3 PhDThesis

DELGADO-HERNÁNDEZ DAVID JOAQUÍN
A FRAMEWORK FOR BUILDING QUALITY

INTO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
MECHANICAL AND MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING
A FRAMEWORK FOR BUILDING
QUALITY INTO CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
by
DAVID JOAQUÍN DELGADO-HERNÁNDEZ
A thesis submitted to the

School of Engineering
University of Birmingham
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
University of Birmingham
May 2006
Abstract
Marketplaces around the world have become very competitive in most sectors.
Manufacturing companies, for instance, have realised that a key area to ensure
commercial success is good product quality and several methods to help in this regard
have emerged under the Total Quality Management (TQM) umbrella. However, to date,
associated research in the construction sector has received little attention by
comparison.
This project concerns the development of a new framework to ensure that
quality is built into construction projects. Various approaches that have been proposed
for use in the sector had limitations related with their applicability. The framework
developed in this work addressed these as well as incorporating manufacturing
improvement methods that were suited to construction projects (these methods were
established from a postal survey carried out in the UK and in Mexico). The resultant
framework incorporates quality policy, product and service quality, the construction
process, people and their culture and quality improvement methods. A set of guidelines
for the implementation of the latter was also developed. An evaluation in five
construction companies verified that the framework was simple, easy to understand,
systematic, well structured, practical and applicable to the construction sector.
An empirical study at one of the five firms involving the design of a children’s
nursery, used the “design” stage of the framework. This exercise resulted in better
communication with customers, a better understanding of customer needs and a list of
their main requirements. Overall, the objectives set at the outset of this research have
been achieved.
Acknowledgements
In the first place, I would like to thank God for having given me the strength and
guidance to achieve this personal goal. Certainly, I am in debt to Mrs Elaine Aspinwall,
my supervisor, for her constant support, advice and encouragement throughout my stay
in the UK. Without her kindly help, this work would not have been finished. Thanks
also go to CONACYT (The National Council on Science and Technology of Mexico),
my financial supporter, for giving me the opportunity to carry out this research.
I will always be indebted to my devoted wife, Karla Gabriela, her serenity and
consideration through these few years have been crucial for me. My little boy Jesús
David, born almost one year ago has encouraged me to carry on with my programme
even in difficult times. Special thanks to my parents, David and Sylvia, and my brother,
Jordy, who have always supported me.
This thesis would be incomplete without the support of the companies that took
part in the UK and Mexican surveys. Similarly, I am grateful to the case study
companies. My special thanks to Mr Alistair McIntyre, Mr Neville J Clements, Mr
David Kershaw, Mr Chris Stevens, Mr David Higgins, Mr David Montgomery, Mr Roy
Magro, Mr John D Holt, Mr Les Needham, Mr Lawrie Newton and Ms Michelle White.
Within the School of Engineering, I would like to thank Dr David Seymour for
his comments, Dr Peter Jarvis for his feedback, and Professor David W L Hukins for
his support. Finally, I express thanks to the friends I have made in England for their
companionship.
Table of contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents i
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Research 1
1.2 The need for Quality in the Construction Industry 3
1.3 Research Objectives 6
1.4 Relevance and Originality of the Work 7
1.5 Research Methodology 8
1.6 Structure of the Thesis 9
CHAPTER 2. CONSTRUCTION, QUALITY AND QUALITY IN
CONSTRUCTION
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 The Construction Process 12
2.2.1 Participants in the Construction Process 15
2.2.2 Characteristics of the Construction Process 18
2.2.3 Problems in the Construction Industry 19
2.3 The Quality Evolution 21
-i-
2.4 Construction Improvement Initiatives 24
2.5 Analysis of Construction Improvement Initiatives 36
2.6 Summary 38
CHAPTER 3. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT METHODS IN UK AND
MEXICAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES-A COMPARISON
3.1 Introduction 40
3.2 Quality Improvement Methods 40
3.3 Empirical Survey 44
3.3.1 Questionnaire Development 45
3.3.2 Methodology 47
3.4 Survey Results 48
3.4.1 Respondent’s Profile 50
3.4.2 Quality Initiatives 51
3.4.3 Use of Methods 53
3.4.4 Perceived Importance of Methods 56
3.4.5 Significance Tests on Differences of Means 57
3.5 Quality Issues 61
3.6 Summary 62
CHAPTER 4. FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT
4.1 Introduction 64
4.2 Main Requirements 64
4.3 Stages in the Framework Construction 66
4.4 Framework Representation 73
- ii -
4.5 Elements of the Framework 74
4.5.1 Quality Policy 76
4.5.2 Activities for Building Quality into Projects 78
4.5.3 Guide for Implementing the Framework’s Methods 81
4.6 Comparison with Other Approaches 89
4.7 Expected Outputs 90
4.8 Summary 91
CHAPTER 5. CASE STUDIES
5.1 Introduction 93
5.2 Research Methodology 93
5.3 Data Collection 95
5.4 Case Study Results 96
5.4.1 Company A 97
5.4.2 Company B 101
5.4.3 Company C 106
5.4.4 Company D 110
5.4.5 Company E 115
5.4.6 Company F 119
5.4.7 Company G 123
5.5 Evaluation of the Framework 128
5.5.1 Pilots 129
5.5.2 Evaluation Exercise 133
5.5.3 Results of the Evaluation 140
5.6 Cross Case Analysis and Discussion 143
- iii -
5.7 Summary 146
CHAPTER 6. EMPIRICAL STUDY
6.1 Introduction 148
6.2 Project Background 148
6.3 Implementation 150
6.4 Data Collection 154
6.5 The HoQ and its Construction 158
6.6 Main Findings of the Study 166
6.7 Limitations 168
6.8 Summary 169
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
7.1 Conclusions 172
7.2 Limitations and Further Work 176
REFERENCES 179
BIBLIOGRAPHY 193
APPENDIX A. SURVEY ON QUALITY IMPROVEMENT METHODS-
LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE 201
A.1 Original Cover Letter 202
A.2 Follow up Letter 203
A.3 Survey on Quality Improvement Methods in the Construction Industry 204
- iv -
APPENDIX B. FORMS, CHECKLISTS AND SURVEYS TO SUPPORT
THE USE OF THE FRAMEWORK 208
B.1 Example of SWOT Analysis 209
B.2 Example of Mission and Vision Statements 209
B.3 Example of Annual Quality Objectives 209
B.4 Example of Quality Policy 210
B.5 Project Definition Checklist 210
B.6 Design Team Checklist 210
B.7 Construction Team Checklist 211
B.8 Customers’ Checklist 211
B.9 Identifying Customers 212
B.10 Survey for Gathering Customer Needs 217
B.11 Customer Satisfaction Survey 220
APPENDIX C. CASE STUDIES-LETTERS AND PROTOCOL 222
C.1 Case Study Letter 223
C.2 Case Study Protocol 224
APPENDIX D. CHILDREN NURSERY REQUIREMENTS 229
D.1 Children Nursery Requirements 230
APPENDIX E. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS 233
E.1 List of Publications 234
-v-
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The Construction Process 13
Figure 2.2 Product Development Stages 26
Figure 2.3 Main Stages of the CRPM 28
Figure 2.4 Lean Project Delivery System Model 29
Figure 2.5 Framework for Understanding Quality in Construction 32
Figure 4.1 First Version of the Framework 75
Figure 4.2 Guide for Implementing the Framework’s Methods 82
Figure 5.1 Company A’s Framework 101
Figure 5.2 Company B’ Framework 106
Figure 5.3 Company C’s Framework 110
Figure 5.4 Company D’s Framework 114
Figure 5.5 Company E’s Framework 118
Figure 5.6 Company F’s Framework 123
Figure 5.7 Company G’s Framework 128
Figure 5.8 Modified Version of the Framework for Building Quality 132
Figure 5.9 Framework Elements in IDEF-0 Format 142
Figure 6.1 Sure Start Project Master Programme 149
Figure 6.2 The House of Quality 158
Figure 6.3 The HoQ for the Children’s Nursery 167
- vi -
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Characteristics Inherent in Construction 19
Table 3.1 The More Common Quality Improvement Methods 42
Table 3.2 Reliability Analysis Results for the UK 49
Table 3.3 Distribution of UK and Mexican Companies 50
Table 3.4 Quality Initiatives Practiced in UK and Mexican Companies 52
Table 3.5 Paired Sample Statistics for Mean Levels of Use and Perceived
Importance-UK 54
Importance-Mexico 55
Table 3.7 Ordinary Comparison Statistics for UK versus Mexican Companies
for Mean Use 59
Table 3.8 Ordinary Comparison Statistics UK versus Mexican Companies
for Mean Perceived Importance 60
Table 4.1 CSFs for TQM Implementation in the Construction Industry 68
Table 4.2 Quality Improvement Methods for Supporting the Construction Process 73
Table 4.3 Activities for Building Quality into Construction Projects 79
Table 5.1 Case Companies General Information 97
Table 5.2 Company C’s Evaluation of the Framework 133
Table 5.3 Company D’s Evaluation of the Framework 136
Table 5.4 Company E’s Evaluation of the Framework 137
Table 5.5 Company F’s Evaluation of the Framework 138
