International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Assessing criticality of construction materials for

prioritizing their procurement using ANP-TOPSIS

Santu Kar & Kumar Neeraj Jha

To cite this article: Santu Kar & Kumar Neeraj Jha (2020): Assessing criticality of construction
materials for prioritizing their procurement using ANP-TOPSIS, International Journal of Construction
Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1742637

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1742637

Published online: 28 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1742637

Assessing criticality of construction materials for prioritizing their procurement

using ANP-TOPSIS
Santu Kar and Kumar Neeraj Jha
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Construction materials contribute to 50-60% of the project cost, and thus material management becomes ANP; construction schedule;
very important. Prioritization of procurement of materials is rarely linked with construction schedule of a construction industry;
project which creates problems, especially in a budget constraint situation. Thus, the purpose of this material manage-
ment; TOPSIS
study is to integrate material management with construction schedule and to prioritize construction
materials for procurement. To address this, total criticality (TC) of nine construction materials are deter-
mined by combining material criticality (MC) and activity criticality (AC). A total of seven criteria for deter-
mining MC has been identified and subsequently, based on the responses from two stage questionnaire
surveys conducted among material management experts in leading construction companies in India,
weights of the criteria are determined using ANP (analytic network process). The volatility in price of
material is found to have the highest criteria weight (0.344) followed by percentage contribution (0.194),
lead time (0.125), customers’ specificity (0.112), environmental implication (0.090), buyer’s dependence on
suppliers (0.077), and flexibility (0.058). Considering the criteria weights and based on the inputs from
project professionals, MC values of materials are calculated using TOPSIS (technique for order preference
by similarity to an ideal solution). AC values are determined using float available in associated activities
of the project. Among the nine building materials considered in this study, TC value of structural steel
(0.866) is found to be the highest followed by reinforcement bar (0.671), cement (0.457), autoclave aer-
ated concrete block (0.381), coarse aggregate (0.323), tiles (0.249), sand (0.238), plywood (0.198), and bid-
ing wire (0.070). This study will support construction professionals in material management decisions,
ensuring timely availability of materials and ultimately reducing time and cost overrun in a construc-
tion project.

Introduction are carried out independently in construction projects (Dodin

and Elimam 2001). Typically, in a construction project, planning
The construction industry is a fast-growing sector and a vital
engineers/managers work on the construction schedule and do
contributor to the growth of an economy (Gurmu 2019). The
not have much information related to supply of materials, such
contribution of the construction industry to global economy will as lead time, suppliers’ availability, and volatility in price of
increase to about 15% of the global GDP by 2020 (Schilling materials as they do not deal with the suppliers directly. On the
2013). The growth of the construction industry demands massive other hand, procurement engineers/managers have these infor-
consumption of materials in construction projects. Typically, mation but, they do not have other important information such
materials account for 50-60% of the total cost of a construction as project network characteristics, percentage contribution of a
project (Caldas et al. 2014). Hence, material management material in an activity, flexibility to carry out the activity in case
becomes very important in the construction industry. A system- a particular material is not available, etc. A material management
atic material management process contributes to better schedul- policy which assimilates all of these information and incorpo-
ing, reduced costs, improved productivity, quality, and a safer rates construction schedule as well, would help the project team
working environment (Jusoh and Kasim 2017; Gurmu 2018, to make effective coordination and decision making pertaining
2019). However, an emphasis on material management in the to material management.
construction industry is mostly overlooked and ineffective mater- Further, in a construction project, a limited budget is allotted
ial management practices are evident in many projects (Ibn- for material procurement for a certain period. Thus, the avail-
Homaid 2002; Thomas et al. 2005; Jusoh and Kasim 2017). ability of limited budget restricts the procurement of all materials
Acquiring the right material at the right time from the right at the same time (Dixit et al. 2013). Besides, it is required to give
source helps in timely and budgeted completion of a construc- more attention to the materials which have some important cri-
tion project. For achieving this, a material management policy teria such as long lead time, high percentage contribution, less
that incorporates the construction schedule is essential (Dixit flexibility, high volatility in price and more buyer dependency.
et al. 2013). Integration of material management with construc- For example, a long lead material requires a higher degree of
tion schedule makes the project more realistic. However, these coordination with supplier and its delivery might be delayed if

CONTACT Santu Kar [email protected]

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1742637.
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. KAR AND K. N. JHA

appropriate care is not taken (Dixit et al. 2015; Gurmu 2018). Literature review
Therefore, it is essential to prioritize procurement of materials
considering these criteria, especially when faced with budget con- Material management system in construction industry is not well
straint situation, to avail the right materials at the right time at developed like in manufacturing industry (Ibn-Homaid 2002; Jha
right cost in a construction project. Non-availability of materials 2015; Jusoh and Kasim 2017). Material management studies in
construction industry are primarily focused on material manage-
when required leads to a penalty in the form of time overrun,
ment practices and issues (Kasim et al. 2005; Navon and
cost overrun, and loss of productivity (Koushki and Kartam
Berkovich 2006; Caldas et al. 2014; Gurmu 2018). Studies were
2004). As, these costs are not evident upfront and they are
also conducted to address procurement and storage of construc-
intractable, it is difficult to assess the penalty. Criticality of mate-
tion materials on site. These include providing fundamental prin-
rials is an indication of the relative measure of the penalty, due
ciples of site material management and storage (Thomas et al.
to their non-availability. The penalty can be minimized or
2005); comparing just-in-time and just-in-case procurement of
avoided if materials are prioritized for procurement based on
materials (Polat and Arditi 2005); developing decision support
their criticality values (Dixit et al. 2013, 2015). A material man-
system to make material supply chain economical (Polat et al.
agement policy assessing criticality of materials will definitely
2007); and optimizing material procurement and storage on con-
support timely and budgeted completion of construc-
struction site (Said and El-Rayes 2010). However, these studies
tion projects.
did not incorporate the prioritization of materials for procure-
Huiskonen (2001) introduced overall criticality of materials
ment and storage, although it is an important aspect in the
and developed material management strategy based on the pen-
budget constraint situation in a construction project.
alty, due to non-availability of materials. Molenaers et al. (2012)
Typically, project scheduling and material management are
described criticality of materials as an important parameter in
carried out independently in a construction project (Dodin and
material management decisions. However, these studies had Elimam 2001). Shtub (1988) developed a mathematical model to
focused on spare parts of equipment. Dixit et al. (2013, 2015) integrate material management with construction program con-
addressed criticality of materials in the context of manufacturing sidering inventories, lead time and expediting cost in a large
of complex products such as those required in ship building construction project. Dodin and Elimam (2001) developed a
projects, based on some criteria and considering project network mathematical model to integrate project scheduling and material
characteristics. However, sustainability aspect of materials (envir- planning. The model yields an optimal project and material
onmental implication), volatility in price of materials was not schedule. Although, these models included the penalty due to
considered which are also important criteria for the assessment overall project delay, but did not capture the penalty due to
of criticality. Besides, they did not consider the interdependen- non-availability of individual material. Yeo and Ning (2006)
cies among the criteria. The complex decision making problem developed a framework to integrate critical chain project man-
in real life may contain interdependencies among the criteria. agement with supply chain management. However, it did not
Considering the criteria as independent may lead to less optimal assist to prioritize materials based on penalty due to the non-
decision (Abdel-Basset et al. 2018). Though, ANP (analytic net- availability of materials.
work process) facilitates in optimal decision making as it incor- A material management strategy based on penalty was intro-
porates interdependencies among the criteria, yet it was not used duced by Huiskonen (2001) defining two measures: (1) process
in the previous studies for the assessment of criticality. Purnell criticality which is associated with the penalties due to loss of
et al. (2013) introduced criticality of materials in infrastructure work and (2) control criticality which is related to the uncer-
projects but, the researchers did not incorporate construction tainty of items’ supply. In addition, the researcher described that
schedule in material management decisions. Few studies reported an item with a higher percentage contribution for the completion
sustainability aspect of materials for defining criticality sans of an activity is more critical than others. Also, project network
assessment (Knoeri et al. 2013; Nieto et al. 2013; Gl€ oser et al. characteristics such as activity float and supply environment
2015; Ku et al. 2018). But, these were in the context of raw mate- characteristics such as lead time, buyer’s dependencies, and
rials or alloy materials. Moreover, criteria of material criticality uniqueness of items contribute to the criticality of items.
include both positive criteria (i.e., an increase in their value will Molenaers et al. (2012) described that criticality of materials is
increase material criticality) and negative criteria (i.e., an increase an important decision aid in material management decision.
in their value will decrease material criticality). Although, Sudjatmiko and Sahroni (2018) determined criticality of equip-
TOPSIS (technique of order preference by similarity to ideal ment and items, and categorized them into high critical, medium
solution) method can handle both the criteria, none of the study critical, low critical, and non-critical. To combine the equipment
adopted this method for assessing material criticality. criticality and item criticality both, they used the risk matrix.
The present study addressed the above shortcomings. In this However, these studies were in the context of spare parts.
study, the authors have introduced three important measures of Knobloch et al. (2018) described the three dimensions of critical-
penalty due to non- availability of materials: material criticality ity: risk or likelihood of supply interruption, vulnerability to sup-
(MC), activity criticality (AC), and total criticality (TC). MC is ply shortages, and environmental implication in the context of
the criticality of materials concerning the activity whereas, TC is automobile industry. Further, Kim et al. (2019) recognized 11
the criticality of materials concerning the overall project, and it indicators of material criticality which were categorized into
incorporates project network characteristics by considering an three criteria namely supply risk, vulnerability, and economic
additional prioritization measure called activity criticality (AC). risk. They developed a hierarchical model to assess the raw
Procurement based on TC values will ensure that critical materi- material criticality with weighted indicators. To avoid subjective
als for critical activities are procured first. Furthermore, as the and individual judgement for evaluating the weights of indica-
TC values incorporate both material perspective and project per- tors, the researchers used a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in
spective, it can be adopted as the measure of shortage cost coeffi- their study.
cient in the inventory model. Shortage cost coefficient is the cost Further, Dixit et al. (2013) described the integration of mater-
per unit lateness per unit price of an item. ial management with project management in the context of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3

