Modeling and Monitoring of Construction Supply

Chains

Jack C.P. Cheng a, Kincho H. Law b, Hans Bjornsson c, Albert Jones d, Ram D. Sriram d

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected]

a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology

Address: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, the Hong Kong

University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong

b
Engineering Informatics Group, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Stanford University

Address: Y2E2 Building, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 473 Via
Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA

c
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden

Address: School of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of

Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

d
Enterprise Systems Group, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Address: 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200, USA

Corresponding Author: Jack C.P. Cheng

Telephone: 1-650-862-3262

3
Email Address: [email protected]; [email protected]

Postal Address: Y2E2 Building, Room 279, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA

Abstract The planning and management of supply chains require properly specifying the

participating members and the relationships among them. Construction supply chains usually consist of

numerous participants and are complex in structure. Representing construction supply chains using a

network model can help understand the complexity, support re-configuration, identify the bottlenecks, and

prioritize company’s resources, as well as add values to the management of construction projects. Using a

case example on the mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) processes in a construction project, this

paper demonstrates the modeling of construction supply chains using the Supply Chain Operations

Reference (SCOR) framework developed by the Supply Chain Council (SCC). The SCOR modeling

framework provides a structured and systematic way to model and decompose a supply chain from

conceptual representation to process element specification. The SCOR framework is commonly used by

corporations for strategic planning of their supply chains. This paper further presents a model-based

service oriented framework that leverages the SCOR models for performance monitoring of construction

supply chains. In the supply chain management and monitoring framework each supply chain process

element is implemented as discrete Web service components. The framework is built on a service oriented

collaborative system, namely SC Collaborator, that we have developed using Web service technology, open

standards, and open source technologies.

Keywords Construction Supply Chain, Supply Chain Performance Measurement,

Service Oriented Architecture, Model-based Approach, Web Services

4
1. Introduction
The planning and management of supply chains require properly specifying the participating

members and identifying the relationships among them. This task is especially challenging in

the construction industry because construction supply chains are complex in structure and often

composed of a large number of participants who work together in a project-based temporary

manner. Construction projects typically involve tens and hundreds of companies, supplying

materials, components, and a wide range of construction services (Dainty et al. 2001). Modeling

the structure of participants involved in a construction supply chain can help understand the

complexity and the organization in a supply chain (O'Brien et al. 2002). Supply chain network

models also facilitate the identification of bottlenecks and provide the basis for supply chain re-

configuration and re-engineering.

Standard methods or frameworks for representing and modeling supply chain structures

are few. Supply chain structures are commonly recorded as tables that enlist the members of a

supply chain, or represented as network diagrams that show the supply chain members as well as

the links between them. Lambert and Cooper (2000) proposed a mapping of supply chain

structures using three primary attributes: members of the supply chain, structural dimensions,

and types of business processes between the members. However, these methods do not provide a

direct migration from the modeling of supply chain structures to the modeling of the business

operations. There are two commonly used supply chain modeling frameworks that provide

guidelines to systematically map the relationships of companies and specify the operations

involved in a supply chain. The Supply Chain Model framework introduced by the Global

Supply Chain Forum (GSCF) is built on eight key business processes that are both cross-

functional and cross-organizational in nature (Lambert 2008). The eight processes are customer

relationship management, supplier relationship management, customer service management,

5
demand management, order fulfillment, product development and commercialization,

manufacturing flow management, and returns management. Each process is managed by a cross-

functional team, including representatives from logistics, production, purchasing, finance,

marketing, and research and development. The Supply Chain Model framework provides a

granular framework to model the cross-departmental interactions in every process along a supply

chain. However, the majority of construction companies are small and medium enterprises

(SMEs) and often do not have a clear boundary between business functional units. According to

a study on the construction industry in United Kingdom (Dainty et al. 2001), for example, about

83% of the private contracting companies employ three or less workers while 98% of the

companies employ 24 or less workers. Employees in construction companies usually work on a

project basis instead of a business functional basis. Therefore, the Supply Chain Model

framework that describes the interactions across internal business functional units is not suitable

for modeling construction supply chains.

The other framework is the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) modeling

framework established by the Supply Chain Council (SCC) for supply chain standardization,

measurement, and improvement (Supply Chain Council (SCC) 2008). The SCOR modeling

framework is based on five key supply chain processes – Plan, Source, Make, Deliver, and

Return. The SCOR modeling framework is hierarchically structured into four levels, with

increasing details at each level. Construction supply chains often do not have a standard and

well structured configuration. Members may not be involved in both the material flows and the

information flows of the procurement, manufacturing, and distribution activities in construction

supply chains. Since the SCOR framework is generic and can be used to model companies of

various types and scales, the framework is suitable for modeling various construction supply

6
chains of different complexity. In this study, therefore, the SCOR framework is employed for

modeling construction supply chains.

The SCOR framework is typically used to model supply chain network structures and

operations for strategic planning purposes (Huan et al. 2004). The framework is seldom

leveraged for the design and implementation of information systems for supply chain

management. Furthermore, while performance monitoring is critical to the measurement and

improvement of supply chains, there have been little efforts focused on performance monitoring

systems for construction supply chain management.

This paper discusses the modeling and decomposition of construction supply chains using

the SCOR framework, and describes the development of a supply chain performance monitoring

framework that adopts a model-based service oriented approach and leverages the decomposed

SCOR models. The supply chain models are developed using a retrospective case study on the

mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) processes in a student center construction project.

There are altogether 524 distinct process-based performance metrics recommended in SCOR.

Since the MEP case example is focused on the procurement and delivery processes, the metrics

selected in this study are the process cycle times, documentation accuracy, and product

conditions upon arrival. A model-based service oriented approach is adopted in the development

of the performance monitoring system. First, the supply chain models are transformed into

process execution files by leveraging Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) (Object

Management Group (OMG) 2008) and Business Process Execution Language (BPEL)

(Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) 2007). The

execution files are then incorporated in the monitoring system, which is built on an open source

7
service oriented collaborative system, namely SC Collaborator (Supply Chain Collaborator)

(Cheng et al. 2009).

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly describes the SCOR framework.

Section 3 presents the MEP processes in the construction project we studied and illustrates the

modeling of the MEP supply chains using the SCOR framework. Section 4 demonstrates the

implementation of the prototype supply chain performance monitoring system. Section 4 also

discusses the usage of performance metrics and conversion of supply chain models into

executable files. Incorporation of the executable files for the business process models in the

service oriented system SC Collaborator is illustrated in Section 5. Section 6 shows the system

with the construction project example. Section 7 summarizes the research and discusses the

limitations, potentials, and future work.

2. Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model

The SCOR modeling framework provides a systematic approach to describe, characterize, and

evaluate complex supply chain processes. Standardization of business processes is necessary to

allow the communication and integration between business partners of the supply network

(Gunasekaran et al. 2001). The SCOR model is a process reference model for standardization

purposes. The model attempts to capture business operations including (1) customer

interactions, from order entry through paid invoice, (2) product transactions, from supplier’s

supplier to customer’s customer, and (3) market interactions, from the understanding of

aggregate demand to the fulfillment of each order (Supply Chain Council (SCC) 2008).

The SCOR modeling framework is based on five basic management processes in supply

chains – Plan, Source, Make, Deliver, and Return – to meet planned and actual demand (Figure

1). Plan includes processes that balance resources to establish plans that best meet the

8
requirements of a supply chain and its sourcing, production, delivery, and return activities.

Source includes processes that manage the procurement, delivery, receipt, and transfer of raw

material items, subassemblies, products, and services. Make includes processes that transform

products to a finished state. Deliver includes processes that provide finished goods and services,

including order management, transportation management, and distribution management. Return

includes post-delivery customer support and processes that are associated with returning or

receiving returned products.

The SCOR framework allows users to model supply chain structures and relationships in

a progressive and systematic manner. There are four levels of model development in the SCOR

framework (Figure 2). Level 1 modeling provides a broad definition of the scope and content for

the SCOR model (Figure 1). Level 2 modeling divides the five basic management processes into

process categories, which allow companies to describe the configuration of their supply chains.