Table 5.6 Company G’s Evaluation of the Framework 139
Table 5.7 Ratings for the Evaluation of the Framework 140
- vii -
Table 6.1 Main Features of the Construction Project 155
Table 6.2 Simplified Nursery Requirements 156
Table 6.3 Planning Matrix 160
Table 6.4 Technical Characteristics 162
Table 6.5 Relationship Matrix 163
Table 6.6 The Roof of the HoQ 164
Table 6.7 Technical Matrix 165
- viii -
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BCC Birmingham City Council
CE Concurrent Engineering
CPM Critical Path Method
CRPM Client Requirements Processing Model
CSF Critical Success Factor
DHUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
DQI Design Quality Indicator
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
FAME Financial Analysis Made Easy
FEA Finite Element Analysis
HoQ House of Quality
IDEF Integration Definition for Function Modelling
ISO International Standards Organisation
KM Knowledge Management
KPIs Key Performance Indicators
LPDSM Lean Project Delivery System Model
NHS National Health Service
OFSTED Office for Standards in Education
OHSA Organisational Safety and Health Agency
PERT Programme Evaluation and Review Technique
PFI Public Finance Initiative
PPP Public Private Partnerships
QFD Quality Function Deployment
- ix -
SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threatens
TFV Transformation, Flow and Value
TQM Total Quality Management
TRIZ Theory of Inventive Problem Solving
VoC Voice of the Customer
VPO Value Process Operation
-x-
1-Introduction
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Background to the Research
Leadership in the global marketplace now belongs to those organisations that
meet or exceed customers’ requirements [1]. Over the last decade approaches such as
Quality Circles, Review Processes and Just in Time Manufacture have been employed
to accomplish this. More recently, however, new strategies like Quality Function
Deployment (QFD) [2], the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ) [3] and
Concurrent Engineering (CE) [4] have gained prominence predominantly as methods
for translating the Voice of the Customer (VoC) into product features and deploying it
through every phase of the development cycle [5-7]. The literature reports that the
implementation of these approaches is mainly centred on the experiences of large
manufacturing companies. Examples of success stories include: Ford, Chrysler, General
Motors, Black & Decker, IBM, Mitsubishi, Motorola [1], Eli Lilly, ITT-Cannon [8] and
Toyota [9]. Very little by comparison has been published with reference to the
construction industry.
Manufacturing companies have to date been the main players, however this may
cause problems when trying to adapt these approaches in the construction industry
because of its unique characteristics (e.g. project oriented, most projects are one-off).
These have not been considered in the development of guidance material to implement
such methodologies. The manufacturing approach may not be suitable for the
requirements and features of construction companies, which unquestionably differ in
terms of the four uncertainties reported by Walker [10] i.e. natural (e.g. different
weather each time), task (e.g. different project each time), organisational (e.g. different
team for each project) and contractual (e.g. different arrangements for each project).
-1-
1-Introduction
This complex nature is the source of various problems that have chronically affected
quality in the construction industry e.g. poor workmanship, unclear drawings and lack
of coordination [11]. They will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. Again, the
result is that construction quality has generally lagged behind that of manufacturing.
According to Wilson [12] improvements in construction performance can help to
increase the quality of life generally. He stated that construction products (e.g. bridges,
buildings, dams, houses) influenced people everywhere because everyone is a
construction industry’s customer. Consequently, customer satisfaction in the sector has
become a major concern in various countries. For instance, in the UK, the Department
of Trade and Industry [13] reported that construction customers were not entirely
satisfied with the products of the sector. Koskela [14] stated that various solutions to
overcome the chronic problems of construction have been proposed; these include
industrialisation, computer-integrated construction, and automated construction. In spite
of these, no major improvements had been reported. He went on to say that the lack of a
theoretical foundation in construction was an obstacle to improvement and argued that
the poor conceptualisation of the production generic aspects had led to an inefficient
application of practical principles and methodologies.
Accordingly, construction companies need simple, useful and practical guidance
on the steps to follow to successfully implement new strategies for continuous quality
improvement, based on a solid theoretical foundation. In addition, they also require a
holistic view of the role that strategies play in the improvement process. In an effort to
bridge this gap in the literature, a framework for building quality into construction
projects has been developed.
-2-
1-Introduction
1.2 The Need for Quality in the Construction Industry
The importance of the construction sector in developed and developing countries
is well known. For instance, in the UK [15] and in Mexico [16] it accounts for just over
5% of their respective GDPs. Not only does the construction industry play an important
role in the economy but it is also a key employer and a social and environmental
developer [17]. In addition, the fact that the products of the industry affect everyone,
makes its importance more evident [12].
There are three major reasons why quality is required in the construction sector.
1. Customers are demanding it. As Dale [18] suggested, the importance of quality
becomes apparent when one, as a client, considers the examples of
unsatisfactory products, the bad feelings they give, the consequential measures
taken and the people told regarding the incident. Even worse is that the risks of
a failure increase with the development of poor quality products. For instance,
Ortega and Bisgaard [19] reported the collapse of an indoor swimming pool in
Switzerland, which killed 12 people and injured another 4.
2. It is necessary for construction companies to become more competitive in order
to survive in today’s marketplace. Brockmann [20] stated that a high level of
quality in the sector’s products would lead to customer satisfaction and loyalty,
which would increase re-purchase rates, bringing about larger turnovers. He
went on to say that through client referrals, a positive judgment of a company’s
performance would be fostered, leading to market success.
3. Improvements in the quality of the construction industry’s products can lead to
national benefits. Diaz-Murillo [21] stated that the building environment
contributed directly to enhance the quality of people’s life by giving the means
for sustaining it (e.g. infrastructure, productive facilities). In addition, he
-3-
1-Introduction
mentioned that the quality of the industry’s products helped to increase the
efficiency of a wide range of social and economic activities, and consequently
the productivity and competitiveness of nations.
Diaz-Murillo [21] summarised the efforts by practitioners, researchers and
governments to improve the quality of the construction industry’s products. He divided
them into two categories: indirect and direct. With reference to the first, approaches
include:
• Improving construction worker motivation, productivity and competitiveness
• Identifying the problems of the industry
• Developing and implementing prescriptive guidelines for owners, designers and
constructors
• Defining and distributing risks and liability among project participants
• Improving project management techniques
• Improving information management approaches
• Developing and establishing pre-qualification systems for suppliers of products
and services
• Identifying, developing and implementing new design and construction
technologies
• Industrialising processes
• Integrating design, fabrication and construction and
• Developing and implementing constructability concepts at various stages of the
construction process.
With regard to the direct approaches for quality improvement in construction,
the implementation of the following have been suggested:
-4-
1-Introduction
• Inspection systems during reviews of drawings, specifications, contracts,
components and materials
• Quality control systems
• Quality assurance systems and
• Total Quality Management (TQM).
According to Harris and McCaffer [22], during the 1990s quality management
became a major concern in construction because, as mentioned earlier, companies that
could not ensure a quality product could no longer compete efficiently in the
marketplace. They stated that quality was quickly becoming as major a selective factor
as price had been traditionally. They also summarised the evolution of the quality
movement and divided it into four stages: inspection, quality control, quality assurance
and Total Quality Management (TQM).