manufacturing of complex products. The criteria such as per- material criticality in supply chain collaboration. They concluded
centage contribution, customer specificity, lead time, flexibility, that a greater partnership is required to be developed for a
and the buyer’s dependence were considered by the researcher higher critical material. Criticality was used for material classifi-
for the prioritization of materials. However, they did not con- cation in some studies (Chu et al. 2008; Yu 2011). These studies
sider the interdependencies among the criteria for this purpose. used categorical inputs to address criticality. However, they did
In a real life situation, interdepencies exist among the criteria not provide details of factors of criticality for its assessment.
and interdependent relationship needs to be considered in a This research is an attempt to fulfill the above gaps. Thus the
decision making problem (Ravi et al. 2008). Besides, some other purpose of this study is to integrate material management with
important criteria such as volatility in price of materials and sus- construction schedule and to prioritize the construction materials
tainability aspect of materials was not considered in their study. for procurement by assessing their criticality.
Typically, materials such as cement, reinforcement bars, and
aggregates are required in bulk quantity in a construction pro-
ject. Thus, any changes in the unit price of these materials can Research methodology
greatly impact the total procurement cost of the materials. Thus,
volatility in price is an important criterion for the assessment of This research was conducted focusing on material management
criticality of materials. Importance of price volatility of materials in the construction industry. In this study, material criticality
was also pointed by Lapko et al. (2016) in the context of manu- (MC) values, activity criticality (AC) values, and total criticality
facturing projects. (TC) values of materials were calculated. To assess the MC val-
Hallstedt and Isaksson (2017) explained that sustainability ues, initially, the criteria of MC were identified by reviewing the
aspects had an impact on criticality. Knoeri et al. (2013) literature and discussion with the experts involved in material
explained the importance of environmental implication for deter- management. Then, the significant criteria were selected, and the
mining the criticality of raw materials. They described that envir- interdependent relationships between the criteria were deter-
onmental implication could restrict the material supply. Gl€ oser mined based on the responses collected through the 1st stage
et al. (2015) addressed supply risk, vulnerability, and environ- questionnaire survey among the group of experts. Conducting
mental implication to assess the criticality of materials. Lloyd the 2nd stage questionnaire survey among the group of experts
et al. (2012) described that environmental limitation would cause and using ANP (analytic network process) method, the weight of
stricter legislation and hence will restrict the supply of materials. the criteria was obtained considering their interdependencies.
However, these studies were in the context of raw materials or Further, the MC values of materials were calculated using
alloy materials. Besides, these studies did not include the assess- TOPSIS (technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal
ment of criticality of materials. Environmental implication also solution) method considering the weight of the criteria and
has a significant role in the assessment of criticality of construc- based on the inputs for the materials from the literature and pro-
tion materials. For example, blasting materials which is required ject professionals in an institutional building project. The AC
for the construction of an underground structure, is a critical values of materials were calculated based on the float available
material due to its high environmental impact. Procurement of for the activities to which they are associated. Finally combining
such material involves a high level of planning and approvals MC values and AC values, the TC values of materials were deter-
from many authorities. Besides, procurement and storage of such
mined. The results were validated by conducting the 3rd stage
materials also involve many restrictions such as limitation of
questionnaire survey. The overall research approach has been
procurement quantity, transportation restriction, maximum
presented in Figure 1, and the different steps are described in
quantity of storage, and location of storage area. Further,
the following subsections.
Kolotzek et al. (2018) explained that organizations intended to
adopt the environmental aspects for the selection of materials by
the pressure from customers or competitors.
Identification of criteria of material criticality
Purnell et al. (2013) introduced criticality of materials in
infrastructure projects. The researchers described that criteria Initially, the six criteria of MC were identified from literature
such as geological reserves, geopolitics, and increasing demand and through the discussion with the experts. These include per-
could disrupt the supply of critical materials. However, this study centage contribution (PC), flexibility (FE), lead time (LT), cus-
demonstrated the criticality of materials in the context of raw tomers’ specificity (CS), buyer’s dependence on suppliers (BD),
materials. Lapko et al. (2016) described that the materials with and environmental implication (EI). The criteria and their rela-
high economic importance and high supply constraints are tionship with MC were reviewed by the three experts with more
claimed to be critical but did not incorporate project network than 25 years experience in the material management in Indian
characteristics for addressing criticality. constriction industry and additional criteria termed ‘volatility in
Further, the impact of uncertainties in material supply on price of materials’ was identified from the discussion with
project budget was captured by Liu and Lu (2018). They the experts.
described that supply chain of materials is complicated and risky
in a construction project that makes the planning of crew oper-
ation in the field critical. Thus, incorporation of material logistics Selection of the significant criteria and determination of the
is important for deriving the project schedule. They developed a interrelationship among the criteria
resource constrained scheduling optimization model to incorpor-
ate material logistics constraints. Griffin et al. (2019) described In this step, the significant criteria were selected, and interrela-
that all sizes of organizations are vulnerable to the supply disrup- tionship among the criteria was determined based on the 1st
tion of critical materials. It could be due to natural disasters, pol- stage questionnaire survey among a group of experts who have
itics, scarcity of materials in the market, and volatility in extensive experience and knowledge of material management in
demand. Leeuw and Fransoo (2009) described the importance of the Indian construction industry.
4 S. KAR AND K. N. JHA

