The role of public actors in construction logistics: effects on and of relational interfaces

Figures & data

Figure 1. The construction logistics setup triad embedded in the wider network.

Figure 2. Identified interfaces in the hospital project.

Figure 3. Identified interfaces in the city development project.

Table 1. Features of the projects in the two cases.

Type of construction project	Project-specific logistics setup	Location of construction/ development project	Scope of construction/ development project	Construction/development project time-frame	Data collection
The hospital project	Yes	Central location, adjacent to existing operations and business locations	4 new buildings 66,000 m^2 of hospital area. Renovation and re-build of existing hospital	7 years	28 interviews, 2 site visits
The city development project	Yes	Central city location, adjacent to existing housing, business locations, and ports	12,000 apartments and single-family houses 35,000 new workplaces	25 years	25 interviews, 7 site visits

Table 2. Interviews in the study.

	Companies	Number of interviews and function of interviewee
The hospital project	LSP – site staff	8 (2 logistics managers, 2 logistics coordinators, 1 material delivery planner, 1 work manager, 1 arrival controller, 1 quality manager)
	LSP – central management	6 (2 business developers, 2 logistics consultants, 2 materials handling managers)
	Four contractors	4 (3 site managers, 1 work manager)
	Two subcontractors	2 (2 work managers)
	Two distributors	3 (1 logistics manager, 1 store manager, 1 sales manager)
	Transportation firm	2 (1 transport leader, 1 chauffeur)
	Management consultancy firm	1 (1 project manager)
	Materials manufacturer	1 (1 sales manager)
	Project management firm	1 (1 project manager)
The city development project	Municipality	4 (1 development area manager)
	LSP	9 (4 CLS managers, 2 logistics coordinators, 1 arrival controller)
	Four contractors	4 (3 site managers, 2 logistics coordinators)
	Eight developers/clients	8 (8 project managers)

Table 3. Interfaces in the CLS triad and their effects on costs, productivity and innovativity.

	Interface type	Costs	Productivity	Innovativity
The hospital project	Developer - Contractor: translational interface (a)	None (no contract for logistics services)	None (no contract for logistics services)	Loss of opportunity for the contractor to innovate its logistics services
	Developer - LSP: translational interface (b)	No costs for the developer, no costs for the LSP	On site: Increased productivity due to LSP’s ability to use standard CLS operations	Limited opportunity for innovation as the developer lacks knowledge of the LSP’s context
	Developer - Contractor: specified interface (c)	Cost for the CLS enforced on the contractors	On site: Increased productivity for contractors if adjusting to the requirements from the developer regarding use of the CLS	None as contractors must adapt to the developer’s requirements
	Contractor - LSP: standardised interface (d)	Costs for the contractor for using the CLS	On site: Increased productivity for materials handling and construction activities	The coordination meetings held by the LSP facilitated contractor interactions and joint problem-solving regarding materials supply
	Contractor – Suppliers: specified interface (e)	Costs for suppliers due to need of adaptations to the CLS	Off site: Decreased productivity for materials supply and manufacturing	None: suppliers must adapt to the contractors’ requirements
The city development project	City of Stockholm – LSP: interactive interface (f)	None as the City of Stockholm does not pay for operation of the CLS	On site: Potential increase of productivity Off site: potential increase in productivity in regard to transports to site	The CSL as an innovative setup based on combined knowledge and experiences Put focus upon logistics from the beginning of projects The LSP perceives hinders for continuous improvements over time when the CLS is operationalised.
	City of Stockholm - Developers: specified interface (g)	Costs for the CLS paid by developers in land allocation	None	None: developers must adapt to the requirements by the City of Stockholm
	Developers – LSP: specified interface (h)	Costs for developers as indirect customers to the LSP	None	–
	Developer - Contractor: specified interface (i)	Costs for the CLS enforced on the contractors.	On site: Potential increase of productivity of contractors if adaptations to the requirements from the developer regarding use of the CLS	None: contractors must adapt to developers’ requirements
	Contractor - LSP: standardised interface (j)	Costs for contractors for mandatory logistics services. Less income than expected for LSP: sell less than promised of extra services.	On site: Increased productivity for materials handling and construction activities. On site: Reduced productivity in planning for contractors due to allocation of more resources and time for planning	The possibility of storing and calling off materials in smaller batches were considered positive by the contractors. The activity coordination meetings held by the LSP facilitated the interactions among contractors and joint problem-solving regarding materials supply.
	Contractor – Suppliers: specified interface (k)	Costs for suppliers due to need of adaptations to the CLS	No particular effects observed	None: suppliers must adapt to the contractors’ requirements