With reference to the inspection stage, the use of checklists was common to
verify that the product required was actually produced. Sampling and statistical methods
led to the introduction of quality control, in which the construction process was
thoroughly inspected to ensure that products were developed based on the specified
requirements. Regarding quality assurance, it ensured that specifications were
constantly met. The international quality standard ISO 9001 was introduced in the
sector to certify companies which operated in accordance with the principles of quality
assurance. Finally, TQM emerged as a philosophy to satisfy customers by continuously
improving goods or services.
More recently, Dale [18] described these stages as the four levels in the
evolution of TQM and emphasised that they should be considered as levels in a
hierarchical progression. They are part of what Koskela [14] named the value
generation concept of production, which arose as a criticism of mass production.
-5-
1-Introduction
Koskela, et al [23] suggested that construction engineering could be viewed in three
ways at the same time: Transformation, Flow and Value generation (TFV). The latter, is
intended to decrease value loss from the customer viewpoint. Rather than producing all
that a company can, as in mass production, the idea is to satisfy customers by producing
the products that they really want. The emphasis is on the fact that the product matches
the needs, wishes, requirements and desires of the customer. These ideas are in line with
the TQM philosophy and with those that will be used throughout this thesis.
1.3 Research Objectives
The central motivation for carrying out this investigation was the lack of
systematic research to date to develop a framework for ensuring that quality is built into
construction projects. The literature reports various studies within the industry, centred
on the use of specific initiatives, but very few on frameworks for building quality into
the process.
Overall the project aims to provide a good understanding of the methods
currently being employed to attain the VoC and the means by which it is deployed into
product development in general. Selecting the construction industry has provided a
focus. Construction companies should be given attention and assistance in their attempts
to improve the quality of their products/services because of their important role in the
economy.
The key objectives of the research were to:
1. Determine current quality improvement methods via an extensive literature
search and a postal survey conducted in the construction industry of one
developed (UK) and one developing (Mexico) country.
-6-
1-Introduction
2. Compare and contrast the results of these reviews in order to obtain a set of ‘best
practices’ for the construction sector.
3. Develop a framework for building quality into construction projects that
overcomes the limitations of current approaches.
4. Determine how UK construction companies cope with quality issues in their
processes.
5. Evaluate the proposed framework through case studies.
1.4 Relevance and Originality of the Work
The main beneficiary of this work is the construction industry. The emphasis on
process design quality control is not just based on the analysis of processes but also on
an understanding of customers’ needs and their deployment into the product
development process. This shift in focus is considered so important that the new ISO
9001: 2000 [24], has now incorporated the identification of customer needs. This means
that, to renew their certification, companies now have to demonstrate that they have
suitable methods in place for identifying customer needs. There are various problems
associated with the approaches that are currently available for construction companies
such as an emphasis on particular stages of the construction process, and/or on specific
types of project or little evidence of their use in practice, so a new framework is very
timely.
In terms of originality, a very similar argument to that presented by Brewer and
Hunter [25] in the social science research arena will be put forward. In the construction
management field, there are proponents of different strategies for improving the quality
of the industry’s products. This is a sign of the importance and relevance of this
research topic. Similarly, it is important to recognise that different approaches or
-7-
1-Introduction
viewpoints give solutions to a wider variety of problems. Inspection and quality control
are the traditional systems used in construction. So far, they have been applied in
isolation, without the consideration of quality by design. The author believes that the
inclusion of the latter can bring about benefits such as better designs, enhanced
communication with customers and increases in the levels of customer satisfaction.
The main contribution of this work is the development of a framework capable
of suggesting methods for quality improvement throughout the construction process.
The majority of the quality improvement methods suggested are standard, and the
novelty is their systematic combination to improve the quality of the construction
industry’s products. Many companies may be familiar with some of the methods
included in the framework, but it should be emphasised that they can be methodically
combined to enhance quality performance. The main benefit therefore, is not only the
possibility of solving quality problems in construction but also of suggesting methods
for improving it at each stage in the process.
1.5 Research Methodology
There are numerous initiatives for improving quality and methods to attain the
VoC. These have been reviewed [26]. Following on from this, a review of the methods
currently available for deploying the VoC into product development has been carried
out [27]. The second phase of the work was to carry out a survey to identify current
practices in the construction industry. To do so, companies of one developed (UK) and
one developing (Mexico) country were sampled. This involved searching databases for
appropriate respondents. The reliability and validity of the results were established,
conclusions were drawn and a comparison made with those emanating from the
literature review [28, 29].
-8-
1-Introduction
The main phase of the project has been centred on the proposition of the
framework. This has been accomplished through a thorough analysis of the results of
the surveys. Having investigated the possibilities of either drawing from the ‘best’
practices of the methods already available or by adopting a more radical approach, the
framework was based on the first alternative and was empirically evaluated with
encouraging results. In this regard, the help of seven UK construction companies was
invaluable. A comprehensive analysis of the collected data in these companies was
performed. The next step was to carry out an empirical study, during the first stages of
the construction process (the weakest area highlighted in the surveys), for identifying
customer needs and determining technical characteristics to satisfy them. The guidelines
associated with the framework and the House of Quality (HoQ) were used during the
exercise.
1.6 Structure of the Thesis
This thesis is organised into seven chapters. The first one provides an introduction
to the investigation and presents both its background and motivation. It has emphasised
the importance of quality within the construction industry and the benefits that could be
accrued from its improvement. Chapter 2 details a review of construction, quality and
its application in the sector. The characteristics of the industry along with the critical
problems that it has traditionally experienced are explained. The various approaches
available in the sector for improvement together with their advantages and limitations
are highlighted. Following on from this, Chapter 3 will describe in detail the survey
conducted in the UK and in Mexico. The discussion will be centred on the mean use and
mean perceived importance of various quality improvement methods within the
construction sector.
-9-
1-Introduction
Chapter 4 is the heart of the work and describes the developed framework. Its
evaluation in various UK construction companies along with the improvements
suggested by practitioners are presented in Chapter 5. An empirical study carried out
during the first stages of the construction process to translate customer needs into
technical requirements is presented in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 concludes the investigation,
and discusses the benefits and limitations of the study. Finally, ideas for future research
are proposed.
- 10 -
2-Construction and Quality
Chapter 2. Construction, Quality and Quality in
Construction
2.1 Introduction
Construction is defined as “the mobilisation and utilisation of capital and
specialised personnel, materials, and equipment to assemble materials and equipment
on a specific site in accordance with drawings, specifications, and contract documents
prepared to serve the purposes of the client“ [30]. As a sector, the construction industry
accounted for over 5% of the UK’s GDP [15], had an output of more than £80 billion
and employed more than 1.5 million people in 2002 [13], figures that reflect its
importance.
A UK customer survey was carried out by the DTI in 2002 to identify the level
of satisfaction within the sector [13]. The results demonstrated that its customers were
not completely satisfied with the products of the industry (note that roads, dams,
buildings, etc. will from now throughout the thesis, be referred to as products). On a 10-
point scale (in which 10 meant totally satisfied, 5/6 neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and
1 totally dissatisfied), 22 % of the respondents scored less than 8. According to Wilson
[12] improvements in construction activities can help raise both business
competitiveness and quality of life. He went on to say that the products of the industry
had an impact on everybody because all of us used them. As a result, quality and
customer satisfaction in the industry have become a major concern.
When carrying out construction activities, professionals with different
backgrounds interact, at some point or another in a project, to fulfil the customer’s
requirements. Through the stages of the construction process, different problems may
- 11 -
arise because these professionals tend to work in isolation from each other, while
making decisions that affect one another [31]. In addition, the construction industry has
some characteristics [10] that can adversely impact quality and customer satisfaction.
Apart from quality problems, the industry also has performance difficulties. According
to Koskela [32], the construction process and its peculiarities may be the main reasons
for the latter.
The construction process, its participants, the characteristics of construction and
some of the traditional problems in the industry will now be discussed. In addition,
quality will be defined in the construction context. The quality movement and its
evolution will also be presented. Some approaches (and their drawbacks) reported in the
construction management literature aimed at improving construction performance will
be detailed. Finally, an analysis of the initiatives reviewed will be presented.