Level 2 models conceptually specify the relationship and interactions among supply chain

members. The conceptual specification can be extended to describe the process workflow

through Level 3 modeling. Level 3 modeling provides companies with the information for

detailed planning and setting goals. Level 3 processes also provide the basis for defining the

supply chain performance metrics. Level 4 modeling focuses on implementation. Since SCOR

Level 4 models are unique to each company, the specific elements at this level are not defined

within the SCOR framework. In Level 4 modeling, users need to design the implementation

details of each Level 3 process to meet their own needs. Through the four levels of

development, the SCOR models can be extended to capture and represent complex interactions

among supply chain partners. Therefore, the model is a useful tool for modeling construction

supply chains, which usually involve numerous organizations and are complex in nature. The

9
application of the SCOR framework to model construction supply chains is illustrated in the next

section.

3. Modeling of Construction Supply Chains Using SCOR Framework: A Case

Example
In this paper, a construction project of a two-storey high school student center is used as a case

example (Figure 3). Specifically, the mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) supply chains

of the project have been studied retrospectively and modeled based on the information from the

documents provided by and the interviews conducted with the general contractor, subcontractors,

and suppliers. The buyer-supplier relationships in a construction project can differ from project

to project, organization to organization, and product to product. However, similar patterns are

observed in the buyer-supplier interactions and configuration of supply chains among various

organizations and products in the MEP processes of the project. Although the supply chain

modeling is demonstrated only with the MEP supply chains, the framework can be potentially

applied and extended to other kinds of supply chains in construction projects of various scales

and types.

3.1 Case Example

The student center in the example construction project is a two-storey building with a 650 fixed-

seat auditorium, a 350 seat dining hall with a full commercial kitchen and server, three

bathrooms, and eight sophisticated science classrooms. The construction project started in May

2008 and was planned to finish by December 2009. To minimize the impact of the construction

on student activities on campus, the construction site was kept to minimal. The stocking space

on site was limited in size and needed to change locations occasionally over the project time.

Early delivery of materials leading to long-time stocking was not recommended in order to free

10
up the construction site space and to avoid double material handling. Therefore, the general

contractor heavily emphasized Just-in-Time material delivery in the project.

There are 170 tasks in the project, and 47 of them are on the critical path. Since many

MEP activities are essential for enabling other critical tasks, the MEP activities are usually on the

critical path. For example, as shown in Figure 4, the MEP activities for the assembly hall on

Level 1, the classrooms on Level 2, and the bathroom on Level 2 are on the critical path. In

addition, MEP activities are interior work and often start at the late stage of the project.

Therefore, there is little schedule buffer for problems in the MEP activities. The performance

and timeliness of the MEP components delivery are important to the on-schedule project

delivery. In fact, the project once experienced a serious potential for prolonging project

completion time due to the material delays of several electrical products.

Managing the MEP supply chains in the project was more challenging than many project

participants had anticipated. The MEP components in the project were large in number and

supplied by many different companies. In addition, the project is expected to achieve LEED

Platinum Certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. Therefore, many of the MEP

(especially electrical) components were designed and specified by the architects. Only a small

portion of the electrical components are standard products that can be delivered in a short period

of time after procurement. The electrical subcontractor and several other subcontractors did not

anticipate and were surprised by the complexity of the material supply management in a project

of this scale.

3.2 SCOR Level 1 and Level 2 Modeling

Figure 5 shows the major interactions between the MEP subcontractors (buyers) and the

suppliers in the project. The flowchart represents a typical material planning, procurement, and

11
delivery management process for various products in construction projects. The interactions

start from the selection of suppliers and the request for submittals and quotes. If the owners or

architects do not specify the suppliers, the quotes are used by the subcontractors to evaluate and

to select the suppliers. The submittals, which normally include shop drawings, product data,

samples, manuals, and reports, are then submitted to the engineers through the general contractor

for approval. The submittals may be approved as it is, approved with minor revisions needed,

undecided with major revisions and resubmission needed, and rejected. For the latter two cases,

the subcontractors need to revise the submittals and resubmit them to the engineers. The revision

and resubmission process can be iterative and could take weeks to months in the planning phase.

In the material procurement and delivery management phase in the student center

construction project, the interactions along the MEP supply chains show three major patterns

according to the nature of products. For high-demand standard commodity products such as

wires, tubing, bolts, and nuts that subcontractors purchase from distributors (suppliers), the

suppliers usually keep stocks of such products to meet anticipated orders. Therefore, the

suppliers usually can deliver the products in a short time once they receive the purchase orders. 

The second type is standard and configurable products that have low turnover rate and/or high

inventory cost, for instance, light fixtures and switchgears. Products of this type are produced

only after customers' purchase orders are received, or so-called “made-to-order.” The third type

is products that are specially designed, engineered, and customized by the owners, architects,

engineers, or subcontractors. One example is customized ductwork. Close interactions and

collaborations among the subcontractors, the plants, and the suppliers are often required in the

design, engineering, sourcing, and delivery processes. In the following subsections, the SCOR

Level 1 and Level 2 modeling of the information flows and material flows for these three types

of products is illustrated. The supply chain models are then extended to create supply chain

12
process maps with greater details through the SCOR Level 3 and Level 4 modeling in Section

3.3.

3.2.1 Stocked Standard Products

Some standard products such as wires and tubing are maintained in a finished goods state and

kept in stocks in suppliers’ inventory prior to the receipt of a customer order. These products

usually have high demand and low inventory cost. Suppliers procure according to sales forecast,

so products are produced before the suppliers receive order. Supply chains of this type are

inventory driven. Unsatisfied orders usually become lost sales as alternative suppliers can often

be found.

Construction supply chains for stocked standard products involve foremen in the

construction site, subcontractors, distributors, and manufacturers. The SCOR Level 1 model and

the SCOR Level 2 model for this type of supply chains are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7,

respectively. The dotted lines and the solid lines represent the information flows and the

material flows, respectively. The information flows start from the subcontractors’ headquarters,

where purchase orders are sent. There are two alternative material flow paths. Products are

often delivered to the construction site at the time designated by the subcontractors.  In some

cases, subcontractors hope to better control the material delivery time and practice just-in-time

delivery on site.  These subcontractors prefer the suppliers first delivering the products to the

subcontractors' warehouses and manage the products themselves.

13
Make-to-order Standard / Configurable Products

Products of this type include products that are built to a specific design and the products that are

manufactured, assembled, or configured from standard parts or subassemblies. Suppliers prefer

make-to-order due to various reasons. Suppliers of products such as light fixtures usually do not

keep stocks of their products because they often publish a wide variety of products in catalogs

and it is hard for them to anticipate the demand for each specific design. Moreover, some

products such as switchgears have a high inventory cost and depreciation rate, making it risky to

keep stock for uncertain anticipated demand. Many suppliers also like to keep the flexibility to

slightly configure and customize their products based on the requirements of a particular

customer order. For these reasons, manufacture, assembly, or configuration of these make-to-

order standard/configurable products begins only after the receipt and validation of a firm

customer order.

Similar to the stocked standard products, members of construction supply chains for

make-to-order standard/configurable products include foremen in the construction site,

subcontractors, distributors, and manufacturers. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the SCOR Level 1

model and the SCOR Level 2 model, respectively, for a typical construction supply chain for

make-to-order standard/configurable products. Normally, the products can be delivered directly

from the manufacturers to either the construction site or the subcontractors’ warehouses. On the

other hand, procurement directly to manufacturers is not allowed in general. Distributors serve

as a middleman between subcontractors and manufacturers, coordinating the procurement,

production, and delivery in the supply chain. Besides the distributors, some subcontractors also

communicate actively with their manufacturers to check the production and to schedule the

delivery (the communication channels are shown as the information links with asterisks in Figure

9). By communicating directly with the manufacturers, subcontractors can be less vulnerable to

14
supply chain risk because they can notice any material delay or shortage and mitigate the impact

at an early stage.

Custom Products

While make-to-order standard/configurable products include standard products built only in

response to a customer order or products configured according to a customer order, custom

products include products that are designed, developed, and manufactured in response to a

specific customer request. HVAC systems and customized ductworks are examples of custom

products. While some standardized ducts can be made-to-order or made-to-stock, ductwork

systems with special configurations and dimensions need to be designed and engineered before

production. Members of supply chains for custom MEP products usually consist of foremen in

the construction site, subcontractors, plants, and material suppliers. A plant represents a business

unit for the engineering and production of the custom products. A plant can be a third party

company, a department of a supplier, or a subsidiary of a subcontractor. Suppliers, plants, and

subcontractors collaborate with each other in the negotiation, design, procurement, production,

and delivery processes. Architects and engineers who have specialized requirements may also be

involved in the negotiation, design, and production processes. Final and detailed design often

starts after the receipt and validation of a customer order. Therefore, supply chains of this type

of products are driven by customer requirements and specifications and often take a long time to

complete. The SCOR Level 1 model and Level 2 model for a general construction supply chain

for custom products are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11, respectively.

