicated that they alsoassign equal value to both short-term cost and long-termbenefits strategy.

This issue in the construction industry is related to the useof information technology (IT). Even though rapidly emerg-ing new technology immensely helped professionals in theIT business for the past decade with one breakthrough tech-

© 2003 NRC Canada

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

Dependent variable (satisfaction) Independent variable

Personnel (PERSA) Material flow, contractor’sorganization, informationflow

Material flow (MATSA) Schedule adherentSchedule adherent (SCHSA) Material flowContractor’s organization (ORGSA) Schedule adherent, infor-

mation flowInformation flow (INFSA) Personnel, schedule

adherent

Table 9. Variation of each of the predictor variables.

Fig. 4. Satisfaction level of the respondents for the major criteriaof the project process (scope definition, financial planning,requirement procedure, operating procedure).

Fig. 5. Self-rating of managers’ own performance.

Dependent variable — INFSA



Constant 1.2795 0.1688 7.58 0.000PER 0.1565 0.0597 2.62 0.009a

MAT 0.0903 0.1048 0.86 0.390SCH 0.1490 0.0554 2.69 0.008a

ORG –0.0724 0.0552 –1.31 0.191INF 0.1733 0.0905 1.92 0.057

Note: S = 1.756; R2 = 22.0%; R2(adj) = 20.0%.aα < 0.01.

Table 8. Statistics result of information flow satisfaction.



nology after another promising to solve IT problems, theconstruction industry only lately began to implement infor-mation technology. Recently construction companies beganto invest billions of dollars in everything from faster com-puter networks and Web Sites on the Internet to wirelessconnectivity solutions, in an attempt to improve their pro-cess efficiency. The issue of buying reliability is not new.What is new is the demand from PMs to have guaranteesand accountability up front, before purchases are made. Fur-thermore, many construction companies are demanding inte-gration training from the suppliers to keep staff abreast ofnewly implemented technologies.

“Be on the leading edge but not thebleeding edge” and “read/listen/test” whatis out there — a survey response

The topics above represent the vision of a company in-ferred from the survey responses. This study surveyed con-struction industry personnel concerning their plans to dealwith the constant and fast-moving changes in software pro-grams (Table 10). Many companies hastily purchase the lat-est and the greatest technology, thinking that all newtechnology is good. Although implementing the right tech-nology is critical in the construction industry of today, find-ing the suitable method of implementation is also animportant factor. This study found that construction compa-nies are blindly implementing new technologies as a reactionto the growing complexity of the construction logistics pro-cess without thoroughly considering their needs. This needsto be improved. As mentioned earlier, technology is only atool for achieving a better construction process. To make thetechnology work positively for the construction process, athorough examination and external consulting is necessary todecide which technology is most suitable for a particularcompany.

The survey showed that a large percentage of the respon-dents (34%) use existing software and plan to update thesoftware. Some respondents (19%) were satisfied with theirsoftware and do not want to make any changes. About 12%respondents update their software and provide training totheir employees, while others (8%) were watching and eval-uating openings. Other opinions included (i) hire a techni-cian to maintain and upgrade the software, (ii) use bothmanual and computer software, and (iii) purchase very care-fully.

Other comments

Respondents were asked to comment on the areas that re-quire major focus to improve and simplify the material lo-gistics process. Sixty of the 223 respondents (27%) providedwritten comments, indicating strong interest in the topic.The eight most frequently mentioned comments are as fol-lows:• minimization of handling of the construction materials,

which reduces cost and chances of damage or misplace-ment

• development of relationships with the vendors, which al-lows flexibility in packaging, shipping, and delivery suchas online access, use of computer software, and automa-tion

• prioritization of material logistics in up-front planning• provision of up-front detailed design, scope of work,

plans, and specifications for better understanding of totalrequirements, design, and value engineering