2.2 The Construction Process
There are two categories of construction projects: building and civil engineering
[15]. The first deals with the construction, improvement and maintenance of both
residential and non-residential buildings whilst the second refers to the construction of
an infrastructure such as dams, bridges and roads. In any case, traditionally the same
steps have been used to develop the products of the industry. Hughes [33] analysed 7
different sources in which the construction process was divided into stages. There were
similarities and differences among them but in general, the major decision points were
identified as: recognition of customer needs, schematic design, detailed design,
construction documentation, contract, supply of material and components, assembly
(construction) and commissioning. One of the sources analysed was Austen and Neale
[34], who reported five sequential stages within the construction process based on
- 12 -
internationally accepted practice. They were briefing, designing, tendering, construction
and commissioning. Although these phases offer a simple portrayal of traditional
procurement, they will be used along with the decision points mentioned to explain how
the process works and to understand its main features.
It is important to note, however, that the stages vary from project to project
depending on the contractual arrangements for the particular project. Harris and
McCaffer [22] summarised various contractual forms such as cost reimbursable
contracts, two-stage tendering, serial contracts and management design. More recently,
the American Institute of Architects [35] defined three of the most common
procurement approaches that are being used today within the industry: design-bid-build,
design-build and construction management at risk. While the first is normally
recognised as the ‘traditional’ delivery method in which two separate contracts are
typical, owner-designer and owner-builder, the second makes use of only one contract,
owner-designer/builder. With regard to the last method, a construction manager takes
the risk of building the project and an architect is hired under a separate contract.
Having clarified this, Figure 2.1 shows a simplification of the construction process and
its participants based on the graphical representation proposed by Turin [36].
Briefing Designing Tendering Construction Commisioning
Customer Schematic Detailed Construction Materials & Use

Bidding Assembly
Participants Needs Design Design Documentation Components
User
Client
Professionals
Contractor
Suppliers
Figure 2.1 The Construction Process (Adapted from: [34] and [36])
- 13 -
As can be seen, the horizontal scale represents the stages in the construction
process while the vertical one portrays the main parties involved in each. Professionals
include such personnel as the architect through to all types of engineers. Admittedly,
there are other participants in the process such as local authorities, suppliers of services
i.e. water, electricity, gas, sewage and neighbours (see section 2.2.1). However, they
have not been considered in the representation for the sake of simplicity and because
their exclusion does not affect the patterns of relationship between the main players
[36].
The shadowed blocks within the figure, identify the participant responsible for
the particular stage and the arrows represent the flow of information at each phase. The
first stage in the process is called briefing, which includes the identification of
customer1 needs and the elaboration of a blueprint. Here, the client (who could be the
user) interprets the user requirements, approaches an architect and sets the objectives of
the project. At the designing phase, the architect passes the blueprint onto various
engineers to carry out design activities. Once these are completed, a set of construction
(production) documents is generated including working drawings, schedules, bills of
quantities, time scales and specifications.
When all production information is ready, the tendering stage takes place. Here,
various contractors are invited to place bids and one is appointed to carry out the site
construction work. The client has normally chosen the cheapest bidder [37]. During the
construction stage, various manufacturers supply the components and materials required
to assemble the structure, the main objective being to build the facility within the agreed
time, cost and quality. Finally, the user takes over the finished building during the
commissioning stage.
1
Note that customers will be understood in this thesis as all those affected by the product, services and
processes used to accomplish quality goals. So the term “customer” will include, owner, client, user and
occupant.
- 14 -
Different authors have discussed the various characteristics of the construction
process [14, 31, 36, 38, 39] and its inherent disadvantages which include: the
fragmentation of participants, the incidence of design changes and liability claims, the
fragmentation of design and construction data, lack of life-cycle analysis of the project,
lack of communication of design motivation and purpose, activities not planned early
enough to avoid delays, too much focus on transactions and contracts, insufficient
notice taken of stakeholders interests and lack of learning from previous projects.
The construction process has also been compared with an approach to product
development in manufacturing known as the “over the wall” syndrome [31], in which
activities are carried out within functional departments that are responsible for each step
in the process. Once the first department has finished its work, the results are sent to the
second, which in turn continues the project and then transfers it to the third. The process
continues successively until the product is marketed and distributed in the last stages.
This approach is the result of fragmentation of responsibilities between the
participants involved in a project. In fact, as argued by Turin [36], during the
construction process “the reappearance of the same combinations of participants is
mostly a matter of coincidence, and it is neither encouraged nor, in certain cases,
permitted by codes of professional conduct or by restrictive practices rules”. In
addition, the participants in a construction project have different interests and
constraints [40].
2.2.1 Participants in the Construction Process
In order to better understand the origins of fragmentation, the five participants
listed in Figure 2.1, their main interests and constraints will be briefly discussed. It is
important to note that the owner of a project is the person or company that will own the
- 15 -
finished facility. The owner could be the client or even the user in some cases. The
users are the people who will use, work or live in the finished product. Their main
interests include: the clear communication of their current and future needs to the client,
professionals and contractor, and the receipt of the product on time, of good quality and
that satisfies their wishes. Their main constraints are: the willingness of the client to
listen to their needs, and the skills of designers and the contractor to translate their
needs into a product that satisfies their requirements. Users want to avoid complaining
at the end of the construction process because the final product does not satisfy their
wishes.
The client can be considered as the motor of the process. When they are
receiving financial support, one of their main motivations is to meet their
responsibilities to their supporters on a timely basis and within budget with a quality
product. In addition, they want to meet the needs of the users and to establish a good
reputation as a developer in order to attract more business in the future. Their main
constraints are the financial supporter’s conditions and guidelines, the professionals’
and contractor’s contracts, and restrictions imposed by community representatives
working on the project. The client wants to prevent the project from collapsing, delays
caused by disagreements and long-term maintenance problems resulting from defective
construction.
Professionals such as architects, quantity surveyors, civil, mechanical and
electrical engineers are responsible for the developmental work. Among their interests
are: to design a quality facility on time and within budget and to exceed clients’
expectations. They also have two main constraints: the contract with the client and
relevant regulations and codes. These “players” want to avoid: the postponement of a
- 16 -
project because of high bids or unqualified contractors, the construction of a poor
quality product, and errors and omissions in their designs.
The contractor is responsible for building the facility in question. Their main
motivations for taking part in a project are: to make a profit, to finish the job without
delays and under budget, and to produce a quality product which will encourage repeat
business with the client. Among their main constraints are the contracts with both the
client and the subcontractors. The contractor wants to prevent under bidding, doing re-
work without being compensated and delays, which cause extra operating costs.
Suppliers are in charge of providing the materials and components to carry out
the construction work. Among their interests are: to supply quality products on time and
to repeat business with contractors. Their main constraint is the contract with the
contractor. These “players” want to avoid supplying poor quality products that are the
causes of problems later in the construction process.
Although not represented in Figure 2.1, other participants in the construction
process are regulatory authorities e.g. local building authorities and suppliers of
services e.g. water. Their main interests are to comply with codes and regulations and to
collect fees. They are constrained by legal regulations and want to avoid being ignored.
As can be seen, there are many different “players” taking part in a construction
project, all of them with their own priorities. Evboumwam and Anumba [31] argued that
this fact could lead to fragmentation because the construction process included many
activities from determining customer requirements to construction and life-cycle
maintenance. For instance, while users may be interested in communicating their
requirements to clients and professionals, clients may be more interested in obtaining a
quality product within budget, than in listening to the user’s needs and professionals
may be more interested in finishing the product on time than in producing a quality
- 17 -
product. Fragmentation then, is the result of many participants, with different interests,
working on the same project.
In addition to the features of the construction process and participants,
production in construction has some peculiarities, which do not contribute to improve
the situation.
2.2.2 Characteristics of the Construction Process
The Construction Industry has certain characteristics that set it aside from other
sectors. Walker [10] linked these to four types of uncertainty:
(a) Natural: construction products once made, will remain in an uncontrolled
environment subject to problems of weather, uncertain ground conditions
and access;
(b) Task: construction projects are normally one-of-a-kind i.e. each project
requires a new design with new production problems to be solved;
(c) Organisational: each project is undertaken by a temporary organisation and
variations in project size and type mean that personnel requirements change;
(d) Contractual: the contract depends on the features of the projects.