Identify criteria of MC from literature and discussion with experts

Assess the AC values of materials based on associated activity float obtained from the
Select the significant criteria and determine interrelationship
among the criteria based on 1st stage questionnaire survey

Determine weight of the criteria (wc) using ANP based on 2nd

stage questionnaire survey in 3 steps:
Step 1: Determine weight of the criteria (w1) without considering

construction schedule of the case project

interdependencies
Step 2: Determine interdependence matrix of criteria (w2) by
considering interrelationship among the criteria
Step 3: Determine weight of the criteria (wc) with
interdependencies by multiplying w2 with w1

Assess the MC values of materials using TOPSIS considering

weight of the criteria (wc) in 4 steps:
Step 1: Develop decision matrix based on the inputs for the
materials extracted from literature and from the project
professionals in the case project
Step 2: Develop normalized and weighted normalized decision
matrix considering criteria weights (wc)
Step 3: Determine positive ideal solution and negative ideal
solution
Step 4: Determine separation measures from ideal solutions and
calculate relative closeness to the positive ideal solution that
represents MC values of materials

MC values of materials AC values of materials

Determine the TC values of materials by multiplying the MC values with the AC

values, and rank the materials based on their TC values

Validation of the results

Figure 1. Overall Research Approach.

1st stage questionnaire design circulated questionnaire, 14 (27%) completed responses from 12
The first section of the questionnaire consists of respondent’s organizations were received, which is comparable or higher than
information such as name, total experience in construction, those adopted in similar past studies by Ravi et al. (2008), Wu
experience in material management, job responsibility, and et al. (2010), Azimi et al. (2011), Liao et al. (2015), and Abdel-
organization’s role in the project. In the second section of the Basset et al. (2018).The respondents have a work experience of
questionnaire, the experts were asked to rate their level of agree- ten to thirty-five years in the construction industry.
ment on the selection of the MC criteria using a five-point The significant criteria of MC were selected based on the
Likert scale from ‘strongly agree’ ¼ 5 to ‘strongly disagree’ ¼ 1. mean value of the responses on the level of agreement. Also,
In the third section, the experts were asked to rate the effect of the interrelationship between the criteria was identified based on
one criterion on to the other using a Likert scale of 1-5. Here, 1 the mean value of the responses on the effect of one criterion
represents ‘very less effect’ and 5 represents ‘very high effect’. to another.
For example, it was asked to rate the effect of PC on FE, LT, CS,
BD, EI, and VP. Similarly, the questionnaire includes the ques-
tions to evaluate the effect of other criteria. Determination of weight of criteria
The 2nd stage questionnaire survey was carried out to obtain the
Questionnaire data collection and analysis relative importance of criteria by comparing them pairwise. The
The Indian construction sector comprises of several large-, questionnaire was developed based on the interrelationship
medium- and small-sized organizations. However, it was chal- among the criteria.
lenging to cover the entire population. Thus, this study focused
on covering the top ten private as well as public construction
organizations (total 20), which executes more than 50 percentage 2nd stage questionnaire design
of the country’s construction works. Though there is no rigid In the first section of the questionnaire, the experts were asked
requirement of a minimum sample size for ANP (Ravi et al. to evaluate the criteria by comparing them pairwise with respect
2008; Abdel-Basset et al. 2018), the questionnaires were adminis- to MC without assuming their interdependencies on a 1 9 scale
tered to 52 material management experts (comprised of project as suggested by Saaty (1990). Here, 1 represents ‘equal import-
managers, planning engineers, store engineers, and procurement ance,’ and 9 represents ‘extreme importance’ when comparing
engineers) from the selected 20 organizations. Among the one criterion over another. In the second section of the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5

questionnaire, the experts were asked to evaluate the criteria con- Assessment of total criticality
sidering their interrelationship and by comparing them pairwise
After calculating MC values and AC values, the final step was to
on the 1 9 scale.
calculate the total criticality (TC) of materials. The TC values of
materials were determined by multiplying MC and AC values
Questionnaire data collection and analysis using Eq. (2). A critical activity cannot be delayed as it will
The same 14 experts who evaluated the interdependence rela- increase the overall project duration. Thus, a material required
tionship among the criteria, were also selected for this question- for a critical activity will have higher criticality. However, the
naire survey as the questionnaire was developed considering the same material, if required for a non-critical activity will have
interrelationship among the criteria obtained based on their lower criticality as this activity can be afforded to be delayed
responses. However, two of them did not respond to this ques- without delaying the project duration. Therefore, TC values of
tionnaire survey. Based on the responses from 12 experts, the materials are directly related to their AC values (Dixit et al.
weight of the criteria was determined using ANP technique in 2013).
the Super Decisions 2.10 (SD) software. The ANP technique was TCik ¼ MCi  ACik (2)
adopted for obtaining the precise weights of criteria as it consid-
ers collective effort from a group of experts, and gives a better where MCi is the material criticality value of the ith material.
TCik and ACik is the total criticality and the activity criticality
structure for decision support, and also considers interdependen-
value of ith material associated with activity k.
cies among the criteria.

