Introduction

Business companies the world over, are upgrading and combining lean and agile approaches with a view to enhancing effectiveness and responsiveness in their supply chains⁴. Leagile strategy is the hybrid of lean and agile approaches thereby extracting the benefits of both strategies and has been proven to be efficient in handling supply chains (SCs) due to the synergistic advantages. Leagile strategy has attained greater significance in the current business research scenario⁵ and is considered the best SC approach based on the desirability index score⁶. Pure leanness or agility is rarely experienced in real-world situations and their implementation approaches differs with firms and SCs ⁷. It is beneficial to consider both strategies to meet customers’ demands efficiently and effectively by amalgamating their positive attributes in the SC ^8-10. In a leagile SC, lean is upstream and agile downstream of the material flow. Agility is executed by embracing leanness, which eradicates waste and ensures a smooth schedule in all operations prior to its utilization ¹¹. Lean strategy enables coordination inside and amongst companies by focusing on the achievement of efficiency, elimination of waste, overstretch and value creation¹² as well as supporting a smooth schedule ¹³. Agile philosophies are useful when the SC desires to react speedily to shifting demands, guarantee superior quality, and/ or transact with products that have short life cycles ¹⁴. Responsiveness assists leagile SCs to realize speedy reactions to marketplace adjustments and satisfy customers, whereas effectiveness is key to perfect cost control ¹⁵. In a leagile SC, innovative products require the application of an agile strategy, whereas leanness is suited for commodities characterized by long life cycles, shorter lead times, homogeneity and small markups ¹⁶.

Competitive advantage (CA) is a yardstick for measuring competitiveness and demonstrating a company’s industry position ¹⁷. The two important sources of CA are lower cost of production and differentiation of products and services¹⁸. Competitive advantage is explained from a supply chain management’s standpoint as being ahead of competitors in terms of commodity’s cost, superiority, innovativeness, as well as delivery reliability and speed ^19-21. Companies realize a CA if they implement strategies that enable them to be ahead of the competition and as competition intensifies, every company the world over is continuously reviewing its competitiveness, with the fast fluctuating economic environment ²². Managers and company executives continuously re-evaluate internal and external commodities costs, collect market data, research the markets to gain insight into customers’ requirements, forecast and relook at production costs and accomplish CA in their operative activities ²³.

Supply chains are networks of entities which ensure conveyance of commodities from suppliers to the end users ²⁴. Supply chains take many forms and vary significantly in density and diversity ²⁵. Within an organizational setup, the SC consists of activities such as sourcing, production and distribution ²⁶. Construction supply chains comprise larger projects which interconnect hundreds of different suppliers of merchandises ²⁷. Most companies in the construction industry operate as flexible firms characterized by extensive outsourcing, almost exclusively focusing on management and coordination functions²⁸.                                

As a contributor to GDP, the propeller of growth in other sectors, and a provider of employment, the construction industry in Kenya is of great importance. Yet, the performance of construction companies is dismal. Their major internal concerns are the deployment of resources, and the use of technological innovations, and the construction companies’ ventures also are run on the bases of outdated inefficient approaches. Over 70 percent of the ventures initiated have high chances of costs increasing over time and a probability of above 50 percent of these projects escalating in cost by 20 percent ²⁹. The construction ventures are incapable of timely accomplishing of their budgetary plans ³⁰. Externally, construction companies face rapidly changing complex environments, globalization, and stiff competition. It may be necessary to unearth if leagile strategy assists the construction companies in delivering value, improving responsiveness, and competitiveness in the dynamic business environment.

Study Objective

To explore Leagile Strategy’s influence on Competitive Advantage in Construction Companies’ Supply Chains.  