Koskela [32], based on an analysis of the literature, categorised the
characteristics of construction into three groups: one-of-a-kind, site production and
temporary organisation. Turin [36] mentioned changes in the nature of the product, in
the functions of the professionals and in the contractual relationships between parties.
Essentially, construction projects differ from each other in terms of customer needs and
priorities, building location and surroundings, access, weather problems, ground
conditions, available materials and design solutions. Unlike manufacturing where repeat
- 18 -
products are assembled in the same place, construction products are built at a different
site each time.
Construction generally makes use of local labour, which adds to uncertainty. The
space in which to build the structure should be organised differently each time because
rather than having a product flowing through various workstations, teams should move
from say paving to a wall. Moreover, the participants in one project may differ
completely from those in another. Table 2.1 summarises some of the characteristics
inherent in the construction process, based on the classification proposed by Walker
[10]. It is important to note that the lists are not exhaustive, they only show those
features that could lead to variability, the cause of delays. For instance, if the weather
deteriorates, the work sometimes has to stop. The combination of these characteristics is
thought to be the origin of most of the chronic problems in the industry [32].
Natural uncertainty Task uncertainty Organisational uncertainty Contractual uncertainty

-Location -Different customer -Local labour -Different responsibility
-Weather problems -Different priorities -Local suppliers -Different authorities
-Ground conditions -Different design -Local subcontractors -Different subcontractors
-Access -Different codes -Different design team
-Surroundings -Space utilisation -Different customer
-Interruptions because of -Different production
natural disasters (floods, infrastructure (machines)
earthquakes, hurricanes) -Different materials
Table 2.1 Characteristics Inherent in Construction
2.2.3 Problems in the Construction Industry
The problems in the construction industry are well known and have been
reported since the end of the Second World War. For example Koskela [14] summarised
the analysis carried out by the Tavistock Institute in the mid 1960s in which four project
level problems were examined within the construction sector. (1) Customers needs and
desires were rarely explored and they were not adequately informed of all the
- 19 -
alternatives to meet their goals (the situation, according to Kamara et al [41], has not
changed too much since that report was originally published); (2) lack of both thought
and time to perform design activities; (3) confusion in contracting arrangements such as
lack of role definition among project participants and (4) issues regarding control of
construction, for instance the lack of sufficient information when control decisions
should be made because of incompleteness of data from previous steps in the
construction process.
More recently, Pheng and Peh [11] mentioned poor workmanship, unclear
drawings and specifications, cost and schedule constraints, lack of coordination, lack of
buildability, lack of contractor’s involvement in design and planning activities,
unrealistic completion periods and lack of codes and standards as leading to rework and
delays. In the United Kingdom, Egan [37] also highlighted: a low and unreliable rate of
profitability, little investment in Research and Development activities, a crisis in
training and a lack of quality because too many clients still equated price with cost.
The situation is no better in developing countries. For instance, in the Chilean
construction industry Serpell et al [42] reported that owners had a short term mentality,
limited knowledge of quality, poor definition of needs, unwillingness to assume the
costs of their requests and they asked for too many requirements. Other situations
mentioned were: low constructability, scarce standardisation, inexact designs, scarce
construction knowledge, scarce integration with contractors and at least another 20
problems, similar to those already mentioned.
As can be seen, there are many problems associated with the construction sector.
Practitioners, researchers and governments have, therefore, tried, since the early 20th
century, to determine the causes of the “well-known problems” [32], as a basis for
improvement. In the event, the industry has been challenged to explore concepts and
- 20 -
methods used in manufacturing [39], which have brought about important benefits in
both quality and productivity [43].
Having analysed the revolution in manufacturing, Koskela [43] recommended
that the construction industry should explore and implement manufacturing methods.
Almost simultaneously, different researchers were trying to adapt manufacturing
concepts to construction, for instance Diaz-Murillo [21] developed a strategy for
implementing QFD in construction, Pheng and Peh [11] proposed a TQM
implementation framework and Eldin [44] identified CE as a schedule reduction tool
with good application potential. More recently, in a formal UK report on the
construction industry Egan [37] gave a similar suggestion. He recommended that the
construction industry should learn from the successes of manufacturing and service
industries and reported a visit to Nissan UK aimed at analysing its approach to
production: “we see that construction has two choices, ignore all this in the belief that
construction is so unique that there are no lessons to be learned; or seek improvement
through re-engineering construction, learning as much as possible from those who have
done it elsewhere” [37]. Specifically, he suggested the use of TQM to alleviate the
quality problems within the construction industry and to ultimately increase customer
satisfaction.
2.3 The Quality Evolution
Before presenting the philosophy of TQM and its historical development, the
term Quality will be discussed. It has been defined as the “degree to which a set of
inherent characteristics fulfils requirements“ [45]. The requirements come from
customers and the idea of fulfilling them is related to satisfying customers, so that
quality can be interpreted as meeting the requirements that will satisfy customers. It can
- 21 -
be associated with either products or services. Throughout the remainder of this thesis
wherever the term “product” is used, it can also mean “service”.
Yasamis et al [46] made some proposals for understanding quality in the
construction context. They argued that it should be divided into two elements, one for
product (the finished facility) and the other for service (provided by the construction
company), and that the two should be investigated simultaneously. Customers will only
then be satisfied when both have met their expectations.
With regard to product, according to Garvin [47], the more traditional
definitions of quality i.e. conformance to requirements, fitness for use and innate
excellence, are not sufficient to understand its meaning. As a result he suggested eight
dimensions of product quality that combined these traditional approaches -performance,
features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics and perceived
quality. A little later, Parasuraman et al [48] proposed the following ten dimensions for
service quality: reliability, responsiveness, understanding customers, access,
competence, courtesy, communication, credibility, security and tangibles. In principle,
organisations in the sector should address these quality dimensions to increase customer
satisfaction levels.
The development of quality management is well documented in the literature.
Authors such as Taylor and Hosker [49], Harris and McCaffer [22] and Dale [18] agree
that the modern concept of quality has evolved through four clear phases since its
inception: inspection, quality control, quality assurance and TQM.
The ISO defines inspection as “conformity evaluation by observation and
judgement accompanied as appropriate by measurement, testing or gauging” [45]. An
inspection-based system promotes the examination of various features in a product in
order to compare such characteristics with specified requirements and determine
- 22 -
whether the product conforms to them or not [18]. It is an after-the-event screening
process, mainly performed by dedicated staff, in which products that do not conform to
standards are scrapped, re-worked or modified until they fulfil the specified
requirements. The main emphasis is, therefore, on corrective actions that do not involve
suppliers or customers.
Quality Control is defined as that “part of quality management focused on
fulfilling quality requirements” [45]. A quality control system makes use of inspection,
self-inspection by approved operators, information and methods more sophisticated than
those used in basic inspection. However, the main thrust is still to avoid out-of-
specification products from reaching the customer. In this case, the management of
quality is founded on a detection-type system that promotes the elimination of non-
conforming products. Effort is expended on checking and fixing products, but there is
no systematic planning to prevent the problems from occurring initially [18].
The “part of quality management focused on providing confidence that quality
requirements will be fulfilled” [45] is the definition given in ISO 9000, the recognised
international standard, for Quality Assurance. This system focuses on prevention rather
than detection and encourages the use of quality planning, training and problem-solving
tasks to improve the product design. It also enhances productivity because it stresses the
integration of quality into the design stage rather than at the final control stage [18].
The last phase of quality management is TQM, a management-led process that
involves all staff in the continuous improvement of all activities within a company, to
meet customer requirements [22]. It entails the application of quality management
principles not only to the company but also to its customers and suppliers. Although the
management systems are similar to those used in quality assurance, the utilisation of the
methods is more sophisticated. There is greater emphasis on people, process
- 23 -
management and on the elimination of non-value adding activities. ISO 9001 [24] uses
the eight quality management principles (customer focus, leadership, involvement of
people, process approach, systems approach to management, continual improvement,
factual approach to decision-making and mutually beneficial supplier relationship) on
which TQM is based, as its foundation. The definition provided by Dale [18]
encompasses all these concepts. He defines TQM as “the mutual cooperation in an
organisation and associated business processes to produce value-for-money products
and services which meet and hopefully exceed the needs and expectations of
customers”.