3.3 SCOR Level 3 and Level 4 Modeling

While SCOR Level 2 models provide an overview of the information flows and material flows

along a supply chain, SCOR Level 3 and 4 models specify the business processes involved in the

15
supply chain. A Level 3 model links different SCOR Level 3 supply chain processes into a

process map whereas a Level 4 model specifies the necessary business operations to implement a

particular SCOR Level 3 process. As an example, Figure 12 depicts the SCOR Level 3 model

for a typical construction supply chain for stocked standard products. Similarly, SCOR Level 3

models can be constructed for make-to-order standard/configurable products and for custom

products. A Level 3 model usually is a complex map of SCOR Level 3 processes, making it

difficult to be developed on paper. The complexity of a Level 4 model may vary, but the

configuration in a Level 4 model for a particular Level 3 process may change occasionally.

Therefore, a user-friendly digital graphical representation should be used to facilitate the

creation, modification, and manipulation of the SCOR Level 3 and Level 4 models. Business

process modeling notation (BPMN) (Object Management Group (OMG) 2008), supported by

several open source and commercial graphical tools, offers such a standard graphical

representation for business processes modeling.

3.3.1 Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) Models

BPMN (Object Management Group (OMG) 2008) is an Object Management Group (OMG)

standard for business process modeling. This graph-oriented modeling language provides a

visual modeling notation to specify business processes in a diagram. The primary objective of

BPMN is to bridge the gap between process design and process implementation. BPMN is

targeted both as a high level process specification for business users and as a low level process

description details for implementers. The business users should be able to easily read and

understand a BPMN business process diagram. On the other hand, the process implementer can

add further details to a business process diagram in order to represent the process suitable for a

physical implementation. As a result, BPMN models can help define process interactions and

16
facilitate communication in the process design and analysis phase. BPMN models can also act as

a blueprint for the subsequent implementation.

There are various standards such as IDEF0 (US Air Force 1981) and UML (Object

Management Group (OMG) 2005) for process modeling. In this study, BPMN is used for SCOR

Level 3 and Level 4 modeling because BPMN models can easily be converted into executable

languages such as Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) (Organization for the

Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) 2007). Efforts spent on the

development of SCOR Level 3 and Level 4 models in BPMN can thus be leveraged for system

execution, which will be demonstrated in Section 4.2. In addition, the modeling in BPMN is

made by simple diagrams with a small set of graphical elements. BPMN models can make

complex system architecture understandable and facilitate the understanding of the flows and the

processes between different organizations. Moreover, BPMN modeling is user-friendly due to

the support of several open source and commercial graphical BPMN tools. This research uses an

open source BPMN modeling tool developed by Eclipse Foundation, called Eclipse BPMN

Modeler (Eclipse Foundation 2008) (Figure 13).

There are four basic categories of elements in BPMN models – flow objects, connecting

objects, swimlanes, and artifacts (Figure 14). Flow objects consist of three core elements –

events, gateways, and activities. An event is denoted as a circle and represents something that

happens. An event can associate with other elements such as a message envelope or a clock to

perform a complex event. Every process has only one start event and one end event. A gateway

determines forking and merging of paths depending on the conditions expressed. An activity

element can be a task which represents a single unit of work or a sub-process which has its own

self-contained sequence flows and start and end events. Connecting objects represent linkages

17
between flow objects, with sequence flows linking flow objects in the same pool and message

flows linking flow objects in different pools. Swimlanes consist of pool and lane elements. A

pool represents a major participating company in a process, whereas a lane represents a division

of a company. Nevertheless, pool and lane elements are interchangeable and different

companies can also be separated by lanes in the same pool.

3.3.2 BPMN Model for SCOR Level 3 Modeling

The SCOR Level 3 model for a typical supply chain for stocked standard products shown in

Figure 12 can be represented using BPMN (Figure 15). The sourcing activities of distributors,

highlighted in Figure 12, are not included in the BPMN representation because it is assumed that

there is no backlog and that a subcontractor only procures stocked standard products from the

suppliers with sufficient inventory. Therefore, the supply chain from a subcontractor’s

perspective is independent of the sourcing activities of distributors. The SCOR Level 3 models

for make-to-order standard/configurable products and for custom products are shown in Figure

16 and Figure 17, respectively. Different pools are used to represent the subcontractor, the

distributors, the manufacturers, the plants, and the suppliers. The subcontractor’s headquarter,

warehouse, and the construction site are separated by lanes.

3.3.3 BPMN for SCOR Level 4 Modeling

The complexity of the implementation for different Level 3 processes can vary. Figure 18

illustrates the BPMN representation of a SCOR Level 4 model for the fairly complex Level 3

process “Manu D2.2 Receive, Configure, Enter & Validate Order” performed by manufacturers,

which is shown in Figure 16. The illustrated Level 4 process model involves purchase order

processing, validation, feasibility check, and evaluation. These processes and their arrangements

depicted in Figure 18 are only one of the many possible configurations. In fact, SCOR Level 4

18
models are specific to company and product. The SCOR documents do not provide the detailed

process components, process structures, and implementation. Users need to define the Level 4

models to fit their own needs and situations.

4. Supply Chain Performance Monitoring

In addition to describing the network structure of a supply chain, SCOR models can also be

leveraged in the development of information systems for supply chain integration and

management. This section presents a development framework that leverages SCOR Level 3 and

Level 4 models to build a supply chain performance monitoring system for construction projects.

In the construction industry, consumers increasingly place a higher value on quality than

on loyalty to suppliers, and price is often not the only determining factor in making choices

(Oakland and Marosszeky 2006). Performance management is a common means to improve

quality level and to maintain a high quality. Performance monitoring and measurement is at the

heart of the performance management processes (Bititci et al. 1997). The lack of performance

measurement systems that span the entire supply chain is one of the major obstacles to effective

supply chain management (Chan 2003; Ross 1998; Wong and Wong 2007). In the construction

industry, various researchers have developed conceptual frameworks and systems for the

monitoring and measurement on the performance at the project level (Cheung et al. 2004;

Kagioglou et al. 2001; Yu et al. 2007). However, studies on the performance monitoring and

measurement systems of supply chains in construction projects are lacking. Supply chain

performance monitoring and measurement systems allow project participants to identify any

bottleneck in a supply chain and offer the basis for supply chain process evaluation and

improvement. Therefore, a performance monitoring system can help contractors to evaluate

suppliers’ information for use in future projects.

19
 Building a supply chain performance monitoring system is a non-trivial task because it

involves understanding and integration across organizational boundaries. Traditionally, supply

chain performance is measured in the form of scorecards or reports through interviews or

questionnaires. These approaches are labor-intensive in the data collection processes and often

provide information with time lags. Nowadays the Internet provides a means to instantaneously

share and integrate distributed information and applications at low cost. Monitoring supply

chain performances and sharing the data across company boundaries can now be performed

conveniently over the web. This section describes the use of the Internet and web services

technologies for the development of a web-enabled performance monitoring system for

construction supply chains.

The system development framework, as illustrated in Figure 19, adopts a model-based

service oriented approach. At the beginning of the system design phase, the supply chain

network and its members are identified and modeled through the SCOR Level 1 and Level 2

modeling framework. Process maps of internal and external supply chain operations are then

produced through SCOR Level 3 and Level 4 modeling and represented in the BPMN standard.

Performance metrics for each SCOR Level 3 process are specified, with the aid of the SCOR

guidelines. Whenever necessary, the SCOR Level 4 BPMN models are modified to measure and

record the specified performance metrics. In the system implementation phase, the SCOR Level

3 and Level 4 models are then converted into web services execution language BPEL files.

Implementation details such as port types of the connected web services are added to the BPEL

files, which are finally incorporated to a prototype service oriented collaborative system SC

Collaborator. We can reuse the modeling techniques in Section 3 for the supply chain network

modeling and the process modeling in the system development framework. The following

20
sections describe the incorporation of performance metrics in a process model and the

conversion of the process model into an executable language.