Leagile Strategy, and Competitive Advantage

Leagile strategy is one of the innovative and strategic approaches companies adopt for the achievement of competitive advantages in their supply chains^{31, 32}. The persistent adjustments in the marketplace have put pressure on many supply chains to cope by changing their strategies to maximize flexibility ^{33, 34}. The highly competitive environment and unpredictable markets pose difficulties for firms to adjust in their supply chain operations^35-38. Therefore, business companies need to become more cost-effective, responsive and focused on gaining and sustaining competitive advantage in their supply chains to survive³⁹. Stefanelli et al. ⁴⁰ posit that leagile supply chain management is characterized by quick reaction, cost-reduction, and an emphasis on customer service in the rapidly evolving marketplace. Blending leanness and agility into one strategy is vital in bringing out the best of both worlds. In the lean strategy, sharing of information is desired whereas it's a mandatory requirement under the agile networks ⁴¹. Agile strategy is majorly concerned with rapidity, which is the capability of speedy implementation of decisions ⁴². Agility is concerned with the long-term perspective, especially providing the capability of detecting vital durable variations in the network as well as in the marketplace and adapting appropriately ⁴³. An agile strategy is worthwhile for firms whose operational environment is unpredictable while those operating under less uncertainty should embrace leanness ⁴⁴. It has been reiterated that short lead times, achievable deadlines, ability to change product specifications are the logistical aims of a leagile SC ⁴⁵. Though leanness is connected with very low-value innovative products, agility is characterized by high-value commodities according to a study among manufacturing firms in China ⁴⁶. Leagile supply chain strategy has been applied in healthcare facilities in Iran ⁴⁷, among light vehicle manufacturers in South Africa ⁴⁸, and is suitable for hybrid products ⁴⁹. The most pressing managerial problem for organizations is gaining an advantage over competitors through effective management of current operations and innovation for the future. Becoming a market leader in cost, differentiation or a focus on either, are the three main generic strategies proposed by Porter ⁵⁰. Porter ⁵¹ argued that winning approaches emanates from ensuring the possession of sustainable CA. He posits that CA is attainable by companies who are capable of outperforming competitors in terms of acquiring more customers and designing defense mechanisms against the competition. Therefore, to be successful in achieving competitive advantage, companies should offer products at affordable cost, superior quality, of better designs, at the right location, and ensure customers are satisfied. satisfaction are the sources of CA. Competitive advantage refers to a set of capabilities enabling businesses to demonstrate better performance than rivals ⁵². Christensen ⁵³ defined competitive advantage as a value that inspires consumers to procure a firm’s products and causes barriers to imitation by other firms. The SC is considered as the basis of competitive advantage because no company can operate independently from its supply network. The firms in a supply chain increases their performance by satisfying customers and achieving a competitive advantage. It is those SCs with the capability of activating synchronized processes, competencies, and infrastructures as well as sharing risks and costs, reducing current product life spans, and lead times that can achieve CA ⁵⁴.

In the current investigation, the conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 describes leagile strategy-competitive advantage association. The conceptual framework shows Leagile Strategy as the independent variable and Competitive Advantage, the dependent one. This researcher set up indicators to measure the concepts. The process of operationalization helped in establishing a connection between concepts and variables, with a view of measuring them to enable findings to be generalized to the real world⁵⁵. The indicators of Leagile Strategy are waste elimination, total quality management, economies of scale, cooperation, strategic planning, feedback, knowledge management, responsiveness to the market, flexibility, IT, and systems. Product cost, differentiation, customer service level, and lead times are the indicators of CA.   

Table 1: Key study variables, indicators, and supporting literature

Figure 1: Leagile Strategy-Competitive Advantage Association Click here to view Figure

Study Hypothesis

To examine the validity of the model, the hypothesis is expressed as H0₁:There is no significant influence of Leagile Strategy on Competitive Advantage in Construction Companies’ Supply Chains.

Materials and Methods

Materials

This study is underpinned by Dynamic Capabilities (DC) Theory and Network Theory. The theory of dynamic capabilities offers clarifications of a sustainable competitive advantage that goes beyond the resource-based view’s belief which examines resources in terms of being valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable ⁵⁶. Dynamic capabilities assist firms in being ahead of competition because they empower them in integrating, building and reconfiguring different resources to respond to the fast-evolving business scenario ⁵⁷. Dynamic Capabilities Theory explains how firms attain competitive success in the operating market ^{58, 59}. Networks theory clarifies the myriad cooperative relationships among the partners in the linkage ^{60, 61}. Network in a supply chain is complex depending on the relationships formed among partners ^62. Companies in the network perform activities and exchange resources whereby they become connected directly and/or indirectly. Once formed, these relations become special and companies enjoy direct communications leading to product customization and the capability to meet unique customer needs ⁶³.  

Madhani ¹⁴ posits that leagile strategy can be realized by ensuring level production scheduling upstream and quick customer response downstream of the decoupling point. A second approach to understanding leagile strategy in the company is the use of the Pareto 80:20 rule in which lean strategy is utilized on twenty percent of products categorized as having demand stability, fast selling, and made for stocking. The scholar asserts that the agile strategy is concentrated on the remaining eighty percent of commodities that are slow-moving, and based on a make-to-order production. A third way of implementing leagile strategy is surge/base demand segregation methodology whereby lean strategy is recommended for products whose demands are forecastable whereas the agile approach is commended for commodities whose demand is less predictable. Hidayat and Hendrix ⁶⁴ conducted an empirical study on the creation of a competitive advantage strategy through Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Orientation of the Market in SMEs in Indonesia. The study population was 5.7 million and the sample size was 150 industries. Data was collected vide questionnaires and analysis were done through Structural equation modeling (SEM). The findings revealed the orientation of the market has the strongest effect on the creation of competitive advantage strategy in comparison to innovation and entrepreneurship. Whereas the study concentrated on competitive advantage strategy creation through innovation, entrepreneurship, and market orientation, the present study was different because it assessed leagile strategy’s effect on the competitive advantage of construction companies’ supply chains, utilizing a population of 4,015 and a sample size of 323. Additionally, data analysis was done differently using the SPSS Software version 22.

Alzoubi and Ahmed ⁶⁵ investigated the mediating role of SC collaboration on the association between sustainable supply chain strategies and competing priorities. The findings confirmed there was a relationship between sustainable supply chain strategies and their impact on competitive priorities. The study was conducted among Jordanian Pharmaceutical companies different from the current study which surveyed construction companies’ supply chains in the capital city of Kenya. Furthermore, while the research’s population had 23 companies where top managers were the respondents and data analysis involved the use of the Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) technique, the current investigation was dissimilar because the data analysis was done vide the SPSS software version 22 and linear regression model.