• continuous communication among all parties involved• development of standards for information flow from man-

ufacturers• advancements in E-commerce must be adopted by the

vendors and subcontractors• sharing of lessons learned among project and team mem-

bers

Summary and conclusions

This study has resulted in new insights regarding the con-struction logistics process and PM satisfaction. The researchresults found a significant relationship between the construc-tion logistics process and satisfaction of a PM. This paperalso presented statistical regression results to predict overallsatisfaction of a PM and the relative importance of each ofthe five variables on the satisfaction of a PM. The subse-quent results indicated that all five variables of PM satisfac-tion (PER, MAT, SCH, ORG, and INF) are significantpredictors of overall satisfaction for the construction logis-tics process. This suggests that to be most effective the PMshould have the potential for simultaneously influencing allfive variables. Even if a manager indicates a high level ofsatisfaction with the overall construction logistics tasks, pro-cess, and performance, the possibility or even necessity for

© 2003 NRC Canada

Jang et al. 1141

Planning to deal with the fast-moving changes Respondents

Percentage(%)

Not available 1 1Develop in house 11 7Watching and evaluate openings 13 8Make changes when it makes sense 19 12Training classes 19 12Do not buy, do not change 30 19Existing software serve upgrade

(keep update current)54 34

Others 11 7

Table 10. Planning for dealing with the fast-moving changes insoftware.

Fig. 6. Short-term costs and long-term benefits strategy.



additional improvement through enhanced technology al-ways exists.

People are the greatest asset in construction logisticstasks. Therefore, they should be used in the most efficientway. All activities involved in the construction processwithin the implementation logistics should be built aroundcross-functional teams, and everyone should be involvedright from the start when implementing the advanced tech-nologies.

References

Adersson, E.W., Fornell, C., and Lehman, D.R. 1994. Customersatisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from Swe-den. Journal of Marketing, 58(July): 53–66.

CLM. 1999. 21st Century logistics: making supply chain integra-tion a reality. Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, Ill.

Cronin, J.J., Jr., and Taylor, S.A. 1992. Measuring service quality:a reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(July):55–68.

Fred, B.S., and Francisco, F.C. 1999. Applicability of logisticsmanagement in lean construction. Proceedings of the the Sev-enth Annual Conference of the International Group for LeanConstruction (IGLC-7), University of California, Berkeley, Ca-lif., 26-28 July 1999.

Ganeshan, R., Jack, E., Magazine, M.J., and Stephens, P. 1999. Ataxonomic review of supply chain management research. InQuantitative models for supply chain management. Edited by S.

Tayur, R. Ganeshan, and M. Magazine. Kluwer Academic,Boston, Mass.

Holm, M.G. 2000. Service management in housing refurbishment:a theoretical approach. Construction Management and Econom-ics, 18: 525–533.

Holm, M.G., and Brochner, J. 1999. Satisfying the ultimate cus-tomer in housing refurbishment. In Proceedings of CIB W70 In-ternational Symposium on Management, Maintenance andModernization of Building Facilities, Singapore, 18–20 Septem-ber 1999. pp. 205–212.

Jones, T.C., and Riley, D.W. 1985. Using inventory for competitiveadvantage through supply chain management. International Jour-nal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, 15(1):16–26.

Juran, J.M. 1988. Juran on planning for quality. Free Press, NewYork, N.Y.

Meredith, J.R., and Mantel, S.J. 1995. Project management. JohnWiley & Sons, Inc., New York..

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L. 1994. Reassess-ment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring ser-vice quality: implications for further research. Journal ofMarketing, 58(January): 111–124.

Reidenbach, R.E., and Sandifer-Smallwook, B. 1990. Exploringperceptions of hospital operations by a modified SERVQUALapproach. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 10(4): 47–55.

Torbica, Z.M., and Stroh, R.C. 1999. Impact of total quality man-agement on home-buyer satisfaction. ASCE Journal of Con-struction Engineering and Management, 125(3): 198–203.

Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L., and Daly, R.T. 1989. Linking servicequality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intention. Journalof Health Care Marketing, 9(4): 5–17.

© 2003 NRC Canada

1142 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 30, 2003



A project manager's level of satisfaction in construction logistics

Documents

Transcript of A project manager's level of satisfaction in construction logistics