4.1 Supply Chain Performance Metrics

What to measure and how to measure should be clearly defined when developing a performance

monitoring and measurement system. Various performance metrics for supply chain

management have been suggested, investigated, and analyzed in literature (Gunasekaran and

Kobu 2007; Gunasekaran et al. 2004; Gunasekaran et al. 2001; Hausman 2004; Kleijnen and

Smits 2003; Lambert and Pohlen 2001; Tommelein et al. 2003). Gunasekaran et al. (2001)

emphasizes performance metrics related to suppliers, delivery performance, customer-service,

and inventory and logistics costs in a supply chain. Kleijnen and Smits (2003) analyzes

performance metrics in fill rate, confirmed fill rate, response delay, stock level, delivery delay,

and sales/inventory ratio. Gunasekaran and Kobu (2007) reviews recently published literature on

performance measurement in supply chains and summarizes 27 key performance indicators for

supply chain management. In this research, we refer to the guidelines for supply chain

performance metrics in the SCOR framework (Supply Chain Council (SCC) 2008).

The SCOR document suggests 524 distinct performance metrics that are divided into five

categories: supply chain reliability (RL), responsiveness (RS), agility (AG), costs (CO), and asset

management (AM). Reliability measures the accuracy and conditions of the products,

documentation, packaging, etc. in the delivering process. Responsiveness refers to the speed at

which a supply chain provides products to the customer. Agility measures the flexibility and

adaptability of a supply chain to respond to the changes in markets. Costs correspond to the

costs associated with operating the supply chain. Asset management measures the effectiveness

in managing assets to support supply chain operations. The performance metrics are

21
hierarchically structured in three levels. For example, as illustrated in Figure 20, the

performance metric “Reserve Resources & Determine Delivery Date Cycle Time” belongs to

“RS 2.3 Delivery Cycle Time” on Level 2, which belongs to “RS 1.1 Order Fulfillment Cycle

Time” on Level 1 in the Supply Chain Responsiveness category.

Level 3 performance metrics are related to SCOR Level 3 processes. For example, the

performance metric “Reserve Resources & Determine Delivery Date Cycle Time” measures the

average time associated with reserving resources and determining a delivery date in the SCOR

Level 3 processes “D1.3 Reserve Inventory and Determine Delivery Date” and “D2.3 Reserve

Inventory and Determine Delivery Date.” Therefore, we can select the supply chain

performance metrics in a process-based approach after the SCOR Level 3 modeling. Selection of

performance metrics is specific to the characteristics of the project and the needs of the

stakeholders. One approach is to first decide one or two performance categories of interest, and

then selects the performance metrics in the categories of interest in each SCOR Level 3 supply

chain process.

For the case example, since timeliness was emphasized in the MEP processes in the

student center construction project, performance metrics in the Supply Chain Responsiveness

category are selected for most of the processes. Metrics in the Supply Chain Reliability category

are also selected because unreliable and incomplete order fulfillment can delay the material

delivery. For demonstration purpose, the selected metrics include mainly process cycle time,

timeliness of product arrival, product conditions upon arrival, and documentation accuracy.

Table 1 enlists some of the supply chain performance metrics used in the student center

construction case example.

22
 Task elements can be added at the beginning and/or at the end of a SCOR Level 4 model

to measure and record the performance values. To measure the cycle time of the process “D2.3

Reserve Inventory and Determine Delivery Date,” for example, a task is added after the start

event to record the starting time of every instance of the process and a task is added right before

the end event to calculate the time spent on the instance. The time spent is the cycle time for an

instance of the D2.3 process. The performance value of “Reserve Resources & Determine

Delivery Date Cycle Time” for a particular organization or a particular product type can be

obtained by taking the average of the cycle time of the D2.3 process instances.

4.2 Conversion of BPMN Models into BPEL Files

BPMN models cannot be executed directly due to its high level of abstraction. However, BPMN

models can be easily converted into BPEL (Organization for the Advancement of Structured

Information Standards (OASIS) 2007), which is an XML-based Web services execution

language for describing the interactions between a business process and external Web services.

The converted BPEL files capture the process flow and logic specified in the BPMN models.

However, to make the converted BPEL files executable, specifications of the process activities

and the connections have to be added.

BPMN models are stored and transferred using XML Metadata Interchange (XMI)

format. XMI is a standard developed by OMG for exchanging metadata information via

Extensible Markup Language (XML). To convert BPMN models into BPEL files, XMI output

of the BPMN models are exported, and then parsed to extract the process definitions and

sequences. Figure 21 shows an example for the SCOR Level 3 process “Manu D2.2 Receive,

Configure, Enter & Validate Order.” In the XMI output, every event, gateway, activity, and

artifact object is represented as an individual <vertices> element, while every connecting object

23
is represented as a <sequenceEdges> element. As illustrated in Figure 21, an XMI file indicates

the linkages between the flow objects (events, gateways and activities) represented in a BPMN

model. We have built a Java conversion program to parse XMI files and to create a BPEL

skeleton file for every BPMN model. The program instantiates a Java class Process for every

extracted <vertices> element. Every Process instance has a process name, a process type, and

a list of succeeding Process instances. The types of <vertices> elements that are extracted

from an XMI file are listed in Table 2. The name and activityType attributes of a <vertices>

element are used to describe the class instance. The outgoingEdges and incomingEdges

attributes of <vertices> elements are matched to each other to regenerate the sequences and

relationships of the flow objects. As illustrated in Figure 21, for example, the outgoingEdges

attribute of <vertices> element “start” matches the incomingEdges attribute of the succeeding

<vertices> element “Assign PO Info.” The unique ids of these two elements are specified in the

<sequenceEdges> element linking the <vertices> elements. The <sequenceEdges> elements can

also be used to check orphan flow objects or incomplete connections.

After parsing all the <vertices> elements in an XMI file, a linked list of instances of class

Process can be produced internally. The linked list is converted into a tree hierarchy and

exported into an XML file with the corresponding BPEL element tags. A <bpws:sequence>

element is then inserted to encapsulate any list of two or more <bpws:empty> elements on the

same hierarchical level. An <bpws:process> tag is finally added as the beginning element of the

XML-based BPEL skeleton file. Figure 21 shows the BPEL skeleton file resulted from the XMI

file for the process “Manu D2.2 Receive, Configure, Enter & Validate Order.”

As shown in Figure 22, implementation details are then added to the BPEL skeleton with

the aid of Eclipse BPEL Visual Designer (Eclipse Foundation 2009), an open source BPEL

24
editor developed by Eclipse Foundation. The graphical user interface of the eclipse plug-in

allows users to define the activity operations and the partner link elements easily. The

<bpws:empty> elements are replaced by <bpws:receive>, <bpws:reply>, <bpws:invoke>, or

<bpws:assign> elements. For every <bpws:receive>, <bpws:reply> and <bpws:invoke>, the

partnerLink, portType, operation, and variable attributes should be defined. The specifications

of <bpws:assign> elements and the conditions of <bpws:if> elements can also be conveniently

defined in Eclipse BPEL Visual Designer. In the completed BPEL file illustrated in Figure 22,

conditions are defined in <bpws:if> elements and implementation details are added to different

<bpws:receive>, <bpws:reply>, and <bpws:invoke> elements.

5. Implementation
The BPEL files of the SCOR Level 3 models and Level 4 models are deployed in SC

Collaborator, a service oriented collaborative system that we have developed (Cheng et al. 2009).

As shown in Figure 24, the SC Collaborator system leverages web portal technology to provide a

secure and customizable user interface, and implements service oriented architecture to integrate

information, applications and services in a flexible and reusable manner. Figure 23 shows the

system architecture of the SC Collaborator framework. The framework consists of an access

control engine, a database support, and four layers of integrated functionalities – a

communication layer, a portal interface layer, a business application layer, and an extensible

computing layer. The communication layer provides a communication channel for users to

access the system. The portal interface layer serves as a unified and customizable platform to

support interactions between users and the system. The business applications layer provides an

environment for executing various business processes such as decision making and connecting to

external data sources, applications and services. The extensible computing layer is potentially

comprised of numerous databases, software applications and web services that the business

25
applications layer can integrate to support high-level or computationally intensive business

functions. Open source technologies are leveraged in the system implementation. In specific,

MySQL (Sun Microsystems 2007) and Hibernate framework (Red Hat 2008) are used for the

database support, Apache ODE (Apache Software Foundation 2008a) for orchestration of web

service units and execution of BPEL files, Liferay Portal (Liferay 2008) for the portal user

interface, and Apache Tomcat (Apache Software Foundation 2007), Apache Struts (Apache

Software Foundation 2008b) and Apache Axis (Apache Software Foundation 2006) for the

communication layer.