Research done by Fadaki et al. 66 on determining the key design driver effect of uncertainty on leagile strategy in the supply chain of 299 Australian firms indicated that it had a direct and positive impact. The scholars emphasized that consideration of combined lean and agile strategies would generate greater profitability. The current study was dissimilar as it focused on investigating the leagile strategy-competitive advantage association in construction companies’ supply chains applying SPSS version 22 and a linear regression model for data analysis. An empirical analysis was conducted by Zimmerman et al. 3 on SC strategies, product characteristics, environmental uncertainty, and performance association in 329 companies. Applying cluster analysis and one-way ANOVA, the results showed the four types of SC strategies were adopted by the companies. It was further revealed that companies that implemented leagile strategy attained higher performance whereas those who adopted the traditional SC concepts recorded the lowest. The present study had a different focus by assessing how the leagile strategy influences the competitive advantage of construction companies. The study analyzed data using cluster analysis different from the current research where a linear regression model was employed.

Li et al. ⁶⁷ conducted a study in the Chinese textile sector to determine the current approaches crucial for companies in attaining competitiveness in marketplaces globally. The outcomes exposed that vendor selection centered on leagile practices is crucial in making the supply chain operations of focal industries stronger particularly for major suppliers of multinational companies. The current investigation was dissimilar in that it examined the leagile strategy’s effect on competitive advantage in construction companies’ supply chains. Ahmed ⁶⁸ studied the integration of leanness and agility effectively generate competitive advantage among manufacturing firms. It was unearthed that lean strategies struggle in terms of flexibility. It was found that joining the competencies of the two approaches enhance the competitive capabilities of the firm.The study assessed the effect of lean and agile approaches’ assimilation on competitive advantage whereas this investigation determined the impact on competitive advantage by leagile strategy.  Nagaaba ⁶⁹ conducted an empirical survey to validate a leagile manufacturing model and to establish its impact on performance in small and medium factories in Uganda. The results unearthed that time-based leagile manufacturing are associated, though different regarding their competencies as well as the ethical positioning. Besides, it was exposed that Uganda’s SME factories which implement leagile practices don’t increase their performance. The findings were attributed to the inadequacy of resources in small and medium factories. While the survey was done to evaluate leagile manufacturing model’s impact on SME factories’ performance, the current study was different because the investigation assessed the leagile strategy’s effect on competitive advantage in construction companies’ supply chains. Alfalla-Luque ⁷⁰ analyzed the impacts of the supply chain’s agility, alignment, and adaptableness on the competitive advantage of 151 manufacturing plants utilizing a consistent partial least squares structural equation model for data analysis. The study further endeavored to determine whether the aforementioned variables had both individual and joint effects on competitive advantage attainment in the SCs. The findings revealed a significant joint effect of the three variables on competitive advantage. Adaptability had a major effect on all the attributes of competitive advantage. SC alignment influenced most of the dimensions and agile approach influenced the monetary aspect of competitive advantage. That study analyzed the impacts of supply chain agility, alignment, and adaptability on competitive advantage using structural equation modeling for data analysis, though this research was dedicated on assessing the impact on competitive advantage by leagile approach in the construction companies’ supply chains using SPSS software version 22 and linear regression model to analyze its data. Furthermore, the current utilized different competitive advantage dimensions.     

A study of Egypt Air was conducted by Al-Romeedy ⁷¹ to demonstrate how important strategic agility is in the achievement of competitive advantage. The results exposed that competitive advantage was influenced significantly by strategic agility in Egypt Air by impacting considerably on delivery, reliability, innovation, processes, flexibility, service quality and costs respectively. Further findings indicated that Egypt air was agile. Agility assists airlines to survive, increase competitiveness, and achieve competitive advantage and excellence in the wake of a volatile labor market. While the study was focused on demonstrating how important strategic agility is in the achievement of competitive advantage in the airline industry, the current study investigated the leagile strategy’s impact on the competitive advantage in the context of construction companies’ supply chains.  

Roh et al. ⁷² identified information sharing with customers, supplier collaboration, a pull production system, and improved manufacturing technology utilization, as key variables in implementing responsive SCs. The contextual factors identified were firm’s industry, size, as well as customer and supplier base.  These scholars held that the aforementioned factors were more important than the firm’s location. They further determined that a responsive SC comprises global inter-organizational integration which improves the capabilities of pull production. The study focused on identifying key variables in the implementation of responsive chains while the current study was different because it investigated the leagile strategy’s effect on competitive advantage in construction companies’ SCs. Abdulwase et al. ⁷³ reviewed the literature on the business strategy’s role in creating competitive advantage in the company. It was revealed that business strategy aids in gaining market share, hence the creation of competitive advantage. It was also found the market share off a firm is dependent on the implementation of an appropriate strategy. There was a difference from the current study since it was an analysis of literature while the present research was an empirical survey using quantitative descriptive cross-sectional survey design in assessing the leagile strategy’s impact on competitive advantage in the SCs of the companies in the construction industry.

