European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 5 (1999) 1 — 11 Rework: a symptom of a dysfunctional supply-chain Peter E.D. Love *, Heng Li, Purnendu Mandal  School of Architecture and Building, Woolstores Campus, Deaking University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia  Department of Building and Real Estate, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Hong Kong School of Engineering and Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia Abstract This paper describes and presents findings from a detailed case study that sought to acquire an in-depth understanding of ‘why’ and ‘how’ rework occurred the way it did in a structural steel supply-chain. The findings from the case study indicate that the cause of rework was primarily attributable to the sequential nature of the supply-chain, which resulted in poor communication and decision-making being experienced. This was found to be further exacerbated by the absence of a quality focus during the design process, which resulted in the supply-chain becoming dysfunctional inasmuch as rework emerged downstream in the production process. A conceptual model for improving the effectiveness of a supply-chain and thus minimising the incidence of rework is presented and discussed.  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Quality; Customer satisfaction; Supply-chain; Information flow; Rework 1. Introduction The success of a construction project can be evaluated by the degree to which it meets its customers needs and requirements. Numerous factors that can influence the successful completion of a project have been identified (Ashley et al., 1987; Pinto and Slevin, 1988). The experi- ence of project participants such as the client, consul- tants, subcontractors and suppliers and the character- istics of the project also play a significant role in deter- mining a project’s success (Kometa et al., 1995). Most construction industry clients endeavor to select and ap- point their project team on their experience in relation to the type of project being undertaken (Russell and Skib- niewski, 1988; Holt et al., 1994). Contractors also select their subcontractors on a similar basis, but place increas- ing emphasis on ability to meet programme, quality assurance, and price (Tucker et al., 1996). More importantly, the successful execution of a project will be dependent on how customers in the supply-chain understand each other’s information needs and require- ments so that their tasks can be performed efficiently and effectively. * Corresponding author. Tel.: 00 61 3 52 27 1100; fax: 00 61 3 5227 8303; e-mail: pedlove@deakin.edu.a Tasks in projects are typically divided into functional disciplines, which operate independently. Invariably each discipline makes decisions without considering its impact on others. These functional disciplines often develop their own objectives, goals and value systems. As a result, each discipline has become dedicated to the optimization of its own function with little regard to, or understanding of, its effects on the project performance. The interfaces that exist between functional disciplines have become a potential barrier for effective and efficient communication and coordination in projects (Love and Gunasekaran, 1997a). When a breakdown in commun- ication occurs the source of the problem can be traced- back along the supply-chain and it often become evident that there were ‘informational flow mishaps’ somewhere in the process (Kazi and Charoenngam, 1996). This is not necessarily linked to information transfer, but directed towards information sharing and channeling (Kazi and Charoenngam, 1996). Information that is inaccurate or delayed is often not filtered and delegated to specified parameters. Consequently, rework may occur as a result of ineffective decision-making. This is often exacerbated by the ab- sence of a systematic quality information system, which has caused disciplines to develop local insular systems in attempt to maintain control over their own domains 0969-7012/99/$ — see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 7 0 1 2 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 1 7 - 3