As shown in Figure 24, information sources, application functionalities, and system

operations in the system are wrapped and deployed into individual web service units, which can

be located and invoked via standardized Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) (World Wide

Web Consortium (W3C) 2000). These reusable web service units are integrated and orchestrated

into different workflows for various business processes using BPEL models. Each web service

unit is associated with a Web Service Description Language (WSDL) (World Wide Web

Consortium (W3C) 2004) file, which describes the schema, functions and location of the web

service. The WSDL file of a web service provides BPEL models with the information on how to

invoke a specific function of the connected web service. Each BPEL model describes the

relationships of service units and the logic involved during the connections among the service

units. The SCOR Level 3 and Level 4 models developed in Section 3.3 and converted in Section

4.2 are deployed in the BPEL-enabled SC Collaborator system. Upon deployment, WSDL files

are generated for the Level 3 and Level 4 BPEL model. The WSDL of the deployed Level 4

BPEL model for the process “Manu D2.2 Receive, Configure, Enter & Validate Order” is

depicted in Figure 25. The BPEL process files of SCOR Level 4 models integrate other web

service units in the system to perform individual SCOR Level 3 processes. The BPEL process

26
files of SCOR Level 3 models link different Level 4 models together to allow automation of

SCOR Level 4 implementations. These Level 3 BPEL models are invoked by separate

application portlet units on the business applications layer in the SC Collaborator system for

managing and monitoring various supply chain operations. The portlet units need to be

contained and managed by the portal layer to provide a centralized management and user

interface.

6. Scenario Demonstration
This section demonstrates the construction supply chain performance measurement system that is

developed for the student center construction project using the system development framework

presented in the previous sections. The scenario is based on real data from the construction

project, but the names of the companies are modified for privacy and proprietary reasons. The

first step of the system application is company registration. The submittals from the

subcontractors provide the general contractor with information about the suppliers of every

product. At the beginning of the system application, the general contractor added the names of

the distributors and manufacturers for each subcontractor using an online form in the system

(Figure 26). Modification and removal of the names are also allowed through the online form.

The subcontractors then initiated the SCOR process for any product when they started

procurement according to their schedules.

The system offers a product-based tracking of the supply chain status at the SCOR Level

3. The start time and finish time for each invocation of SCOR Level 3 processes were recorded

in the system. The general contractor and subcontractors can log in the system and check the

current status of any products they have procured (Figure 27). Execution history of the SCOR

Level 3 processes is recorded and stored in the back-end database for each product. In addition,

27
contractors can also share the SCOR status records with the members along their supply chains

as well as other project participants. For instance, the electrical subcontractor has shared its

information of the electrical components to the general contractor for supply chain visibility.

The information was also shared with the mechanical subcontractor and the plumbing

subcontractor because there were many overlaps of the MEP activities in the project. The

sharing settings can be adjusted by the contractors who own the information.

The key supply chain performance metrics used in this case scenario are listed in Table 1.

The developed performance measurement system shows the values of the performance metrics

for each manufacturer, distributor, and contractor (Figure 28). This information helps the

contractors compare their business partners, evaluate their supply chains, and identify

bottlenecks and underperformed portions along their supply chains. The information may also

indicate performance improvement or deterioration and offer guidelines for future supplier

selection and project scheduling. In Figure 28, the values of average cycle times were obtained

from the schedules provided by the contractors and suppliers. However, it should be pointed out

that the companies did not keep track of the numbers of products received on-time, with correct

documentation and in perfect condition, days per schedule change, quantity per shipment, and

documentation accuracy in the construction project. The value ranges shown in Figure 28 were

based on the estimations provided by the companies.

For instance, as illustrated in Figure 28, all of the products the electrical subcontractor

purchased from the distributor International Electric were delivered on time as scheduled.

However, not all of the received products came with correct shipping documents, which may

lead to confusion of the electrical subcontractor and could be improved in the rest of the project

or even in future collaborations. Furthermore, percentage of products in perfect condition did

28
not reach 100%. Perfect condition of an item means that the item meets specification, has

correct configuration, is undamaged, is accepted by the customer, is faultlessly installed, and is

not returned for repair or replacement. Imperfect condition can be caused by poor transportation

conditions, lack of communication between the customer and the supplier, and incorrect

documentations, etc. In this case, the subcontractor and the distributor may need to find the

causes and prevent further problems. In addition, the time that the electrical subcontractor

generally spent on planning the procurement process was long relative to the duration of the

whole sourcing process. It could be difficult and subjective to draw conclusions on the length of

the planning time, but the measure points out a potential aspect that the subcontractor can pay

attention to and improve in the future.

7. Summary and Future Work

This paper demonstrates the modeling of construction supply chains using the Supply Chain

Operations Reference (SCOR) modeling framework. The mechanical, electrical and plumbing

(MEP) supply chains of a student center construction project have been studied retrospectively

and used as a case example. In the MEP supply chains we studied, three major types of the

construction supply chains were observed – stocked standard products, make-to-order

standard/configurable products, and custom products. The three types of supply chains in the

student center construction project are modeled through the Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4

modeling of the SCOR framework. SCOR Level 2 models describe the buyer-supplier

interactions along supply chains. SCOR Level 3 models specify the material flows and

information flows among the Level 3 process elements involved in the supply chains. The

implementation details of Level 3 process elements are captured in the SCOR Level 4 models.

The SCOR Level 3 and Level 4 models are represented in BPMN standard, which is a reader-

friendly open standard for process modeling.

29
 This paper also presents a model-based service oriented framework to develop a

construction supply chain performance monitoring system. The system development framework

consists of construction supply chain network, process modeling and definition, performance

metrics selection, and process execution. The framework leverages open standards (BPMN,

BPEL, WSDL, and SOAP), open source software (SC Collaborator, MySQL, Liferay Portal,

Apache Tomcat, Apache ODE, Axis framework, Struts framework, and Hibernate framework),

and the SCOR modeling framework. The SCOR modeling framework provides a systematic

approach to decompose a construction supply chain into process elements. The performance

monitoring framework presented in this paper monitors a supply chain on the process element

basis and implements each process element and its performance measurement as Web service

components. Therefore, the SCOR modeling framework supports the presented performance

monitoring framework. The SCOR Level 3 and Level 4 models developed in the first part of this

paper are reused as the baseline in the system design phase. Performance metrics are then

determined in a process-based approach for each Level 3 supply chain process element. For

system implementation, the Level 3 and Level 4 BPMN models are converted into BPEL files,

which are completed with the aid of an open source BPEL editing tool. The BPEL files are

finally incorporated in the service oriented SC Collaborator system that we have developed in

another research. The modified SC Collaborator system allows product-based supply chain

tracking and organization-based performance monitoring, which are demonstrated in Section 6.

The system development framework presented in this paper leverages the SCOR

modeling framework as the backbone. However, the framework is applicable to other supply

chain models or process maps. In addition, the system developed in this research is not limited

to only MEP supply chains in construction projects of medium scale. In a project of larger scale,

the supply chain relationships may be more complex because subcontractors may subcontract

30
some parts of their jobs to other companies. This results in layers of subcontractors each of

which is associated with its supply chains with different trading partners. In this case,

modifications of the structures and layouts in the SC Collaborator system are needed to meet the

actual project needs. However, the system in general can be applied to various types of

construction supply chains and to projects of various sizes.

The three configurations of MEP supply chains described in this paper are based on our

study on a student center construction project. The MEP supply chains in other construction

projects may have different configurations in terms of organizations and business operations.

The configuration of a supply chain may be affected by factors such as the common practice of

the supply chain members, the scale and budget of the project, and the type of the construction.

Therefore, we plan to study the MEP processes in various construction projects and attempt to

validate the generality of the three supply chain configurations described in this paper.

Furthermore, we plan to extend our research to other kinds of processes in a construction project,

for example, steel erection and window installation. We will study the supply chains involved in

these processes, model them using the SCOR framework, and build a performance monitoring

system for these supply chains using the framework we presented in this paper. By extending

the scope of our research, we hope to test the framework we have developed and to enhance its

usability.

8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the supports by the US National Science Foundation

(NSF), Grant No. CMS-0601167, the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) at

Stanford University, and the Enterprise Systems Group at the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST). The first author at Stanford University would like to thank DPR

31
Construction and the anonymous subcontractors for their time and data for the case example

presented in this paper. Any opinions and findings are those of the authors, and do not

necessarily reflect the views of NSF, CIFE, or NIST. No approval or endorsement of any

commercial product by NIST, NSF, or Stanford University is intended or implied.

Bibliography

Apache Software Foundation. (2006). "Apache Axis."