Methods

This research applied a cross-sectional analysis across a population comprising of 4,015 construction companies classified into three strata as per Table 2.

Table 2: Size of Population, and Sample for the strata     

The first stratum consisted of 3,787 construction companies who were contractors registered under NCA 1-8 in 2018 obtained from the National Construction Authority(NCA) of Kenya offices on 5th August 2019. The second stratum comprised 112 construction manufacturing companies in the sectors of building, construction, and quarrying, which were members obtained from the directory of the Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM) in 2018. Category three consisted of 116 end-user construction companies who were members of the Kenya Property Developers Association (KPDA) in 2019. The unit of analysis is represented by the individual entity measured by the study variables⁷⁴. In this study, the unit of analysis consisted of the individual 4,015 companies.  

The sample size of 4,015 firms was determined by utilizing the formula as per the proposition of Mugenda and Mugenda⁷⁵. The scholars posit that a sample size of at least 70% of the study population is sufficient in yielding dependable outcomes. The formula is given as: 

Where;

n = sample size

z = z-score at confidence level α = 0.05 (which implies z = 1.96)

 p = inclusion proportion or probability which in this case is 70%

d = permissible marginal error (the level of statistical significance, set at α = 0.05).

Thus the sample size is as follows;

A stratified random sampling procedure was utilized whereby first the proportions were determined, then simple randomization of the sample within each stratum was executed until the proportionate sub-sample size is realized. To obtain the number of firms in each stratum, stratified random sampling was utilized to ensure proportionate allocation of sample sizes:  

Where;

n_i = Number of firms to be sampled from each stratum

n = Overall sample size, which is 323

N_i = Number of firms in the given stratum
 
N = Number of firms from the sampling frame.

Self-administered questionnaires containing close-ended questions were utilized to collect data by dropping off, picking up, and emailing because they are good for surveys in providing better chances of achieving a high response rate and are much easier to statistically analyze. Measurement of the questionnaire responses was done vide the use of a five-point Likert-type scale and inquiries on leagile strategy were formulated using eleven descriptive statements. On Competitive Advantage, nine descriptive statements were asked requesting respondents to indicate the degree of competitive advantage achievement in their respective companies. Cronbach’s Alpha calculation was performed to determine questionnaire reliability. It was revealed that leagile strategy has an alpha of 0.896, and competitive advantage of 0.864. The results show acceptable levels of reliability because the reliability coefficients of the constructs were above (0.7) ⁷⁶. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)’s and Bartlett’s verified the research instrument’s validity. The KMO statistic is 0. 712, which is more than 0.5. It rounds off to 1, proving the research instrument was valid. From testing the sphericity utilizing Bartlett's test, the results indicate p-value = 0.000 which is less than 0.05, proof of a valid research instrument. The study’s questionnaire was also subjected to expert judgment to ensure content validity. The target respondents in this study consisted of Managers and Directors in the procurement department or the representatives. The same information collection approach was employed in all the three categories. A Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 was employed for statistical analysis to generate descriptive and inferential information.

Results and Discussion

Results

Overall, a total of 260 responses were received from the data collection process and the inclusive response rate of the study in all three categories of construction companies was 80.50 percent details are expressed n Table 3.

Table 3: Rate of Response 

Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics obtained were; the position held by respondents, the area of specialization of the company, and responses obtained on each variable in this survey study. During the survey, the present respondents’ position in the company was determined and indicated in Table 4. It was observed that the majority of those responding had the capability of adequately providing the information required during the data collection in the survey study.

Table 4: Respondents’ Position in the company

Table 5: Area of Specialty

From Table 5, it was also discovered that (5.4%) of the construction companies were specializing in the area of Electrical Engineering Services, (3.8%) in manufacturing and supply of industrial/construction goods, and (3%) were in property management. Further, it was found that (0.4%) of the construction companies were specializing in painting works while (0.4%) were in both building and water works. Table 6 depicts the outcome of the analysis of the Responses to the Leagile Strategy.  

Table 6: Responses

Table 6 indicates the average mean score of the eleven statements was 4.12. This result shows a general agreement among the respondents of surveyed firms that leagile strategy leads to competitive advantage. Table 7 designates the average mark of the nine statements applied to determine the degree of competitive advantage realization. was 4.10. This result shows a general agreement among the respondents of surveyed firms.

Table 7: Responses

Inferential statistics

Linear regression model was employed in hypothesis testing. A linear regression model assumes that data is normally distributed and variables are not auto-correlated. Appropriate tests were done to confirm normality and autocorrelation respectively and to conform to the assumptions. The outputs of the regression analysis like the regression coefficients and their corresponding significance values were used to test the study hypotheses.  All decisions were made at a 5% level of significance and the corresponding null hypotheses were rejected whenever the matching p-value was less than 0.05. Also, using the t-statistics value, the null hypothesis was rejected if the computed t-value was greater than the tabulated t-value. The tabulated t-value was obtained at a 5% level of significance and (n-1) degrees of freedom, where  is the number of observations (was 260). From the t-table, the t-value at 0.05 level and 259 degrees of freedom are 1.968. Therefore, the null hypothesis would be rejected whenever the computed t-value > 1.968.