Validation of the results

Assessment of material criticality
After assessing the TC values, the research outcomes were vali-
The weight of the criteria obtained from ANP technique was
dated by conducting the 3rd stage questionnaire survey.
used to assess the material criticality (MC) values of materials.
Although, the initial target was to validate the rank of the criteria
An institutional building project was considered as a case project
and materials using real project data, the required data on pen-
and materials used in that project was taken for calculating MC
alty due to non-availability of materials were not obtained as it
values using the TOPSIS method. Although many materials were
was not maintained by the organisations. Besides, practitioners
used in that project, only significantly used materials such as: (1)
used their own experience and perception for prioritizing the
structural steel, (2) reinforcement bars, (3) cement, (4) plywood,
materials for procurement. Thus, a structured interview using
(5) coarse aggregate, (6) sand, (7) binding wire, (8) autoclaved questionnaire was conducted for validation of the results. It was
aerated concrete (AAC) blocks, and (9) tiles were considered in performed with a group of experts in leading construction com-
this study. Input for these materials for the above-mentioned panies in India who are familiar in material management and
seven criteria were collected from three project professionals did not participate in the previous surveys. The experts were
involved in the material management process in that project. asked to rate the criteria based on their importance with respect
Based on the inputs and criteria weight, the MC values of mate- to the material criticality on a nine-point scale from ‘least
rials were calculated using the TOPSIS method. The criteria of importance ¼ 10 to ‘extremely high importance ¼ 9’. Further,
MC include both positive and negative criteria. The TOPSIS they were asked to rate the above mentioned nine materials
method was adopted because it can incorporate both positive based on their criticality level in a construction project on a
and negative criteria in the analysis. Positive criteria and negative nine-point scale from ‘least critical ¼ 10 to ‘extremely high
criteria are the criteria which have a direct relationship and critical ¼ 9’. The questionnaire data was analyzed using descrip-
inverse relationship with MC respectively. The MC value tive statistical analysis to rank the criteria and materials.
increases with the increase of the positive criteria value of the Further, Spearman’s rank correlation (R) test was performed
material whereas, the MC value decreases with the increase of using SPSS 21 software to check the agreement between the
the negative criteria value of the material. ranks obtained from this study and the 3rd stage survey. R value
represents correlation between two groups on the rankings. It
ranges from 1 to þ1 and a higher value represents better cor-
Assessment of activity criticality relation. An R value more than and less than zero indicates posi-
After calculating the MC values, the next step was to calculate tive and negative correlation respectively.
activity criticality (AC) values of materials. For this, the activities
associated with the nine materials as mentioned above in the
Results and analysis
building project were identified. From the construction schedule,
the float for the activities was determined and based on this the Selection of significant criteria of material criticality
AC values of materials were calculated. Traditionally, in the crit-
The seven criteria and their relationship with material criticality
ical path method, a critical activity is the activity which has zero
(MC) as identified from the literature and discussion with the
float. Criticality increases as the float decreases. Based on this
experts are described below.
concept, authors developed Eq. (1) for the calculation of AC val-
ues of materials.
f Percentage contribution (PC)
ACik ¼ 1 Pk (1) It is the percentage contribution of material for completion of
fk
the activity. Each activity requires some materials and each
where ACik is the AC value of the ith material associated with material accounts for a certain percentage contribution to the
activity k and fk is its float. activity. A material with a higher PC leads to a higher penalty
6 S. KAR AND K. N. JHA

due to its non-availability. Thus, PC is directly related to MC the weight of the criteria by ANP. Through the 1st stage ques-
(Huiskonen 2001; Dixit et al. 2013, 2015). tionnaire survey, the effect of one criterion to others was cap-
tured on a 1-5 scale, and the mean value of the responses was
calculated. It was considered that a particular criterion affects
Flexibility (FE) another criterion if the mean value obtained was more than 3
It is the possibility to carry out an activity adopting other ways
(Ahuja et al. 2009). For example, the mean value of the effect of
or using other alternative materials, in case the material is not
percentage contribution (PC) on flexibility (FE) was obtained as
available. A material with lower FE will cause higher penalty as
3.8. However, the mean value of the effect of FE on PC was 2.6.
the possibility to carry out the associated activity is lesser. Thus,
Therefore, PC affects FE, but FE does not affect PC. The result-
FE is inversely related to MC (Dixit et al. 2013, 2015).
ing network structure is shown in Figure 2.
From Figure 2, it can be observed that LT, CS, BD, and VP
Lead time (LT) affect PC; PC and VP affect FE; PC, BD, and VP affect LT; LT
It is the time to deliver a material to the construction site after and BD affect CS; PC, FE, LT, CS, and VP affect BD. However,
placing the order to the supplier. A material with higher LT has no criterion affects EI or VP. Also, EI does not affect any criter-
higher supply risk and requires more follow-ups, causing higher ion. Therefore, EI has no relationship with other criteria.
expediting cost. Thus, LT is directly related to MC (Shtub 1988;
Dixit et al. 2013, 2015).
The weight of criteria using ANP
After determining the interrelationship, the weight of the criteria
Customers’ specificity (CS)
was determined using ANP in three steps as follows.
It is the uniqueness of a material which demands technical
Introduction to ANP has been provided as supplemental data
expertise. It represents the specific nature of the material. A spe-
due to space limitation.
cialized supplier is required for a material with higher CS value.
A higher level of communication is required for its procurement.
Therefore, CS is directly related to MC (Dixit et al. 2013, 2015). Step 1: the weight of criteria without considering interdependencies
Based on the individual responses from the 2nd stage question-
naire survey, the pairwise comparison matrices of criteria with
Buyer’s dependence on suppliers (BD)
respect to material criticality (MC) were developed. Total of 12
It is the degree to which a buyer needs a particular supplier to
procure the material. BD is directly related to MC (Dixit matrices was constructed based on the responses from 12
et al. 2013). experts. In this case, the experts evaluated the criteria by com-
paring them pairwise considering the criteria has no interde-
pendencies. The consistency ratios (CR) of the matrices were
Environmental implication (EI) calculated. CR value measures the reliability of the responses.
It is the measure of environmental performance associated with CR is the ratio of consistency index (CI) to the random index
material production/manufacturing. It depends on the emission (RI) (Saaty 2004). The CI and the RI values were calculated
of carbon dioxide. If the emission of undesirable gases is high, using the formula suggested by Saaty (2004). The calculated CR
then EI is high. This may increase the supply risk of material values were more than 0.1 for some cases. To achieve the
due to a stricter legislation policy decision. Therefore, EI is dir- desired consistency (CR 0.1), the respondents needed to be
ectly related to MC (Knoeri et al. 2013). asked repeatedly which is difficult and time-consuming.
Wakchaure and Jha (2012) reported Eq. (3) to handle these
issues and to combine the individual responses. Using Eq. (3),
Volatility in price of material (VP)
an overall pairwise comparison matrix was determined which
It is the degree of variation of material price over time. If the
combined the individual matrices. For combining, the responses
VP is high, the risk in purchasing the materials are high as
were weighted based on their consistencies on a prorate basis
the price of materials may increase to a high amount. Therefore,
(see Eq. 3). For example, a response with a higher consistency
the VP is directly related to MC (Lapko et al. 2016).
Further, based on the level of agreement for the selection of was given a higher weight in comparison to the response with a
the criteria from 14 experts (collected through the 1st stage ques- lower consistency. The combined pairwise comparison matrix
tionnaire survey), the mean values of the seven criteria were cal- of criteria with respect to MC is provided in Table 1. Based on
culated as 4.4, 3.6, 4.2, 4.3, 3.9, 3.7, and 4.5 for PC, FE, LT, CS, the combined pairwise comparison matrix, the priority vector
BD, EI, and VP respectively. The 14 respondents were consid- of criteria representing the weight (w1) was determined as pro-
ered sufficient for the data analysis as the calculated mean values vided in Table 1. The CR value of the combined matrix was
reached to the saturation, i.e., increasing the number of obtained as 0.036 which is less than 0.1 and assures the reliabil-
responses did not result in any significant change in the calcu- ity of the responses.
lated mean values. The mean values of the criteria were more 1
yij ¼ ½xw1ij1  xw2ij2 


:  xwnijn Š w1 þw2 þ...þwn
(3)
than 3.0; therefore, all criteria were selected for further study
(Ahuja et al. 2009). Here, yij is the cell entry corresponding to the ith row and jth
column of the combined pairwise comparison matrix. xnij is the
cell entry of the pairwise comparison matrix of the nth respond-
Interrelationship among the criteria
ent. Further, wn is the weight for the nth respondent which is
To determine the interrelationship among criteria, forming a equal to (1 – CRn) where, CRn is the consistency ratio for the
network structure is an important step for further determining nth respondent.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7

Figure 2. Interrelationship among the Criteria.