In addition to TQM, the construction management literature reports other
approaches that have been proposed to improve the situation in the industry. While the
main focus in this thesis is on quality, those initiatives based on improving construction
performance in general will also be discussed. This is to gain a better understanding of
the solutions given to the problems in construction.
2.4 Construction Improvement Initiatives
While reviewing the literature, it became apparent that there was confusion
between the three terms “model”, “framework” and “methodology”. The Oxford
English Dictionary [50] defines “model” as “a simplified or idealised description or
conception of a particular system, situation or process, that is put forward as a basis for
theoretical or empirical understanding; a conceptual or mental representation of
something”. The same source defines a “framework” as “a structure composed of parts
framed together, esp. one designed for enclosing or supporting anything; a frame or
skeleton” and a “methodology” as “a method or body of methods used in a particular
- 24 -
field of study or activity; a way of doing anything, esp. according to a defined and
regular plan; a mode of procedure in any activity, business, etc.”
Wong [51] analysed these three concepts and concluded that a model provided
an answer to “what is” while a methodology offered an answer to “how to”. In contrast,
a framework answered both. He also explained that a model and a framework were
conceptual in nature while a methodology was methodical. So the first two are
descriptive while the latter is prescriptive. It can be said, therefore, that a model for
quality in construction would show the elements that should be considered to achieve
quality, a framework would not only present such elements but would also suggest how
to put them into practice to achieve it and a methodology would give detailed steps of
how to achieve it. With these definitions in mind, some of the initiatives reported in the
construction management literature will now be discussed.
Formoso et al [52] proposed a model for managing the product development
process in house building, based on manufacturing ideas. They argued that the
performance of such a process had a direct impact on the duration of building projects
and suggested a template which could be applied in small companies involved in the
construction of residential and commercial buildings. In their model, the construction
process covered seven different stages: inception and feasibility, outline design, scheme
design, design for legal requirements, detail design, production monitoring and
feedback from operation. Figure 2.2 shows these stages.
Having applied it in two companies, for testing purposes, the following benefits
were identified: (i) people could better understand their roles and responsibilities in the
construction process, (ii) improvement opportunities were identified faster than in
previous projects and (iii) there was better control over the product development
process. However, some limitations of the model also became evident, particularly
- 25 -
related to the early stages of the process. Some examples were: (i) designers and
subcontractors could not be involved at this stage because companies were reluctant to
hire personnel for the design team before buying the land, (ii) designers did not take
part because they had not signed any contract and (iii) subcontractors were not available
because they were overloaded with more urgent work. Formoso et al [52] recognised
that further evaluation of their model was necessary to determine its effectiveness in
practice.
STAGE
Inception and feasibility
Outline design
Scheme design
Design for legal requirements
Detail design
Production monitoring
Feedback from operation

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Decision to go ahead with design 4. Design has been approved by local authorities
2. Land acquisition 5. Beginning of the production stage
3. Design is ready to be submitted to local authorities 6. Product delivery
Figure 2.2 Product Development Stages (Source: [52])
Kagioglou et al [53] developed a generic design and construction process model
in an attempt to represent the varied interests of the parties implicated in such a process.
Essentially, their model considered 10 different stages, grouped into four broad
categories: pre-project, pre-construction, construction and post-construction. It
encourages the early involvement of project participants and recognises their main
responsibilities to reduce the confusion resulting from changes in roles from one project
- 26 -
to another and to increase communication between construction players. The model
relies on the elaboration of project deliverables such as informs and reports, generated at
the end of each phase, which are prepared to support client’s decisions in future stages
of the process. Nevertheless, no implementation guidelines were given to help interested
companies to apply it in practice and no case studies describing its practical application
were reported. In fact, Kagioglou et al [53] admitted that future work was needed to
examine the sub-processes included in their model
Emmitt et al [54] developed the Value-Process-Operation (VPO) model to offer
practitioners a managerial structure for the management of design projects. It mainly
comprises the creation of workshops aimed at encouraging communication among
construction participants and generating a sense of ownership in the decision-making
process during design activities. The model uses workshops for: building effective
relationships, establishing value parameters for the project, introducing restrictions such
as authorities, money and codes, criticising design solutions, developing detailed
designs and planning for construction. Both a survey and key performance indicators
(KPIs) are employed at the end of the project to measure customer satisfaction. During
the application of the model, no design activities are performed. They are carried out
between the workshops. Emmit et al [54] reported on the use of their model in one
company and identified improved communication and a sense of ownership created
among construction participants as benefits. Nonetheless, they stated that, during the
case study, some of the workshops had taken longer than anticipated because no
agreements were reached. Other drawbacks mentioned were (i) the fact that bringing
people together is not only time consuming but also expensive and (ii) there was no
formal system to manage the information generated during the meetings.
- 27 -
The Client Requirements Processing Model (CRPM) developed by Kamara et al
[41], is an attempt to define, analyse and translate client needs into design
specifications. It makes use of QFD, a method developed in manufacturing, and is
intended to support the implementation of CE in construction. This model focuses on
design activities. Its main input is the client vision of the facility which is transformed
into: user, facility use and interest groups information. These data are analysed,
structured and prioritised before being translated into technical specifications (Figure
2.3).
Kamara et al [41] presented an illustrative example to show how their model
could be used in practice and listed some of its potential benefits as:
• Helping clients to state their vision of the facility
• Enhancing communication between clients and those responsible for collecting their
requirements
• Encouraging design creativity because client needs are clearly defined and
• Providing a structure for requirements management during the construction process.
Client´s vision DEFINE CLIENT

of facility REQUIREMENTS
ANALYSE CLIENT
REQUIREMENTS
TRANSLATE CLIENT Solution neutral

REQUIREMENTS specifications
Figure 2.3 Main Stages of the CRPM (Adapted from: [41])
- 28 -
Moreover, they developed a software package called CLIENTPRO [55], which
incorporated the main principles behind the CRPM. At the time of its publication, the
software was in the prototype stage and was evaluated by some practitioners. The
results of the evaluation were encouraging, however, no further application in a real-life
project of either CLIENTPRO or the CRPM was found in the literature to determine
whether the potential benefits initially anticipated could be achieved.
Ballard and Howard [39] developed a Lean Project Delivery System Model
(LPDSM) and its tools i.e. last planner system of production control, work structuring
through pull scheduling and negative versus positive iteration in design, which mainly
deals with flows. These tools stem from manufacturing ideas, mainly those used by
Toyota in the automotive industry [56]. Their model consists of five stages: project
definition, lean design, lean supply, lean assembly and use (Figure 2.4).
Design Product Fabrication Commisioning Alteration &

Purpose Concept Design & Logistics Decommisioning
Design Process Detailed Installation Operations

Criteria Design Engineering Management
Project definition Lean Design Lean Supply Lean Assembly Use
Production Control
Work Structuring
Learning Loop
Figure 2.4 Lean Project Delivery System Model (Source: [39])
- 29 -
According to their developers [39], the model represents a better management
system than the traditional “over the wall” approach. They reported that even partial
implementation of their model has brought about important improvements in the value
generated for customers and producers. With regard to waste, reductions in waiting time
for resources, inventories and defects can be expected after using their model. In
support of these claims, Ballard and Howard [39] offer the proceedings of the recent
congresses organised by the Lean Construction Institute [57]. Although it seems that the
model is gaining attention in the construction industry, their developers have recognised
that further improvements are required, for instance, in terms of implementation issues.
Serpell and Alarcon [58] have proposed a construction process improvement
methodology, which also focuses on waste reduction. Unlike other approaches, theirs is
based on experience, gained during the implementation of different improvement
activities in several projects. Essentially, they argue that improvements in construction
should centre around waste elimination. Waste is understood as all activities that
produce cost without adding value to the construction product. The idea of their
methodology is to identify the origin of the waste and to ultimately remove it.
The seven steps proposed to improve the construction process and to reduce
waste are: recognising the need to eliminate waste, analysing the existing
circumstances, identifying improvement opportunities, defining improvement actions,
implementing improvement actions, monitoring the results, and maintaining changes to
ensure benefits. After applying the methodology in various projects, the following
benefits have been identified: increases in productive labour time, improved
construction methods, and reduction of rework, wasted time and customer complaints
because of low quality products.