In this study, the expressed hypothesis was tested employing a regression model represented as CA = β₀ + β₁LS +ε

Where:

CA =   Competitive Advantage (Dependent variable)

LS =    Leagile Strategy (Independent variable)

β₀   =    Regression constant

β₁ =     Regression coefficient for Leagile Strategy

ε =       Error term

The regression analysis yielded results that were divided into three parts as follows: Model’s Summary, Analysis of Variance (NOVA), and Regression Coefficient. Table 8 reveals outcomes of direct effect model summary.   

Table 8: Results of the Model’s Summary  

From Table 8, the analysis show the explained variation (R²) value = 0.068. This translates to 6.8% and the calculated F-statistic value = 18.922. The value R² implies that leagile strategy, as a predictor variable, explains only 6.8% of the total variations in the dependent variable. The remaining 93.2% of the variations in the competitive advantage of a firm are attributed to other factors other than leagile strategy. The second part of the regression model is the analysis of variance (ANOVA) which is shown in Table 8.  

Table 9: Results of ANOVA: Leagile Strategy and Competitive Advantage

Table 9 shows the outcomes of regression analysis using ANOVA, which was used to check for model fittingness to the data.  The ANOVA results showed the observed p-value = 0.000 which was less than 0.05. This p-value = 0.000, therefore, indicates the model’s fittingness to the data and that the leagile strategy significantly predicts the competitive advantage of a firm. The third part of the regression model is the analysis of regression coefficients which is shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Results of Regression Coefficients: Leagile Strategy and Competitive Advantage.

From Table 10, the results of the regression coefficient indicated, the constant term was observed to be 0.995 and a corresponding standard error of 0.06.  It was observed that the constant term was insignificant at the 5% level because the resultant P-value = 0.995>0.05). For leagile strategy which was the independent variable, the regression coefficient was observed to be 0.261 (Standard Error = 0.060) and a corresponding t-statistics = 4.350 and p-value = 0.000. The P-value = 0.000 shows that leagile strategy had a significant influence on the competitive advantage of a firm because it’s less than 0.05. Testing of Hypothesis H01 was done to determine the significance of the direct effect of leagile strategy on competitive advantage using the corresponding P-value in Table 10. A significant effect is indicated by a P-value less than 0.05.

Observations on Table 10 illustrates that the resultant P-value of leagile strategy = 0.000< 0.05) inferring it had a significant influence on competitive advantage of a firm. Consequently, H₀₁, the null hypothesis was rejected at 5% level of significance and a conclusion was drawn that leagile strategy, significantly influences the competitive advantage. The same inference was also deduced using the t-statistics. In leagile strategy, the observed t-value was 4.35, which was greater than 1.968. As 4.35 > 1.968, the null hypothesis H₀₁, was rejected. This implies that leagile strategy significantly influences the competitive advantage of a company. The regression coefficient for leagile strategy which was observed to be = 0.261 advises that any improvement or positive adjustment in leagile strategy by a single unit results in an enhancement in competitive advantage by 0.261 units. This particular observation infers that the regression model of competitive advantage on leagile strategy (or direct effects model) can be expressed as follows: Competitive Advantage = 0.00036 + .261 LS. Where LS= Leagile Strategy

Discussion

This study was intended to evaluate the Leagile Strategy’s influence on Competitive Advantage. The hypothesis H0₁, stated that leagile strategy has no significant influence on competitive advantage was tested using linear regression analysis. It was determined that leagile strategy significantly influenced competitive advantage as the obtained p-value was less than 0.05. The p-value was less than 0.05 and inferred that the linear regression model had correct fittingness to the data. Consequently, H₀₁, the null hypothesis was rejected at a 5% level of significance and a conclusion was drawn that leagile strategy, as a predictor variable, significantly influences the competitive advantage of companies in the studied context. The outcome is in agreement with the findings of Arasa, Mwaura, and Ngui ⁷⁷.  The outcome is in line with suggestions by Hill & Jones ⁷⁸ that companies in possession of superior innovation, efficiency, customer responsiveness, and quality attain competitive advantage. The results of this study are supporting the outcome of Pono et al. ⁷⁹ who investigated the effect of supply chain strategy on competitive advantage and company performance in 210 SME industries in West Sulawesi Province, Indonesia.

Conclusion

Leagile strategy leads to the achievement of competitive advantage when companies are confronted with the rapidly changing business environment where adequately satisfying the high levels of customers’ quality and service demand have become challenging. Implementation of leagile strategy helps construction companies to address those challenges caused by the rapidly changing business environment. Companies embracing leagile strategy attain competitive advantage in terms of cost reduction, product differentiation, higher customer service level, and shorter lead times. Leagile strategy improves efficiency in the utilization of resources and technological innovations which has become more important in introducing new products at a matching pace. Leagile strategy helps construction companies in improving responsiveness and delivery time to meet changing consumer preferences. Companies gifted with flexible knowhow, personnel, and practices have the capability of being ahead of competitors in the construction industry. are able to be competitive. Moreover, it’s advisable that companies yearning to outperform competition need to embrace activities of strategic planning of activities, removal of waste, teamwork and volume production.