Table 1. Pairwise comparison matrix of criteria with respect to material critical-

ity (MC) and Criteria weights (W1) without interdependencies. Table 2. Pairwise Comparison Matrix of Criteria with respect to PC.
Criteria PC FE LT CS BD EI VP Weight (W1) Rank Criteria LT CS BD VP Priority vector
PC 1.000 1.547 0.861 0.444 0.822 2.006 0.452 0.122 4 LT 1.000 1.868 1.536 0.971 0.317
FE 0.646 1.000 0.575 0.505 2.227 1.241 0.426 0.110 5 CS 0.535 1.000 1.454 0.767 0.216
LT 1.161 1.738 1.000 1.457 1.935 2.213 1.023 0.190 2 BD 0.651 0.688 1.000 0.725 0.184
CS 2.254 1.979 0.686 1.000 1.437 1.434 1.098 0.179 3 VP 1.030 1.304 1.380 1.000 0.284
BD 1.216 0.449 0.517 0.696 1.000 1.262 0.293 0.095 6
EI 0.499 0.806 0.452 0.698 0.792 1.000 0.614 0.090 7
Table 3. Interdependence Matrix of Criteria (w2).
VP 2.215 2.347 0.977 0.910 3.408 1.629 1.000 0.214 1
Criteria PC FE LT CS BD EI VP
PC 0.500 0.263 0.166 0.353 0.100 0.000 0.000
Step 2: Interdependence matrix of criteria FE 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.000 0.000
Considering interrelationship, the interdependence matrix of cri- LT 0.158 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.112 0.000 0.000
teria was determined. In this case, experts evaluated the criteria CS 0.108 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.099 0.000 0.000
BD 0.092 0.000 0.095 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000
by comparing them pairwise considering their interdependencies. EI 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000
With reference to Figure 2, pairwise comparison matrix of crite- VP 0.142 0.237 0.239 0.147 0.157 0.000 1.000
ria with respect to PC was developed by comparing LT, CS, BD,
and VP as they affect PC, and the priority vector was determined
as provided in Table 2. this sense this brings uniqueness of the study. The weight of
Similarly, pairwise comparison matrices with respect to FE, volatility in price of material (VP) is found as the highest fol-
LT, CS, and BD were developed and priority vectors were deter- lowed by percentage contribution (PC), lead time (LT), custom-
mined. These are provided in Tables S1, S2, S3, and S4 as ers’ specificity (CS), environmental implication (EI), buyer’s
supplemental data. Combining the priority vectors and further dependence on suppliers (BD), and flexibility (FE).
normalizing it, the interdependence matrix of criteria (w2) was
determined as shown in Table 3. Zero was assigned to the eigen- Material criticality values using TOPSIS in a case project
vector of criteria which are independent. The CR values of all
the matrices were obtained as less than 0.1 that confirm the con- Considering the weight of the criteria as identified from ANP,
sistency of the responses. the material criticality (MC) values were assessed using TOPSIS
in four steps. TOPSIS has been introduced in supplemental data.
Step 3: the weight of criteria considering interdependencies
The weight of the criteria with interdependencies (wc) was deter- Step 1: Development of decision matrix
mined by combining the weight obtained from step 1 and the The decision matrix was determined based on the inputs given
interdependence matrix of criteria obtained from step 2 using by the project professionals in an institutional building project
Eq. (4) as given in Table 4. The criteria are ranked based on and from the literature. Inputs for each material on each criter-
their weights (wc). ion were collected on the predefined scale. Percentage contribu-
tion (PC) of a material was captured in percentage. Lead time
wc ¼ w2  w1 (4)
(LT) was captured in days required for delivery of materials to
Considering the interdependencies, the weight of the criteria the site after placing the order. Flexibility (FE), customers’ speci-
of MC has been changed from 0.122, 0.110, 0.190, 0.179, 0.095, ficity (CS), and buyer’s dependence on suppliers (BD) were taken
0.090, and 0.214 to 0.194, 0.058, 0.125, 0.112, 0.077, 0.090, and as input from the project professionals on a 1-5 scale where 1
0.344 respectively. Besides, referring to Table 1 and Table 4, it represents ‘very low,’ and 5 represents ‘very high.’ Environmental
can be observed that the rank of the criteria based on their implication (EI) was taken as tons of CO2 emission for produc-
weight has also been changed while considering the interdepen- tion/manufacturing of 1 ton of material. The volatility in price of
dencies. This establishes the capability of the ANP, in the material (VP) values of materials was determined by calculating
absence of which this aspect wouldn’t have been captured and in the ratio of maximum to minimum price in 5 years.
8 S. KAR AND K. N. JHA

Table 4. Weight of the criteria with interdependencies among them. Table 6. The positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution.
Criteria PC FE LT CS BD EI VP PC FE LT CS BD EI VP
Weight with interdependencies (wc) 0.194 0.058 0.125 0.112 0.077 0.090 0.344 A 0.111 0.008 0.089 0.045 0.033 0.054 0.142
Rank 2 7 3 4 6 5 1 A0 0.001 0.028 0.008 0.014 0.010 0.000 0.096

Table 5. Decision matrix. Table 7. Separation measures and relative closeness (MC) values of materials.
S. No. Material PC FE LT CS BD EI VP S. No. Material Si  Si 0 Ci  (MC)
1 Cement 32.109 1.000 8.879 2.621 2.621 0.815 1.260 1 Cement 0.088 0.074 0.457
2 Reinforcement bar 69.371 1.000 7.489 2.289 3.000 1.870 1.250 2 Reinforcement bar 0.064 0.130 0.671
3 Structural steel 67.986 1.442 19.574 3.175 3.302 1.870 1.324 3 Structural steel 0.023 0.152 0.866
4 Plywood 14.608 3.000 7.047 2.000 2.000 0.340 1.207 4 Plywood 0.121 0.040 0.248
5 AAC blocks 46.930 3.302 10.164 3.000 3.000 0.050 1.580 5 AAC blocks 0.079 0.101 0.561
6 Sand 10.050 1.587 5.013 3.000 2.884 0.010 1.071 6 Sand 0.135 0.042 0.238
7 Coarse aggregate 21.643 1.260 5.944 3.000 2.621 0.050 1.238 7 Coarse aggregate 0.115 0.055 0.323
8 Binding wire 0.822 3.175 1.817 1.000 1.000 0.400 1.104 8 Binding wire 0.154 0.012 0.070
9 Tiles 37.077 3.000 5.313 2.884 2.000 1.370 1.363 9 Tiles 0.089 0.081 0.478