- 30 -
In spite of this, their developers acknowledged that people involved in the
improvement effort should be totally committed to the methodology to obtain the
reported benefits. In addition, Serpell and Alarcon [58] stated that the implementation
of improvement actions required careful planning, which was difficult to achieve in
practice and that the appropriate selection of methods was crucial to succeed.
While Arditi and Lee [59] also developed a methodology, theirs was for
assessing corporate quality performance of contractors rather than for reducing waste.
Arditi and Lee’s methodology focuses on the tendering stage of the construction
process. Essentially, it tries to evaluate the previous performance of contractors to
determine their quality level to undertake a new project in which the client has the
possibility to select one of various bidders. This approach makes use of ten service
quality factors and six corporate quality management components to carry out a QFD
analysis aimed at assessing the quality performance of a construction company.
Arditi and Lee did not report the application of their methodology in practice.
Nevertheless, they stated that it represented a useful tool which could be used by clients
to rank the quality performance of various construction companies before hiring one of
them. In addition, they claimed that organisations in the sector could apply it as a self-
diagnosis tool to identify improvement and training opportunities for reaching higher
levels of quality performance. They also reported the main limitation of their work: the
methodology can only be applied in design-build companies (projects) because the
survey on which it is based was conducted in this particular type of company (project).
Another initiative aimed at selecting contractors is the framework to assess
contractor quality performance, proposed by Yasamis et al [46]. In this case, quality
includes both product and service at project level, and corporate level (Figure 2.5).
Basically, contractors are evaluated by determining the extent to which they have
- 31 -
applied a number of critical success factors (CSFs) for implementing TQM and various
quality activities in previous projects. These, according to Yasamis et al [46], are good
indicators of the level of quality that construction companies can provide to their
clients.
The advantage of this approach, their developers claim, is that it assesses quality
performance instead of financial and technical capabilities as is the case in current
practice [46]. Consequently, clients have the opportunity to select quality-oriented
organisations, which should be able to satisfy their needs. Clients can then expect a high
quality product and service from contractors. Contractors, on the other hand, are
motivated to improve their quality performance to repeat business.
Construction Quality
Project Level Corporate Level

(Quality Policy, Quality Assurance, Quality Control (Total Quality Management Systems)
Product Service Culture

Constructed Facility Contract Planning Quality Systems
Received by End User Received by Owner Received by Clients/Society
Product Dimensions Service Dimensions Quality Culture Dimensions

Performance Time Leadership
Features Timeliness Employee Empowerment
Aesthetics Completeness Partnership Development
Reliability Courtesy Information and Analysis
Durability Consistency Continuous Improvement
Conformance Accessibility & Client Focus
Serviceability Convenience
Perceived Quality Accuracy
Responsiveness
Figure 2.5 Framework for Understanding Quality in Construction (Source: [46])
While this framework simultaneously considers both product and service
quality, their authors did not report its use in practice. In fact, they recognised that it
was necessary to conduct validity and reliability analyses of the factors (CSFs)
- 32 -
proposed before they could be widely used. When the framework was published,
Yasamis et al [46] were developing a prototype tool for clients to employ for evaluating
contractor’s quality performance.
The ideas put forward by Maloney [60] also concern contractor selection. He
claims that, when clients are about to select a contractor, they consider not only service
quality but also satisfaction factors. The latter includes contractor/client relationship,
project management, safety, prepared/skilled staff, cost and general satisfaction. He uses
the term “expectancy disconfirmation” to refer to the confirmation or otherwise of an
expectation. For instance, if a company has skilled staff, clients may expect that no
rework will be carried out at the end of the project. If this does not happen, then there
will be a disconfirmation and the client will exclude such a company from future
bidding opportunities.
Maloney [60] reported the use of his ideas in two case studies and found a
relationship between customer satisfaction and contractor selection. However, there
were differences between the two cases because, as he admitted, customer needs not
only vary from one project to another but also over time during the execution of a
project even for the same customer. This makes it difficult to generate “the” list of
customer needs that will satisfy all customers in all projects.
Al-Momani [61] investigated the quality service attributes that influenced
customer satisfaction. By analysing expectations and performance, he identified
important gaps that were the origin of dissatisfaction in the industry. Four areas were
highlighted as needing most attention. They were (i) projects must be carried out within
budget, (ii) contractors always seek easy alternative solutions and try to save money by
using cheap materials, (iii) projects must be flexible enough to accommodate current
and future customer needs, and (iv) planning activities must be correctly performed.
- 33 -
Apart from recognising these problems, he did not offer recommendations or suggested
ways to incorporate his findings into any framework, model or methodology.
Abdel-Razek [62] also identified 16 factors to improve quality in construction
which were classified into four broad groups: employee’s satisfaction, training and
learning, company’s processes and regulations, and quality systems. Again, TQM ideas
were employed to propose the factors in this case. However, the results of the study
were not incorporated into any model or framework to improve quality in construction.
While the initiatives, based on TQM, offer a great variety of alternatives to
improve construction performance, Koskela [14] maintains that the use of quality
management in isolation within the construction sector can only result in partial
improvements. He argues that construction engineering could be simultaneously viewed
in three different ways: Transformation, Flow and Value generation (TFV). In fact, he
[14] has developed a production theory to:
• Provide an explanation of observed behaviour
• Predict future behaviour
• Guide progress
• Offer methods for decision and control
• Facilitate communication among people undertaking a project
• Learn things that formerly only specialists could do and
• Transfer practices from one context to another by means of abstraction.
The TFV conceptualisation of production seems to be the most recent theoretical
development in construction management. In the transformation view, production is
managed by planning and prescribing a set of activities for each worker, based on
observation and time studies. The idea is to counteract the lack of planning which
- 34 -
caused losses, mistakes, low quality products and congestion of unfinished work at
various points along the production process.
With regard to flow, the main thrust is to reduce non-value-adding activities
(waste) such as storage, transfers and inspections. It stems from the fact that flow
management between activities is neglected in the transformation view. The main
production template associated with flow is “lean production”, which has brought about
benefits in manufacturing, the major one being decreases in product lead times [56].
Finally in value generation, marketing and quality are considered as the main
production force. The idea is to satisfy customers in order to repeat business. To sum
up, and using the words of Ballard and Howell [39], under Koskela’s view, a production
system should be designed to deliver the product, minimise waste and maximise value.
Koskela used the TFV theory, with encouraging results, to analyse a case study
and explain why construction problems have not been eliminated [23]. In addition, he is
working on the generation of a framework that will include TFV methods aimed at
helping the industry to alleviate its most chronic problems. Koskela [14] recognised that
the development of theories was a research frontier rather than a task for an individual
researcher but he also argued that the effort should be started somewhere.
It is not only individuals who have attempted to improve the situation of quality
in construction, governments have also tried. In the United States, for example, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (DHUD) [63] proposed 20 steps to
improve design practices in affordable housing. They are based on experience and ideas
from successful affordable housing construction projects. The initiative stemmed from
the recognition that the country fell short on well-planned, well-designed and well-
landscaped environments associated with quality housing. By promoting this tool
among the companies and individuals involved in such projects, the DHUD expects to:
- 35 -
augment the economic feasibility of developments, enhance the residents’ quality of life
and improve the vitality of communities. While the DHUD’s website [63] offers a
wealth of information about the 20 steps, to date there are no studies showing their
impact on that particular sector of the US construction industry.
In the UK, the Construction Industry Council [64] developed the design quality
indicator (DQI), a methodology for assessing the design quality of public buildings. It is
based on a great variety of sources that provide knowledge on building design quality. It
assesses three broad categories: design quality, functionality and impact of buildings on
the environment. The main objectives of the DQI are to: improve briefing, monitor and
review design aspirations through the construction process, and identify factors that
affect quality. By the end of 2004 the DQI had been used in more than 1200 projects
with encouraging results [64]. In fact, it is expected that, by 2007, more than 60% of all
publicly funded projects in the UK will use it. It is important to note that the DQI can
only be used by people working or living in the buildings registered in the programme.
2.5 Analysis of Construction Improvement Initiatives
As can be seen, construction has been the focus of a wide range of research.