Apache Software Foundation. (2007). "Apache Tomcat 5.5."
Apache Software Foundation. (2008a). "Apache Orchestration Director Engine (ODE)."
Apache Software Foundation. (2008b). "Apache Struts."
Bititci, U. S., Carrie, A. S., and McDevitt, L. (1997). "Integrated performance measurement
systems: a development guide." International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 17, 522-535.
Chan, F. T. S. (2003). "Performance Measurement in a Supply Chain." The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 21(7), 534-548.
Cheng, J. C. P., Law, K. H., Bjornsson, H., Jones, A., and Sriram, R. D. (2009). "A service
oriented framework for construction supply chain integration." Automation in
Construction, (submitted).
Cheung, S. O., Suen, H. C. H., and Cheung, K. K. W. (2004). "PPMS: a web-based construction
project performance monitoring system." Automation in Construction, 13(3), 361-376.
Dainty, A. R. J., Briscoe, G. H., and Millett, S. J. (2001). "New perspectives on construction
supply chain integration." Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 6(4),
163-173.
Eclipse Foundation. (2008). "BPMN Modeler, Version 0.8.0."
Eclipse Foundation. (2009). "BPEL Visual Designer, Version 0.4.0."
Gunasekaran, A., and Kobu, B. (2007). "Performance measures and metrics in logistics and
supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995–2004) for research and
applications." International Journal of Production Research, 45(12), 2819-2840.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., and McGaughey, R. E. (2004). "A framework for supply chain
performance measurement." International Journal of Production Economics, 87(3), 333-
347.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001). "Performance measures and metrics in a
supply chain environment." International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, 21(1), 71-87.

32
Hausman, W. (2004). "Supply Chain Performance Metrics." The Practice of Supply Chain
Management: Where Theory and Application Converge, T. P. Harrison, H. L. Lee, and J.
J. Neale, eds., 61-73.
Huan, S. H., Sheoran, S. K., and Wang, G. (2004). "A review and analysis of supply chain
operations reference (SCOR) model." Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 9(1), 23-29.
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., and Aouad, G. (2001). "Performance management in construction: a
conceptual framework." Construction Management and Economics, 19(1), 85-95.
Kleijnen, J. P. C., and Smits, M. T. (2003). "Performance metrics in supply chain management."
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(5), 507-514.
Lambert, D. M. (2008). Supply chain management: processes, partnerships, performance,
Supply Chain Management Institute.
Lambert, D. M., and Cooper, M. C. (2000). "Issues in supply chain management." Industrial
Marketing Management, 29(1), 65-83.
Lambert, D. M., and Pohlen, T. L. (2001). "Supply chain metrics." International Journal of
Logistics Management, 12(1), 1-20.
Liferay. (2008). "Liferay Open Source Enterprise Portal System."
O'Brien, W. J., London, K., and Vrijhoef, R. "Construction supply chain modeling: a research
review and interdisciplinary research agenda." the 10th Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC-10), Gramado, Brazil, 129-148.
Oakland, J., and Marosszeky, M. (2006). Total Quality in the Construction Supply Chain,
Elsevier, Oxford, Great Britain.
Object Management Group (OMG). (2005). Unified Modeling Language (UML), Version 2.0.
Object Management Group (OMG). (2008). Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN),
Version 1.1.
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS). (2007). Web
Services Business Process Execution Language (WS-BPEL), Version 2.0.
Red Hat. (2008). "Hibernate framework."
Ross, D. F. (1998). Competing through supply chain management: creating market-winning
strategies through supply chain partnerships, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sun Microsystems. (2007). "MySQL 5.0."
Supply Chain Council (SCC). (2008). Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model,
Version 9.0.
Tommelein, I. D., Walsh, K. D., and Hershauer, J. C. (2003). "Improving capital projects supply
chain performance." PT172, Construction Industry Institute (CII).
US Air Force. (1981). "Integrated computer-aided manufacturing (ICAM) architecture Part II,
Vol. IV - function modelling manual (IDEF0)." AFWAL-TR-81-4023, Air Force
Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433.
Wong, W. P., and Wong, K. Y. (2007). "Supply chain performance measurement system using
DEA modeling." Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107(3), 361.

33
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2000). Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), Version
1.1, May.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2004). Web Services Description Language (WSDL),
Version 2.0.
Yu, I., Kim, K., Jung, Y., and Chin, S. (2007). "Comparable performance measurement system
for construction companies." Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(3), 131-139.

34
 Figure 1: SCOR Level 1 modeling (Supply Chain Council (SCC) 2008)

Level#DescriptionSchematic SCOR Model

1Top Level
(Process Types)2Configuration Level
(Process Categories)3Process Element Level
Plan
(Decompose Processes)4Implementation
Source Level Delive
Make
(Decompose Process Elements)
Return r
Return

P1: Plan Supply Chain; P2: Plan Source; P3: Plan Make;
P4: Plan Deliver; P5: Plan Return

Plan

P P P3 P4 P
1 2 5

P1.1
Identify, Prioritize, and
Aggregate Supply-Chain P1.3 P1.4
Requirements Balance Supply- Establish and
Chain Resources Communicate
P1.2 with Supply-Chain Supply-Chain
Identify, Assess, and Requirements Plans
Aggregate Supply-Chain
in SCOR Doc
Not Included

Resources

Figure 2: Four levels of SCOR business processes (Supply Chain Council (SCC) 2008)

35
 Figure 3: 3D model of the two-storey high school student center

Figure 4: Project schedule showing only the tasks on the critical path

36
 Subcontractors are awarded the bid

Suppliers specified by Yes

Owners or Architects?
No

Subcontractors obtain quotes from different

suppliers for supplier selection

Subcontractors ask Suppliers for submittals

Subcontractors send the submittals to

General Contractor (GC)

Subcontractors (and
GC forwards the submittals to Suppliers) revise the
Engineers for comments submittals

No
Approved?
Yes

Subcontractors receive approved submittals

Subcontractors places orders to Suppliers

Make-to-order
Stocked standard /
standard Type of products configurable
products products
Suppliers deliver to the Custom Subcontractors, Suppliers, and
site/Subcontractors’ warehouse products Manufacturers collaborate with
each other for delivery

Collaboration among Subcontractors,

Plants, and Suppliers

Assembly/modification/fabrication by Plants

Plants deliver to the site/Subcontractors’ warehouse

Figure 5: Flow chart of a typical material planning, procurement, and delivery management
process in construction projects

37
 Subcontractors’ Subcontractors’
Manufacturers Distributors headquarters warehouses Construction site

Plan Plan Plan

Deliver Source Deliver Source Source Deliver Source

Figure 6: SCOR Level 1 model for a typical construction supply chain for stocked standard
products

(P1: Plan Supply Chain; P2: Plan Source; P4: Plan Deliver; S1: Source Stocked Product; D1: Deliver Stocked Product)

Information
P1 flow

Material
P2 flow
P4
P4 S1

S1 D1
D1 S1 D1 S1

Subcontractors’ Subcontractors’
Manufacturers Distributors headquarters warehouses Construction site

Figure 7: SCOR Level 2 model for a typical construction supply chain for stocked standard
products

Subcontractors’ Subcontractors’
Manufacturers Distributors headquarters warehouses Construction site

Plan Plan Plan Plan

Make Deliver Deliver Source Source Deliver Source

Figure 8: SCOR Level 1 model for a typical construction supply chain for make-to-order
standard/configurable products

38
 (P1: Plan Supply Chain; P2: Plan Source; P3: Plan Make; P4: Plan Deliver; S1: Source Stocked Product;
S2: Source Make-to-Order Product; M2: Make-to-Order; D1: Deliver Stocked Product; D2: Deliver Make-to-order Product)

Information
P1 flow

Material
P2 flow
** P4
P3 P4 P4
S2

**
D2 S2 D1 S1
M2 D2 S2

Subcontractors’ Subcontractors’ Construction

Manufacturers Distributors headquarters warehouses site

Figure 9: SCOR Level 2 model for a typical construction supply chain for make-to-order
standard/configurable products

Subcontractors’ Subcontractors’ Construction

Suppliers Plants headquarters warehouses site

Plan Plan Plan Plan

Make Deliver Source Make Deliver Source Source Deliver Source

Figure 10: SCOR Level 1 model for a general construction supply chain for custom products