Implications for Theory

The results of this study are helpful for future studies on leagile strategy, competitive advantage, and their measurement. It’s useful in theory advancement by confirming there is a relationship between leagile strategy and competitive advantage. The leagile possesses consisting of flexibility, cost efficiency, and response speed capabilities are important sources of competitive advantage. The leagile strategy capabilities empower companies to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external resources to address and shape a speedily shifting business environment. These implications support the proposition of dynamic capabilities theory that firms are capable of attaining competitive advantage when they possess the competencies of identifying opportunities, seizing them and reallocating resources as appropriate. The importance of beneficial network of relationships between clients and service providers in achievement of competitive advantage supports the applicability of network theory in construction SCs. The connectivity between companies in the supply chain becomes special and beneficial because they allow direct communications between companies, enabling coordination between buyers and suppliers.   The research enhances the literature on dynamic capabilities theory emphasizing its relevance in explaining how firms in the construction industry supply chains create competitive advantages. It equally enlarges the literature on networks theory highlighting its applicability in explaining how the interconnectivity of firms in the construction industry supply chains enables the achievement of competitive advantage.

Implications for Knowledge

This research present the most current information added to the literature on attainment of competitive advantage through leagile approach in companies. The study also compliments knowledge about methodology in terms of the use of quantitative descriptive research design, a valid and reliable instrument using a five-point Likert Type scale for measurement as well as the Statistical software for social sciences version 22 to confirm the leagile strategy’s influence on competitive advantage. This study increases the contextual literature on the adoption of leagile strategy in the supply chains for improving competitiveness and survival in a tumultuous environment. The study also adds to the knowledge that leagile strategy alone does not fully influence competitive advantage.

Implications for Practice

Leagile strategy capabilities for the achievement of competitive advantage are recognizable from this study and useful for practitioners. Company managers and chief executives become cognizant of how businesses improve competitiveness, and performance through the embracing of leagile strategy. This research is useful to managers and practitioners on the importance of adopting leagile strategy for the achievement of competitive advantage and alleviating various managerial problems confronting construction companies.

Implications for Policy

Policymakers may also benefit by utilizing the findings to improve the competitiveness of companies in the sector and beyond by utilizing the results of this study to implement policies for reforms.

Limitations of the study

The outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic caused several drawbacks to this research and specifically in the restrictions placed on accessing buildings, triggering delays in receiving feedback on the questionnaires.

Areas for Future Research

Future studies should be carried out in different contexts utilizing longitudinal strategy. The use of different methodology such as mixed-methods approach including mutual application of the questionnaire and observation may breed different discoveries.  The determination of the diverse factors influencing competitive advantage besides leagile strategy should also be done in future investigations.  

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declares no conflict of interest.

Funding Sources

The author(s) received no financial support for research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