Based on the inputs for the nine materials to the seven crite- Table 8. Activity criticality (AC) and total criticality (TC) values of materials.
ria, the decision matrix was developed as provided in Table 5. S. No. Material Associated activity Float (days) AC TC Rank
The detailed calculations for developing the decision matrix are
1 Cement Slab concreting 0 1.00 0.457 3
attached as supplemental data for space limitation. 2 Reinforcement bar Slab reinforcement 0 1.00 0.671 2
fixing
3 Structural steel Steel beam 0 1.00 0.866 1
Step 2: the normalized and weighted normalized deci- 4 Plywood Slab shuttering 5 0.80 0.198 8
sion matrix 5 AAC blocks External wall fixing 8 0.68 0.381 4
6 Sand Slab concreting 0 1.00 0.238 7
A normalized decision matrix was developed using Eq. (5). 7 Coarse aggregate Slab concreting 0 1.00 0.323 5
Further, a weighted normalized decision matrix was developed 8 Binding wire Slab reinforcement 0 1.00 0.070 9
using Eq. (6). The normalized and weighted normalized decision fixing
matrix has been provided as supplemental data. 9 Tiles Flooring 12 0.52 0.249 6
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xm
rij ¼ xij = i¼1
ðxij Þ2 (5) Step 4: Separation measures and relative closeness to the
ideal solutions
i ¼ 1, 2 … 9 and j ¼ 1, 2 … .7
In this step, the separation measures from the positive ideal
where xij is the original score of material i with respect to crite-
solution (Si)separation measures from the negative ideal
ria j, and rij is the normalized score.
solution (S i0 ) and the relative closeness to the ideal solution
vij ¼ wj  rij (6) (Ci  ) were calculated using Eqs. (9) (10), and (11) respect-
ively as provided in Table 7. The Ci  values represent the
where vij is the weighted normalized score of material i with material criticality (MC) values of materials which lies
respect to criteria j, and wj is the weight of the criteria j. between 0 and 1.
hXn  2 i1=2
Si  ¼ v j

v ij (9)
Step 3: Determination of ideal solutions j¼1
In this step, the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal h Xn 0
i 1=2
Si 0 ¼ ðv vij Þ2
j¼1 j
(10)
solution were obtained as provided in Table 6 using Eqs. (7) and
(8) respectively. Here, positive criteria are PC, LT, CS, BD, EI, Si 0
and VP as they have a direct relationship with MC. Whereas FE Ci  ¼ ¼ MCi (11)
ðSi  þ Si 0 Þ
is the negative criteria as it has an inverse relationship with MC.
0  Ci   1
The maximum and minimum weighted normalized scores repre-
sent the positive and negative ideal solution respectively for the i ¼ 1, 2 … .9 and j ¼ 1, 2 … .7
positive criteria whereas the minimum and maximum scores rep- Here, vij is the weighted normalized score of material i with
0
resent the positive and negative ideal solution respectively for the respect to criteria j whereas, vj  and vj are the positive ideal solu-
negative criteria. tion and the negative ideal solution for jth criteria respectively.
    MCi is the material criticality value of ith material.
 0
A ¼ max ðvij Þjj2 J ; min ðvij Þjj2J ¼ fv1  , . . . vn  g From Table 7, it can be observed that structural steel has the
highest MC value followed by reinforcement bar, AAC blocks,
(7) tiles, cement, coarse aggregate, plywood, sand, and binding wire.
    0 0
A0 ¼ min ðvij Þjj2 J ; max ðvij Þjj2J 0 ¼ fv1 , . . . :, vn g
Activity criticality values of materials in the case project
(8)
After calculating the MC values, the AC values of materials were
Here, J is the set of positive criteria whereas, J 0 is the set of nega- calculated based on the float of the associated activities using
0
tive criteria. vn  and vn are the positive ideal solution and the Eq. (1) as provided in Table 8. For the case project, various
negative ideal solution for nth criteria respectively. materials are required for slab concreting, reinforcement fixing,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9

Table 9. Rankings of the criteria of material criticality. Table 10. Rankings of the materials based on criticality.
Rank based 3rd stage questionnaire Rank based 3rd stage questionnaire
on calculated on calculated
weight from total criticality
S. No. Material this study Mean value Rank S. No. Material from this study Mean value Rank
1 Percentage contribution (PC) 2 7.8 2 1 Cement 3 7.1 3
2 Flexibility (FE) 7 3.9 7 2 Reinforcement bar 2 7.8 2
3 Lead time (LT) 3 6.8 3 3 Structural steel 1 8.4 1
4 Customer’s specificity (CS) 4 6.3 4 4 Plywood 8 2.3 8
5 Buyer’s dependency (BD) 6 4.6 5 5 AAC blocks 4 4.6 6
6 Environmental implication (EI) 5 4.4 6 6 Sand 7 4.8 5
7 Volatility in price (VP) 1 8.5 1 7 Coarse aggregate 5 5.2 4
8 Binding wire 9 2.0 9
9 Tiles 6 3.9 7
shuttering, external wall fixing, steel beam, and flooring activities.
The sum of floats of the associated activities is 25 days
(0 þ 0 þ 0 þ 5 þ 8 þ 0 þ 0 þ 0 þ 12 ¼ 25, see Table 8). The float this network characteristics, the inherent characteristics of mate-
for the slab shuttering activity is 5 days. Thus, the AC value for rials and supply environment play an important role in material
the plywood is equal to 0.80 {(1 - (5/25)) ¼ 0.80}. Similarly, the management decision. For example, a material with a long lead
AC values of other materials are calculated as shown in Table 8. duration is more critical compared to the materials with lesser
lead duration. Long lead materials need greater follow-up with
the suppliers, and it involves a higher supply risk. Also, materials
Total criticality values of materials in the case project with lesser flexibility such as reinforcement bar are more critical
compared to the materials with higher flexibility such as AAC
Finally, the total criticality (TC) values of materials were calcu- blocks. AAC blocks are required for wall, and there are more
lated using Eq. (2) as provided in Table 8. Materials are ranked alternate materials to construct the wall such as clay bricks and
based on the TC values where higher TC value indicates a higher fly ash bricks in case AAC blocks are not available. However,
priority of material for procurement. reinforcement bar is required for construction of slab, and there
is no alternate material which can serve the purpose in the
Validation of the results absence of reinforcement bar. Therefore, it is essential to con-
sider material characteristics and supply environment in addition
Validation of the results was an important step which was per- to the project network characteristics in the material manage-
formed by comparing the rank of the criteria and the rank of ment decisions. In this study, it has been achieved through the
the materials based on TC obtained from this study with their assessment of material criticality (MC), activity criticality (AC),
rank obtained from a group of experts conducting a 3rd stage and total criticality (TC) values of materials.
questionnaire survey. Responses from 10 experts from Indian An integrated ANP-TOPSIS method is proposed for assessing
construction industry was collected. The experts had experience the MC values of construction materials. This study demon-
more than 10 years in material management. strates the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed assess-
Using descriptive statistical analysis, criteria and the materials ment method. The usefulness and novelty of the integrated
were ranked based on their mean values as shown in Tables 9 ANP-TOPSIS has been highlighted in several past studies in the
and 10, respectively. Further, Spearman’s rank correlation (R) context of optimal marketing strategy, maintenance strategy in
test was performed. The R value between the ranks of the criteria mining industry, location choice for direct foreign investment,
obtained from this study and third stage questionnaire survey supplier selection problems ( Wu et al. 2010; Pourjavad and
was found to be 0.964 with significance of 0.000 indicating a Shirouyehzad 2013; Lin and Tsai 2010; Abdel-Basset et al. 2018
strong positive correlation among the rank orders. Further, the R ). The ANP is the most viable method for a decision problem
value between the ranks of materials obtained from this study which involves interdependent relationships (Hasnain et al.
based on TC values and third stage questionnaire survey was 2018). Using the TOPSIS method, this study captures the effect
found to be 0.917 with significance of 0.001 indicating a strong of both positive and negative criteria on material criticality which
positive correlation among the rank orders. A strong correlation is not addressed in the past studies in this area. The rational,
between the results of this study and 3rd stage questionnaire sur- understandable concept, and involvement of uncomplicated com-
vey verifies the accuracy of the results and supports the findings putation makes the worthiness of TOPSIS method. Hence, the
of this study. use of integrated ANP-TOPSIS method for criticality assessment
makes this study distinct from the earlier studies in the context
of material management decision making.
Discussion
It can be observed from Table 8 that structural steel has the
The construction schedule of a project consists of a large number highest TC values (TC ¼ 0.866) whereas binding wire has the
of activities. Some of them are critical, and others are non-crit- lowest TC values (TC ¼ 0.070). This is because a specific shape
ical. Even for the non-critical activities floats are different. and size of structural steel are required for the project which
Material required for critical activities need to be given higher needs a specialized supplier who has experience in the fabrica-
priority as their non-availability may delay the activity and tion of steel and it needs more time to deliver whereas binding
ultimately leads to the delay of the project and increase in the wire is readily available in the local market and can be delivered
total cost. Hence the non-availability of these materials causes a in very less time. Hence, greater care should be given to struc-
higher penalty. Similarly, penalty is also more due to the non- tural steel compared to binding wire in the material management
availability of the materials required for the activities which have process. An activity may need several materials. However, critic-
lesser float compared to the activities with higher float. Besides ality of the materials may not be the same. It depends on the
10 S. KAR AND K. N. JHA