(P1: Plan Supply Chain; P2: Plan Source; P3: Plan Make; P4: Plan Deliver; S1: Source Stocked Product;
S2: Source Make-to-Order Product; S3: Source Engineer-to-Order Product; M1: Make-to-Stock; M2: Make-to-Order;
M3: Engineer-to-Order; D1: Deliver Stocked Product; D2: Deliver Make-to-order Product; D3: Deliver Engineer-to-Order Product)

Information
P1 flow

P2 Material
flow
P4
P3 P2
P4 P4 S3
P3

M2 D2 S2 S3 D1 S1
M3 D3
S3
M1 D1 S1
Subcontractors’ Subcontractors’ Construction
Suppliers Plants headquarters warehouses site

Figure 11: SCOR Level 2 model for a general construction supply chain for custom products

39
 Construction S1.2 S1.3
Receive Verify
site Product Product

P4.4
Establish D1.8
S1.2 S1.3 S1.4 Delivery Plans D1.11 D1.12
Sub-cons’ Receive Verify Transfer
Receive
Load Ship
Storage Product
warehouses Product Product Product
from S/M
Product Product

P1.4 P2.4 S1.1

Sub-cons’ Establish & Establish Schedule
Com. SC Sourcing Product
headquarters Plans Plans Deliveries

PO
D1.2 D1.3 D1.8 D1.13
D1.4 D1.6 D1.7 D1.11 D1.12
Receive, Enter Determine Receive Receive &
Consolidate Route Select Load Ship
& Validate Delivery Product Verify by
Orders Shipments Carriers Product Product
Order Date from S/M Customer
Distributors
P4.4 S1.1
S1.2 S1.3 S1.4
Establish Schedule
Receive Verify Transfer
Delivery Product
Product Product Product Storage
Plans Deliveries

D1.8 D1.13
D1.6 D1.7 D1.11 D1.12
Manufacturers Route Select
Receive
Load Ship
Receive &
Product Verify by
Shipments Carriers Product Product
from S/M Customer

Figure 12: SCOR Level 3 model for a typical construction supply chain for stocked standard
products

40
 Figure 13: Snapshot of Eclipse BPMN Modeler

Flow Object - Event Connecting Object Swimlane

Name

Pool
Sequence Flow
Name Name

Start End
Name

Message Flow
Lane
Flow Object - Gateway
Association
Parallel Fork/Join
Artifact
Flow Object - Activity
Exclusive Decision/
or Merge (XOR) Descriptive Text
Here

Inclusive Decision/ Data Text

Merge (OR) Task Object Annotation
Sub-process

Figure 14: Core components in BPMN standard

41
Figure 15: BPMN representation of the SCOR Level 3 model for stocked standard products

Figure 16: BPMN representation of the SCOR Level 3 model for make-to-order
standard/configurable products

42
 Figure 17: BPMN representation of the SCOR Level 3 model for custom products

Figure 18: BPMN graphical representation of the process “Manu D2.2 Receive, Configure, Enter
& Validate Order” in Figure 16

43
 System Design System Implementation

Web services mechanisms

Supply chain
and protocols
network modeling
(SC Collaborator, SOAP,
(SCOR framework) Plan Plan Plan
WSDL)
Deliver Source Make Deliver Source

Process modeling and

definition
(SCOR framework, BPMN)
Process execution
(BPEL)
Performance metrics
ProcessMetricsS2.2…
S2.3…D1.2…
D1.3………
specification
(SCOR framework, BPMN)

Figure 19: Development framework for service oriented supply chain performance monitoring
systems using the SCOR framework, open standards, and open source technologies

Reliability Agility Asset Management

Performance
Category Responsiveness Costs

Level 1
RS.1.1 Order Fulfillment Cycle Time
Metrics

RS.2.1 Source Cycle Time

Level 2
Performance RS.2.2 Make Cycle Time
Metrics
RS.2.3 Delivery Cycle Time

Receive, Configure, Enter & Validate Order Cycle Time

Level 3 Reserve Resources & Determine Delivery Date Cycle Time
Performance
Metrics Receive Product from Make/Source Cycle Time
Receive & Verify Product Cycle Time
D1.3, D2.3 :
Ship Product Cycle Time

Figure 20: Performance metrics hierarchically structured in the SCOR guidelines

44
 SCOR Level 4 model for D2.2 process (in XMI) BPEL skeleton file
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<bpmn:BpmnDiagram xmi:version="2.0" <bpws:process exitOnStandardFault="yes"
xmlns:xmi="http://www.omg.org/XMI"
xmlns:bpmn="http://stp.eclipse.org/bpmn"
name="Manufacturer“ suppressJoinFailure="yes”
xmi:id="_7eIVwYYMEd6DcYMaJrJywg" iD="_7eIVwIYMEd6DcYMaJrJywg"> targetNamespace=http://eig.stanford.edu/bpel
<pools xmi:type="bpmn:Pool" xmi:id="_7fUokYYMEd6DcYMaJrJywg" xmlns:bpws="http://docs.oasis-
iD="_7fUokIYMEd6DcYMaJrJywg" name="Manufacturer"> open.org/wsbpel/2.0/process/executable">
<vertices xmi:type="bpmn:Activity" <bpws:sequence name="start-end">
xmi:id="_ED9jIYYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg" iD="_ED9jIIYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg" <bpws:empty name="start"/>
outgoingEdges="_ZJwbsYYOEd6DcYMaJrJywg" name="start"
activityType="EventStartEmpty"/>
<bpws:empty name="Assign PO Info"/>
<vertices xmi:type="bpmn:Activity" <bpws:if name="Validated">
xmi:id="_7fUok4YMEd6DcYMaJrJywg" iD="_7fUokoYMEd6DcYMaJrJywg" <bpws:sequence name="Feasibility check-
outgoingEdges="_oin4kYYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg" Evaluate order ">
incomingEdges="_ZJwbsYYOEd6DcYMaJrJywg" name="Assign PO Info" <bpws:flow name="Feasibility check">
activityType="Task"/> <bpws:empty name="Check inventory"/>
:
<vertices xmi:type="bpmn:Activity"
<bpws:empty name="Check production plan"/>
xmi:id="_Xy4vYYYOEd6DcYMaJrJywg" iD="_Xy4vYIYOEd6DcYMaJrJywg" </bpws:flow>
incomingEdges="_Xy4vaoYOEd6DcYMaJrJywg" name="end" <bpws:if name="Evaluate order">
activityType="EventEndEmpty"/> <bpws:empty name="Notify PO rejection"/>
<sequenceEdges xmi:type="bpmn:SequenceEdge" <bpws:elseif>
xmi:id="_ZJwbsYYOEd6DcYMaJrJywg" iD="_ZJwbsIYOEd6DcYMaJrJywg" <bpws:empty name="Send confirmation"/>
source="_ED9jIYYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg"
target="_7fUok4YMEd6DcYMaJrJywg"/> </bpws:elseif>
<sequenceEdges xmi:type="bpmn:SequenceEdge" </bpws:if>
xmi:id="_oin4kYYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg" iD="_oin4kIYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg" </bpws:sequence>
source="_7fUok4YMEd6DcYMaJrJywg" <bpws:elseif>
target="_oiUWkYYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg"/> <bpws:empty name="Ask for Clarification"/>
: </bpws:elseif>
<sequenceEdges xmi:type="bpmn:SequenceEdge"
xmi:id="_r2D_QYYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg" iD="_r2D_QIYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg" </bpws:if>
name="Not validated" source="_oiUWkYYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg" <bpws:empty name="end"/>
target="_r16OQYYNEd6DcYMaJrJywg"/> </bpws:sequence>
</pools> </bpws:process>
</bpmn:BpmnDiagram>

Figure 21: Conversion of the SCOR Level 4 model for the process “Manu D2.2 Receive,
Configure, Enter & Validate Order” into BPEL file

45
 BPEL skeleton file Eclipse BPEL Visual Designer
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<bpws:process exitOnStandardFault="yes"
name="Manufacturer“ suppressJoinFailure="yes”
targetNamespace=http://eig.stanford.edu/bpel
xmlns:bpws="http://docs.oasis-
open.org/wsbpel/2.0/process/executable">
<bpws:sequence name="start-end">
<bpws:empty name="start"/>
<bpws:empty name="Assign PO Info"/>
<bpws:if name="Validated">
<bpws:sequence name="Feasibility check-
Evaluate order ">
<bpws:flow name="Feasibility check">
<bpws:empty name="Check inventory"/>
<bpws:empty name="Check production plan"/>
</bpws:flow>
<bpws:if name="Evaluate order">
<bpws:empty name="Notify PO rejection"/>
<bpws:elseif>
<bpws:empty name="Send confirmation"/>
</bpws:elseif>
</bpws:if>
</bpws:sequence>
<bpws:elseif>
<bpws:empty name="Ask for Clarification"/>
</bpws:elseif>
</bpws:if>