1. Zanjirchi, S. M. (2017). Information technology-based model of operations integrated strategies and its function on organizational performance. Modiriat-e-farda, 52(52), 21.
2. Mostafa, S., Tam, V. W., Dumrak, J., & Mohamed, S. (2020). Leagile strategies for optimizing the delivery of prefabricated house building projects. International Journal of Construction Management, 20(8), 867-881.
3. Zimmermann, R., Ferreira, L. M. D., & Moreira, A.C. (2020). An empirical analysis of the relationship between supply chain strategies, product characteristics, environmental uncertainty, and performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
4. Kant, R., Pandey, V., & Pattanaik, L. N. (2015). Lean, agile & leagile supply chain: a comparative study. ELK Asia Pacific Journals, 8(5), 978-81.
5. Haq, A. N., & Boddu, V. (2017). Analysis of enablers for the implementation of leagile supply chain management using an integrated fuzzy QFD approach. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 28(1), 1-12.
6. Raj, S. A., Jayakrishna, K., & Vimal, K. E. K. (2018). Modelling the metrics of leagile supply chain and leagility evaluation. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 11(2), 179-202.
7. Kisperska-Moron, D., & De Haan, J. (2011). Improving supply chain performance to satisfy final customers: “Leagile” experiences of a polish distributor. International Journal of Production Economics, 133(1), 127-134...
8. Wu, K. J., Tseng, M. L., Chiu, A. S., & Lim, M. K. (2017). Achieving competitive advantage through supply chain agility under uncertainty: A novel multi-criteria decision-making structure. International Journal of Production Economics, 190, 96-107.
9. Soltan, H., & Mostafa, S. (2015). Lean and agile performance framework for manufacturing enterprises. Procedia Manufacturing, 2, 476-484.
10. Gligor, D. M., Esmark, C. L., & Holcomb, M. C. (2015). Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: when should you be agile? Journal of operations management, 33, 71-82.
11. Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B., & Towill, D. R. (2000). Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your supply chain to the marketplace. International Journal of Production Research, 38(17), 4061-4070.
12. Womack, J.P, Jones, D.T. (2003). Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation; Recuperado de http://www. kvimis. co. in/sites/kvimis. co. in/files/ebook_attachments/James.
13. Arbussa, A., Bikfalvi, A., & Marquès, P. (2017). Strategic agility-driven business model renewal: the case of an SME. Management Decision.
14. Madhani, P. M. (2017). Supply chain strategy selection: A multi-criteria decision-making approach. The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, 14(2), 38-56.
15. Gunasekaran, A., Lai, K. H., & Cheng, T. E. (2008). Responsive supply chain: a competitive strategy in a networked economy. Omega, 36(4), 549-564.
16. Birhanu, D.,  Lanka. K. & Rao AN. (2014). A survey of classifications in supply chain strategies. Procedia engineering, 1:97:2289-97.
17. Porter, M.E. (2000). Location, competition and economic development: local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly. 14(1), 15–34.
18. Li, Y., Zhao, Y., & Liu, Y. (2006). The relationship between HRM, technology innovation, and performance in China. International Journal of Manpower.
19. Zhang, M. J., & Lado, A. A. (2001). Information systems and competitive advantage: a competency-based view. Technovation, 21(3), 147-156.
20. Koufteros, X. A., Vonderembse, M. A., & Doll, W. J. (2002). Integrated product development practices and competitive capabilities: the effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Journal of Operations Management, 20(4), 331-355.
21. Wang HL. (2014). Theories for competitive advantage.
22. Afonina, A. (2015); Strategic management tools and techniques and organizational performance: Findings from the Czech Republic. Journal of Competitiveness. 7(3).
23. Mentzer, J. T., Flint, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2001). Logistics service quality as a segment-customized process. Journal of marketing, 65(4), 82-104.
24. Cox, A. (1999). Power, value, and supply chain management. Supply chain management: An International Journal.
25. Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2007). Supply chain management. Strategy, planning & operation. In Das summa summarum des management (pp. 265-275). Gabler.
26. Dainty, A.R., Millett S.J. & Briscoe, GH. (2001). New perspectives on construction supply chain integration. Supply chain management: An International Journal.
27. Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower strategies for flexible organisations. Personnel management, 16(8), 28-31.
28. Lockamy, III A., Smith, W.I. (1997). A strategic alignment approach for effective business process reengineering: linking strategy, processes and customers for competitive advantage. International journal of production economics. 50(2-3), 141-153.
29. Okweto, A. N. (2012). An assessment of the organization structure and leadership effects on construction projects' performance in Kenya: a case study of public building projects within Nairobi region (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nairobi, Kenya).
30. Olawale, Y. A., & Sun, M. (2010). Cost and time control of construction projects: inhibiting factors and mitigating measures in practice. Construction Management and Economics, 28(5), 509-526.
31. Christopher, M. (2011). Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 4th ed. Pearson Education Limited: London, UK.
32. Naylor, J. B., Naim, M. M., & Berry, D. (1999). Leagility: Integrating the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1-2), 107-118.
33. Jaya, S., & Kumar, A. (2016). Impact of supply chain management strategies on changing market conditions. IOSR J. Bus. Manag, 18, 109-111.
34. Cohen, M.A. & Lee, H.L. (2020). Designing the right global supply chain network. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 22, 15–24.
35. Kalafus, R.M. (2014). The Innovative Society: Five Essential Conditions for Fostering Innovative Activity; Infinity Publishing: West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
36. Fan, D., Li, Y. & Chen, L. (2016). Configuring innovative societies: The convergent role of cultural and institutional varieties. Technovation, 66, 43–56.
37. Wu, Y., Wang, J., & Li, C. (2019). Decisions of supply chain considering the chain-to-chain competition and service negative spillover effect. Sustainability, 11(6), 1612.
38. Milovanovic, G., & Popovic, G. (2019). The hyper-personalized supply chains. ????????? ? ??????? (???????), (12), 28-37.
39. Slack, N., & Brandon-Jones, A. (2018). Operations and process management: principles and practice for strategic impact. Pearson UK.
40. Stefanelli, F., Giulianelli, D., & De Sanctis, I. (2019). A comparison between the main drivers and effects of dynamic supply chain concepts. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 8(2), 01-23.