inherent characteristics of materials and the supply environment. The shortage cost due to non-availability of materials is an
It can be seen from Table 8 that the cement (TC ¼ 0.457) is important parameter in an inventory model. A large number of
more critical than coarse aggregate (TC ¼ 0.323). Cement and construction materials are used for many activities in a certain
coarse aggregate both have the same activity criticality (AC ¼ 1) period. Moreover, an activity also needs several materials. Thus
as both of these are required for slab concreting. However, the the penalty associated with the non-availability of a particular
higher PC, higher LT, higher VP, and lesser FE values of cement material, i.e., shortage cost is difficult to measure. Usually, organ-
than coarse aggregate lead to the higher MC value of cement izations do not have any clear method to measure the shortage
than that of coarse aggregate. This ultimately results in higher cost. In this context, the TC values of materials are proposed as
TC values of cement compared to coarse aggregate. Thus penalty the measure of the shortage cost coefficient of materials as the
due to non-availability of cement will be more than that due to TC values capture both material characteristics and project net-
coarse aggregate. work characteristics.
Activity criticality (AC) plays an important role in the total This study provides a novel approach for assessing the critic-
criticality of materials. Penalty due to non-availability of material ality values of construction materials which adds value to the
can be greater for the material which has higher AC value. It can existing body of knowledge. In this study, assessment of critical-
be seen that cement (TC ¼ 0.457) is more critical than AAC
ity has been carried out in quantitative terms unlike previous
blocks (TC ¼ 0.381) even though the material criticality value of
studies where they were expressed qualitatively. The use of ANP
cement (MC ¼ 0.457) is lower than that of AAC blocks (MC ¼
and TOPSIS has been made to incorporate interdependencies
0.561). This is because of the higher activity criticality value of
among the criteria and capture both type (positive and negative)
cement (AC ¼ 1) compared to that of AAC blocks (AC ¼
of criteria, respectively. This study also considers environmental
0.680) as cement is used for slab concreting which is a critical
activity whereas AAC blocks are used for a noncritical activity. implication (sustainability aspect of materials) and volatility in
Therefore, it is important to incorporate AC values in material price of materials as the criteria of material criticality, and inte-
procurement decision. grates project network characteristics for material management
As shown in Table 8, it can be observed that structural steel decision making in a combined and comprehensive manner.
is most critical with TC ¼ 0.866 due to its highest MC values These aspects bring novelty to the study and make it distinct
and highest AC values. Hence in a budget constraint situation, from the earlier studies. Quantification of TC values, which can
procurement manager should give the highest priority to struc- be used as the measure of shortage cost coefficient in the inven-
tural steel in the material management process followed by tory model, is another important contribution of this study.
reinforcement bar, cement, AAC blocks, coarse aggregate, tiles, Moreover, the TC values would help practitioners to prioritize
sand, plywood, and binding wire. Although, materials such as the materials for procurement. Buying the higher critical
cement, reinforcement bar, and coarse aggregate are ranked materials first would reduce the overall penalty due to their non-
based on their TC values, these are key elements of reinforced availability. This would help for timely and budgeted completion
cement concrete. Therefore, an appropriate procurement strategy of a construction project.
and supply chain decision needs to be taken for their procure- Even though due care was taken to select the respondents in
ment in addition to the assessment of their criticality. an unbiased manner, the selection of criteria and assessment of
their weights through the questionnaire survey involve subjectiv-
ity such as deficiency of conscientious responses and differences
Conclusions in understanding. Further, the inputs for the criteria such as
Material management process in a construction project requires flexibility, customers’ specificity, and buyer’s dependence on sup-
an extensive effort due to its complex nature and limited budget pliers have subjectivity involved for calculating the material crit-
availability. Procuring materials by prioritizing them based on icality values of materials. The criteria weight and material
their inherent characteristics, supply environment, and project criticality values, which were determined in this study in Indian
network characteristics can make the material management pro- context, may differ for other countries as different priorities for
cess more efficient. This study contributes to the body of know- the construction materials may have there. Besides, environmen-
ledge by integrating material management with construction tal implication was taken as a sustainable criteria of material crit-
schedule and demonstrating a systematic approach for prioritiza- icality, but no social criteria was taken due to difficulty to assess
tion of construction materials through the assessment of their its value in the context of construction materials. These are the
criticality values. Seven interdependent criteria are identified to limitations of this study. The future work would be to develop
assess criticality values. The material manager can directly use an optimal material procurement schedule considering TC values
the weight of the criteria for evaluation of material criticality of materials as the shortage cost coefficient. This study would
(MC) values in any construction project. Further, based on the encourage other sectors like heavy plant and machineries, and
inputs from the project professionals for the materials and con- manufacturing of spacecraft and aircraft to prioritize materials
sidering activity float, managers can determine total criticality for procurement by integrating project network characteristics.
(TC) values of materials in a construction project.
The TC values represent the quantitative measure of the pen-
alty due to the non-availability of materials. Greater attention Data availability statement
from materials managers and extensive coordination with suppli-
ers are needed for the procurement of materials with higher TC All data analyzed during the study are available from the corre-
values. Integrating material management with construction sponding author by request.
schedule and prioritizing materials based on the criticality values
will ensure the availability of materials on time and reducing the Disclosure statement
penalty in terms of time and cost overrun in a construc-
tion project. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 11