1 2
<bpws:empty name="end"/>
</bpws:sequence>
</bpws:process>

Complete BPEL file

:
<bpws:receive name="start" partnerLink="client“ portType="tns:Manufacturer“ operation="initiate"
variable="input“ createInstance="yes"/>
:
<bpws:if name="Validated">
<bpws:condition expressionLanguage="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116"><!
[CDATA[$input.payload/tns:orderNumber!="" && $$input.payload/tns:productCode!="" && $
$input.payload/tns:quantity>0 && $$input.payload/tns:fromCompany!=""]]></bpws:condition>
<bpws:sequence>
<bpws:sequence name="Feasibility check-Evaluate order">
<bpws:flow name="Feasibility check">
<bpws:invoke name="Check inventory" partnerLink="production" operation="InventoryStatus"
inputVariable="productionRequest" outputVariable="productionResponse"/>
:
<bpws:reply name="Ask for Clarification" partnerLink="customer" operation="GetResult"
variable="customerResponse"></bpws:reply>
</bpws:elseif>
</bpws:if>
<bpws:invoke name="end“ partnerLink="client” portType="tns:ManufacturerCallback”
operation="onResult“ inputVariable="output” /> 3
</bpws:sequence>
</bpws:process>

Figure 22: Completing the BPEL file by adding implementation details in Eclipse BPEL Visual
Designer

46
Manufacturers Databases Applications Web Extensible
services Computing

HTTP
Designers
Web BPEL BPEL Business
BPEL
browsers
Applications

Security access control

Order Materials
Procurement etc… (Apache ODE)

Hibernate
Management Monitoring
Engineers WAP
Wireless
System User Layout Portal Interface DB
devices (MySQL)
Management Management Management (Liferay)

Distributors SOAP
Struts Axis
Communication
Web
services Servlet Servlet
WSDL Layer
(Apache Tomcat)
Suppliers
Clients SC Collaborator (Java)

Figure 23: System architecture of the SC Collaborator system

App 1 Source 1
Wrapper App 3 Wrapper App 2 Service Deployment of
Web services Wrapper Web services Wrapper Source 2 Applications and
WSDL Web services Web services Wrapper Information Sources
WSDL
WSDL WSDL Web services
WSDL

SCOR Level 4
BPEL (D2.2) BPEL (P4.4) Models
BPEL (D2.3)
WSDL WSDL
SC Collaborator

WSDL

BPEL (Stocked) SCOR Level 3

WSDL BPEL (MTO) BPEL (Custom)
Models
WSDL WSDL

Application Application Application

Portlet Unit Portlet Unit Portlet Unit
Portlet Integration
Portlet gateway Portlet gateway Portlet gateway

Centralized Management
SC Collaborator Layout
and User Interface

Figure 24: Incorporating SCOR Level 3 and Level 4 models in SC Collaborator

47
 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<definitions xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" xmlns:plnk="http://docs.oasis-
open.org/wsbpel/2.0/plnktype" xmlns:tns="http://eig.stanford.edu/bpel" name="Manufacturer"
targetNamespace="http://eig.stanford.edu/bpel"
xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/">
<plnk:partnerLinkType name="CustomerPLT">
<plnk:role name="CustomerServiceProvider" portType="wsdl:customer"/>
</plnk:partnerLinkType>
<plnk:partnerLinkType name="ProdPLT">
<plnk:role name="ProductionProvider" portType="wsdl1:production"/>
<plnk:role name="ProductionRequester" portType="wsdl1:production"/>
</plnk:partnerLinkType>

<types><schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" attributeFormDefault="unqualified"

elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://eig.stanford.edu/bpel">
<element name="ManufacturerRequest">
<complexType><sequence>
<element name="fromCompany" type="string" />
<element name="orderNumber" type="string" />
<element name="product" type="string"></element> Schema of the
<element name="productCode" type="string" /> incoming messages
<element name="quantity" type="int" />
<element name="color" type="string"></element>
<element name="price" type="string"></element>
<element name="delivery" type="string" />
<element name="notes" type="string"></element>
</sequence></complexType>
</element>
<element name="ManufacturerResponse">
<complexType><sequence>
<element name="result" type="string"/>
</sequence></complexType>
</element>
</schema></types>

<message name="ManufacturerRequestMessage">
<part element="tns:ManufacturerRequest" name="payload"/>
</message>
<message name="ManufacturerResponseMessage">
<part element="tns:ManufacturerResponse" name="payload"/>
</message>

<portType name="Manufacturer">
<operation name="initiate"><input message="tns:ManufacturerRequestMessage"/></operation>
</portType>
... ...

<service name="Manufacturer">
<port name="ManufacturerSOAP" binding="tns:ManufacturerSOAP">
<soap:address location="http://eig.stanford.edu/bpel" /> Address for invocation
</port>
</service>
<service name="ManufacturerCallback">
<port name="ManufacturerCallbackSOAP" binding="tns:ManufactureCallbackSOAP">
<soap:address location="http://eig.stanford.edu/bpel" />
</port>
</service>
</definitions>

Figure 25: WSDL file for the deployed BPEL process “Manu D2.2 Receive, Configure, Enter &
Validate Order”

48
Figure 26: General contractor registering the distributors and manufacturers

49
 Figure 27: SCOR status checking in SC Collaborator

Relatively long time for

procurement preparation

Products were delivered on-

time, but some with incorrect Some products were not
shipping document delivered in perfect condition

Figure 28: Supply chain performance monitoring in SC Collaborator

50
 Table 1: Examples of supply chain performance metrics used in the case example

SCOR Supply Chain Processes SCOR Performance Metrics

(P: Plan; S: Source; M: Make; D: (RL: reliability; RS: responsiveness; CO: costs; AM: asset
Deliver) management)
P1.4 Establish & Communicate  (RS) Establish Supply Chain Plans Cycle Time
Supply-Chain Plans
P2.4 Establish Sourcing Plans  (RS) Establish Sourcing Plans Cycle Time
P3.4 Establish Production Plans  (RS) Establish Production Plans Cycle Time
P4.4 Establish Delivery Plans  (RS) Establish Delivery Plans Cycle Time
S1.1 S2.1 S3.3 Schedule Product  (RS) Schedule Product Deliveries Cycle Time
Deliveries  (RS) Average Days per Schedule Change
 (CO) Quantity per shipment
S1.2 S2.2 S3.4 Receive Product  (RL) % Orders/ Lines Received On-Time
 (RL) % Orders/ Lines Received with Correct Shipping
Documents
 (RS) Receiving Product Cycle Time
S1.3 S2.3S3.5 Verify Product  (RL) % Orders/ Lines Received Defect Free
 (RL) % Orders/ lines Received with Correct Content
 (RS) Verify Product Cycle Time
M1.1 M2.1 Schedule Production  (RS) Schedule Production Activities Cycle Time
Activities  (AM) Capacity Utilization
M2.2 M3.3 Issue Sourced/ In-Process  (RS) Issue Sourced/In-Process Product Cycle Time
Product  (CO) Quantity per Shipment
M2.3 Produce and Test  (RL) Yield
 (RS) Produce and Test Cycle Time
 (AM) Capacity Utilization
D1.1 D2.1 Process Inquiry and Quote  (RS) Process Inquiry & Quote Cycle Time
D1.2 D2.2 Receive, Enter and  (RS) Receive, Enter & Validate Order Cycle Time
Validate Order
D1.3 D2.3 Reserve Inventory and  (RL) % of Orders Delivered In Full
Determine Delivery Date  (RS) Reserve Inventory & Determine Delivery Date
Cycle Time
D1.8 D2.8 D3.8 Receive Product from  (RL) % correct material documentation
Source or Make  (RS) Receive Product from Source or Make Cycle Time

Table 2: Conversion table from BPMN elements to BPEL elements

BPMN element type “activityType” attribute value Converted BPEL element

Event EventStartEmpty <bpws:empty>
Event EventEndEmpty <bpws:empty>

51
Activity Task, or null <bpws:empty>
<bpws:if>, <bpws:elseif>,
Gateway GatewayDataBasedExclusive
<bpws:else>
Gateway GatewayDataBasedInclusive <bpws:if>
Gateway GatewayParallel <bpws:flow>

52