41. Carvalho, H., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2011). Integrating lean, agile, resilience and green paradigms in supply chain management (LARG_SCM). Supply chain management, (April).
42. Gligor, D. M., Holcomb, M. C., & Stank, T. P. (2013). A multidisciplinary approach to supply chain agility: Conceptualization and scale development. Journal of business logistics, 34(2), 94-108.
43. Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. & Henke, M. (2015). The performance impact of supply chain agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity. International Journal of Production Research. May 19;53(10):3028-46.
44. Singh, C. D., Singh, R., Mand, J. S., & Singh, S. (2013). Application of lean and JIT principles in supply chain management. International Journal of Management Research and Business Strategy, 2(1), 85-98.
45. Qi, Y., Boyer, K.K. & Zhao, X. (2009). Supply chain strategy, product characteristics, and performance impact: evidence from Chinese manufacturers. Decision Sciences, 40(4): 667-695.
46. Christiansen, P. E., Kotzab, H., & Mikkola, J. H. (2007). Coordination and sharing logistics information in leagile supply chains. International Journal of Procurement Management, 1(1-2), 79-96.
47. Seyyed, A. B. (2011). Improving supply chain performance: The strategic integration of lean and agile supply chain. African Journal of Business Management, 5(17), 7557-7563.
48. Ambe, I. M. (2012). Determining an optimal supply chain strategy. Journal of transport and supply chain management, 6(1), 126-147.
49. Al Samman, T. A. S. (2014). Modeling lean, agile, leagile manufacturing strategies: a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process approach for ready-made ware (clothing) industry in Mosul, Iraq. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, 7(3), 1091.
50. Porter, M. (1980) Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press,
51. Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York: Free Press.
52. Bobillo, A. M., López-Iturriaga, F., & Tejerina-Gaite, F. (2010). Firm performance and international diversification: The internal and external competitive advantages. International Business Review, 19(6), 607-618.
53. Christensen, H. K. (2010). Defining customer value as the driver of competitive advantage. Strategy & Leadership.
54. Ross, D. F. (1998). Meeting the challenge of supply chain management. In Competing Through Supply Chain Management (pp. 1-35). Springer, Boston, MA.
55. Rao, D. S., & Reddy, A. V. (2013). An examination of the role of conceptualization and operationalization in empirical social research. ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(7), 108-114.
56. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533.
57. Hou, J. J., & Chien, Y. T. (2010). The effect of market knowledge management competence on business performance: A dynamic capabilities perspective. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 8(2).
58. Teece, D. J. (2008). The multinational enterprise: market failure and market power considerations. World Scientific Book Chapters, 405-419.
59. Augier, M., & Teece, D. J. (2006). Understanding complex organization: the role of know-how, internal structure, and human behavior in the evolution of capabilities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(2), 395-416.
60. Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of inter-organizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of management review, 15(2), 241-265.
61. Haakansson, H. & Ford, D. (2002) ‘How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 133-139.
62. Chang, C. W., Chiang, D. M., & Pai, F. Y. (2012). Cooperative strategy in supply chain networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(7), 1114-1124.
63. Johanson, J., & Mattson, L. G. (1987). Inter organizational relations in industrial systems: A network approach compared with the transaction cost approach: internationalization, relationships, and networks.
64. Hidayat, A., M. Hidayat, and T. Hendrix (2018). Competitive advantage strategy creation through innovation, entrepreneurship and market orientation: empirical studies on small and medium entreprises (SMEs) in Indonesia.
65. Alzoubi, H., Ahmed, G., Al-Gasaymeh, A., & Kurdi, B. (2020). Empirical study on sustainable supply chain strategies and its impact on competitive priorities: The mediating role of supply chain collaboration. Management Science Letters, 10(3), 703-708.
66. Fadaki, M., Rahman, S. & Chan, C. (2020). Leagile supply chain: design drivers and business performance implications. International Journal of Production Research, 16;58(18):5601-23.
67. Li, Y., Diabat, A., & Lu, C. C. (2020). Leagile supplier selection in Chinese textile industries: a DEMATEL approach. Annals of Operations Research, 287(1), 303-322.
68. Ahmed, W. (2021). Understanding alignment between lean and agile strategies using the Triple-A model. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
69. Nagaaba, N. (2022). Assessing enabling competence of leagile manufacturing model and its impact on the performance of small and medium factories in Uganda. American Journal of Operations Research, 12(4), 127-155.
70. Alfalla-Luque, R., Machuca, J. A., & Marin-Garcia, J. A. (2018). Triple-A and competitive advantage in supply chains: Empirical research in developed countries. International Journal of Production Economics, 203, 48-61.
71. Al-Romeedy, B. S. (2019). Strategic agility as a competitive advantage in airlines–case study: Egypt air. Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels-University of Sadat City, 3(1), 1-15.
72. Roh, J., Hong, P., & Min, H. (2014). Implementation of a responsive supply chain strategy in global complexity: The case of manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 198-210.
73. Abdulwase R, Ahmed F, Nasr F, et al. (2020). The role of business strategy to create a competitive advantage in the organization. Open Access J Sci. DOI: 10.15406/oajs.2020.04.00162
74. Salkind, N. J. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vol. 1). Sage.
75. Mugenda, O. M. and Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, Acts Press: Nairobi.
76. Hair, J. F., Ortinau, D. J., & Harrison, D. E. (2010). Essentials of marketing research (Vol. 2). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
77. Arasa, R., Mwaura, R., & Ngui, T. (2013). The relationship between supply chain strategies and achievement of competitive advantage in seed manufacturing companies in Nairobi county, Kenya. International Journal of Science and Research, 5(1), 358-364.
78. Hill, C. W., & Jones, G. R. (2001). Strategic Management: An Integrated Approach (5th Ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin
79. Pono, M., Alam, S., Munizu, M. (2020). The effect of supply chain strategy toward competitive advantage, and company performance: the case of small-medium industries in West Sulawesi Province of Indonesia." Revista Espacios, 41.14