ORCID Kolotzek C, Helbig C, Thorenz A, Reller A, Tuma A. 2018. A company-ori-

ented model for the assessment of raw material supply risks, environmen-
Santu Kar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9618-227X tal impact and social implications. J Cleaner Prod. 176:566–580.
Kumar Neeraj Jha http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1266-0132 Koushki PA, Kartam N. 2004. Impact of construction materials on project
time and cost in Kuwait. Eng, Const and Arch Man. 11(2):126–132.
Ku AY, Loudis J, Duclos SJ. 2018. The impact of technological innovation on
critical materials risk dynamics. Sustainable Mater. Technol. 15:19–26.
References Lapko Y, Trucco P, Nuur C. 2016. The business perspective on materials crit-
icality: evidence from manufacturers. Resour Policy. 50:93–107.
Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed M, Smarandache F. 2018. A hybrid neutrosophic Leeuw SD, Fransoo J. 2009. Drivers of close supply chain collaboration: one
group ANP-TOPSIS framework for supplier selection problems. size fits all?. Int Jrnl of Op & Prod Mnagemnt. 29(7):720–739.
Symmetry. 10(6):226. Liao CN, Lin CH, Fu YK. 2015. Integrative model for the selection of a new
Ahuja V, Yang J, Shankar R. 2009. Study of ICT adoption for building pro- product launch strategy, based on ANP, TOPSIS and MCGP: A case
ject management in the Indian construction industry. Automat Constr. study. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 22(5):
18(4):415–423. 715–737.
Azimi R, Yazdani-Chamzini A, Fouladgar MM, Zavadskas EK, Basiri MH. Lin CT, Tsai MC. 2010. Location choice for direct foreign investment in new
2011. Ranking the strategies of mining sector through ANP and TOPSIS hospitals in China by using ANP and TOPSIS. Qual Quant. 44(2):
in a SWOT framework. J Bus Econ Manage. 12(4):670–689. 375–390.
Caldas CH, Menches CL, Reyes PM, Navarro L, Vargas DM. 2014. Materials Liu J, Lu M. 2018. Constraint programming approach to optimizing project
management practices in the construction industry. Pract Period Struct schedules under material logistics and crew availability constraints. J
Des Constr. 20(3):1–8. Constr Eng Manage. 144(7):04018049.
Chu CW, Liang GS, Liao CT. 2008. Controlling inventory by combining Lloyd S, Lee J, Clifton A, Elghali L, France C. 2012. Recommendations for
ABC analysis and fuzzy classification. Comput Ind Eng. 55(4):841–851. assessing materials criticality. Proc. Instit Civil Engineers: Waste Resourc
Dixit V, Srivastava KR, Chaudhuri A. 2015. Project network-oriented materi- Manage. 165(4):191–200. London.
als management policy for complex projects: a Fuzzy Set Theoretic Molenaers A, Baets H, Pintelon L, Waeyenbergh G. 2012. Criticality classifi-
approach. Int J Prod Res. 53(10):2904–2920. cation of spare parts: A case study. Int J Prod Econ. 140(2):570–578.
Dixit V, Srivastava RK, Chaudhuri A. 2013. Integrating materials manage- Navon R, Berkovich O. 2006. An automated model for materials manage-
ment with project management of complex projects. J of Advances in ment and control. Constr Manage Econom. 24(6):635–646.
Mgmt Research. 10(2):230–278. Nieto A, Guelly K, Kleit A. 2013. Addressing criticality for rare earth ele-
Dodin B, Elimam AA. 2001. Integrated project scheduling and material plan- ments in petroleum refining: the key supply factors approach. Resour
ning with variable activity duration and rewards. IIE Trans. 33(11): Policy. 38(4):496–503.
1005–1018. Polat G, Arditi D. 2005. The JIT materials management system in developing
Gl€oser S, Espinoza LT, Gandenberger C, Faulstich M. 2015. Raw material countries. Constr Manage Econom. 23(7):697–712.
criticality in the context of classical risk assessment. Resour Policy. 44: Polat G, Arditi D, Mungen U. 2007. Simulation-based decision support sys-
35–46. tem for economical supply chain management of rebar. J Constr Eng
Griffin G, Gaustad G, Badami K. 2019. A framework for firm-level critical Manage. 133(1):29–39.
material supply management and mitigation. Resour Policy. 60:262–276. Pourjavad E, Shirouyehzad H, Shahin A. 2013. Selecting maintenance strategy
Gurmu AT. 2018. Construction materials management practices enhancing in mining industry by analytic network process and TOPSIS. IJISE. 15(2):
labour productivity in multi-storey building projects. Int J Constr Manage. 171–192.
20(1):1–11. Purnell P, Dawson D, Roelich KE, Steinberger JK, Busch J. 2013. Critical
Gurmu AT. 2019. Tools for measuring construction materials management materials for infrastructure: local vs global properties. Proc. Instit Civil
practices and predicting labor productivity in multistory building projects. Engineers: Eng Sustainab. 166(5):272–280.
J Constr Eng Manage. 145(2):04018139. Ravi V, Shankar R, Tiwari MK. 2008. Selection of a reverse logistics project
Hallstedt SI, Isaksson O. 2017. Material criticality assessment in early phases for end-of-life computers: ANP and goal programing approach. Int J Prod
of sustainable product development. J Cleaner Prod. 161:40–52. Res. 46(17):4849–4870.
Hasnain M, Thaheem MJ, Ullah F. 2018. Best value contractor selection in Saaty TL. 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur
road construction projects: ANP-based decision support system. Int J Civ J Oper Res. 48(1):9–26.
Eng. 16(6):695–714. Saaty TL. 2004. Decision making—the analytic hierarchy and network proc-
Huiskonen J. 2001. Maintenance spare parts logistics: special characteristics esses (AHP/ANP. ). J Syst Sci Syst Eng. 13(1):1–35.
and strategic choices. Int J Prod Econ. 71(1-3):125–133. Said H, El-Rayes K. 2011. Optimizing material procurement and storage on
Ibn-Homaid NT. 2002. A comparative evaluation of construction and manu- construction sites. J Constr Eng Manage. 137(6):421–431.
facturing material management. Int J Project Manage. 20(4):263–270. Schilling DR. 2013. Global construction expected to increase by $4.8 Trillion
Jha KN. 2015. Construction project management: theory and practices. 2nd by 2020; [accessed 2019 March 6]. http://www.industrytap.com/global-con-
ed.India: Pearson; p. 427–453. struction-expected-to-increase-by-4-8-trillion-by-2020/1483. >.
Jusoh ZM, Kasim N. 2017. Influential factors affecting materials management Shtub A. 1988. The integration of CPM and material management in project
in construction projects. Manage Prod Eng Rev. 8(4):82–90. management. Constr Manage Econom. 6(4):261–272.
Kasim NB, Anumba CJ, Dainty A. 2005. Improving materials management Sudjatmiko B, Sahroni TR. 2018. An investigation of optimum safety stock
practices on fast-track construction projects. 21st Annual ARCOM level for maintenance, reliability and operation materials based on critical-
Conference. 2: 793–802. ity of material and equipment. Int J Sup Chain Mgt. 7(2):52–61.
Kim J, Lee J, Kim B, Kim J. 2019. Raw material criticality assessment with Thomas HR, Riley DR, Messner JI. 2005. Fundamental principles of site
weighted indicators: An application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. material management. J Constr Eng Manage. 131(7):808–815.
Resour Policy. 60:225–233. Wakchaure SS, Jha KN. 2012. Determination of bridge health index using
Knobloch V, Zimmermann T, G€ oßling-Reisemann S. 2018. From criticality analytical hierarchy process. Constr Manage Econom. 30(2):133–149.
to vulnerability of resource supply: The case of the automobile industry. Wu CS, Lin CT, Lee C. 2010. Optimal marketing strategy: a decision-making
Resour Conserv Recycl. 138:272–282. with ANP and TOPSIS. Int J Prod Econom. 127(1):190–196.
Knoeri C, W€ager PA, Stamp A, Althaus HJ, Weil M. 2013. Science of the Yeo KT, Ning JH. 2006. Managing uncertainty in major equipment procure-
total environment towards a dynamic assessment of raw materials critical- ment in engineering projects. Eur J Oper Res. 171(1):123–134.
ity: linking agent-based demand with material flow supply modelling Yu MC. 2011. Multi-criteria ABC analysis using artificial-intelligence-based
approaches. Sci Total Environ. 461:808–812. classification techniques. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(4):3416–3421.