While the author does not claim to be exhaustive in the review, the initiatives discussed
are enough to identify concurrent and divergent issues. Although all of the approaches
have been developed to improve the industry’s situation, there is discrepancy among
their particular objectives. For instance the models of Formoso et al [52] and Kagioglou
et al [53] are aimed at clearly defining construction participants’ role in the product
development process. In addition, they tried to identify key stages in the construction
process to alleviate communication problems. On the other hand, initiatives such as the
LPDSM [39], Serpell and Alarcon’s [58] methodology and the flow concept of the TFV
- 36 -
production theory [14] are more oriented towards managing flows and reducing waste
in the construction process than on defining participants and their roles. Flows play a
key role in construction project management [56] and they may have a direct impact on
customer satisfaction. For example, if waiting times were reduced, a project could be
finished in advance.
In contrast to the previous groups, the VPO model [54], the CRPM [41] and the
DQI [64] manage the improvement of communication during briefing and designing.
Each of them has a different perspective, for instance the VPO model promotes the use
of workshops while the DQI encourages the utilisation of questionnaires. With regard to
the CRPM, it supports the use of databases. Overall, the three initiatives are aimed at
establishing a common language among participants to avoid future problems such as
rework.
The models proposed by Yasamis et al [46], Arditi and Lee [59] and Maloney
[60] have the main purpose of evaluating construction companies with regard to their
quality practices. From the client point of view, these models are very useful because
they provide information about what to expect from a contractor. From a company
perspective they are helpful because they can be utilised as quality self-assessment
models to identify improvement opportunities.
Finally, the studies performed by Al-Mohami [61] and Abdel-Razek [62]
highlighted some quality management factors that companies in the industry can use to
improve their performance. The 20 steps for building quality developed by the DHUD
[63] offer practical guidance on how to achieve quality in the housing sector. Since this
approach deals with the whole construction process, it considers both design and
construction aspects. From this analysis, it becomes apparent that each initiative looks
at a different side of quality in construction.
- 37 -
2.6 Summary
The construction process has been discussed and analysed. In general, there is
agreement amongst researchers in the field that its characteristics can lead to
fragmentation because many participants with different interests are involved in the
same project. Moreover, construction has peculiarities associated with natural, task,
organisational and contractual uncertainty that do not contribute to improve the
situation. In fact both the features of the construction process and the related
uncertainties, according to Koskela [32], could be the origin of most of the chronic
problems in the sector, mainly related to customer’s needs management, design
management, contractual arrangements, control of construction and quality.
In order to overcome these problems, different authors [37, 43] have
recommended the adoption of manufacturing concepts and methods within the
construction industry. In particular, the use of TQM has been suggested. Various
approaches reported in the literature were reviewed to determine the state of the art in
construction management. As is evident from the review, most of the initiatives are
based on manufacturing concepts [14, 39, 52, 53] while only one stems from its
developer’s experience [58]. Little evidence was found in the more recent literature, of
the actual use in practice of others [41, 46, 53, 55, 59].
While some initiatives try to improve communication and flows’ management
[39, 52, 53, 58], there are others that try to enhance say briefing, designing or tendering
activities [41, 46, 59-61]. Overall, the initiatives reviewed look at the different sides of
quality. However, either they only address one or two quality issues at a time e.g.
communication, role definition [52], or are limited to one stage of the construction
process e.g. tendering [59], or deal only with one sector in the industry e.g. affordable
housing [63]. Therefore, there is a need to generate a more comprehensive framework
- 38 -
that combines the relevant aspects of quality with the construction process and
simultaneously suggests methods for improvement. The next Chapter will investigate
the extent to which some of the quality improvement methods that originated in
manufacturing, have been used in both the UK and Mexican construction industries,
before developing the framework.
- 39 -
3-Quality Improvement Methods
Chapter 3. Quality Improvement Methods in
UK and Mexican Construction Industries-A
Comparison
3.1 Introduction
The use of quality improvement methods in manufacturing industry has proven
to be an important aspect of continuous improvement activities aimed at satisfying
customers. The construction industry has, therefore, been challenged [37, 43] to adopt
some of the “manufacturing” methods to improve the quality of its products, and
ultimately customer satisfaction. Following a broad review of the literature, various
quality improvement tools and methods were recognised and grouped using affinity
diagrams.
To establish whether these methods had been applied in the construction sector
and to assess their current level of use and perceived importance, a survey was
conducted in both the UK and in Mexico. A questionnaire was designed to collect the
information and served as a basis for comparison. This Chapter will describe the
research methodology followed to carry out the survey. The main findings will be
presented and their relevance to the framework briefly outlined.
3.2 Quality Improvement Methods
A review of the manufacturing literature was carried out in the first instance to
investigate the quality improvement methods (i.e. tools or methods used for quality
improvement ranging from affinity diagrams to customer satisfaction surveys)
- 40 -
implemented in that sector. It should be noted that tools are intended to either help
accomplish particular tasks or solve problems and are narrow in scope e.g. histograms
[65]. Methods, on the other hand, have wider applications and could be considered as a
collection of tools e.g. QFD [65]. Authors like Juran [66], Mann and Kehoe [67], Mears
[68], Tague [69], Kanji and Asher [70] and Dale [18] have presented, in total, more than
100 such methods.
Only those most frequently cited and believed to support a continual
improvement process in the construction industry were selected for further study.
During this process, it became evident that many of the methods were variations of
others so they were not considered as viable options for the author’s purpose. Two such
examples were “buzz groups” [70] (a method aimed at obtaining instant reactions from
a group to a new proposal) and “list reduction” [70] (aimed at reducing cumbersome
lists to a manageable volume). Both were excluded because they were considered
variations of “focus groups” and “affinity diagrams” respectively.
A list was compiled using Juran’s quality planning stages [66]. He defines
quality planning as the activity of satisfying customers by developing products and
processes that meet their demands [66]. To do so, a series of universal steps are
followed: setting up quality goals, identifying customer needs, developing products that
meet customer desires, establishing process controls and evaluating quality
performance. The exercise led to seven different clusters being formed, five of which
were directly adapted from Juran’s quality planning process. The second step i.e.
identifying customer needs, was sub-divided into ‘gathering’ and ‘organising’ customer
needs, and a further cluster entitled ‘technology’ was added to encompass software
tools. The resultant groups are shown in Table 3.1, together with the methods, a brief
description of each, and references for a more detailed explanation.
- 41 -
Groups Methods Description References

Gathering Customer Surveys Questionnaire sent to a representative Burns and Bush [71], Tague [69]
customer customer sample to determine their needs
needs Customer One-to- Face to face meeting to determine client Berent [72], Juran [66]
one interview requirements
Phone interview Telephone call to discover customer desires Juran [66]
Brainstorming Meeting with various customers in which Kanji and Asher [70], Dale [18]
ideas to enhance products are collected
Focus groups Lead meeting with customers in which their Juran [66], Nayar [73]
wishes are gathered
Organising Affinity Diagram Graphic representation of customer needs Bossert [74], Kanji and Asher
customer based on groups with common features [70]
needs Tree Diagram Graphic representation of client Cohen [6], Kanji and Asher [70]
requirements that resembles a tree
Matrix Diagram Table in which customer wishes and Chua [75], Kanji and Asher [70]
engineering characteristics are related
Formal Quality Function Methodology to develop products that Cohen [6], Kanji and Asher [70],
methods Deployment (QFD) satisfy and sometimes exceed customer Martins and Aspinwall [2]
expectations
TRIZ Theory of Inventive Problem Solving is a Shulyak [3], Mann and Cathain
group of strategies aimed at solving [7]
problems with unknown solution
Concurrent Philosophy which entails the use of a Kamara et al [41], Seng and
Engineering (CE) multidisciplinary team to design and Abdalla [76]
produce products with short lead times
Planning Mission Statement Statement that establishes the objectives Tague [69], Alexander [77]
and and purposes of a project
program- Gantt Chart Graphic representation of the activities Kanji and Asher [70], Merrit et al
ming tools involved in a project (which considers time) [30]
Critical Path Graphic representation of the activities Harris and McCaffer [70], Kanji
Method (CPM) involved in a project including the and Asher [70]
dependency between them
PERT A combination of Gantt Chart and CPM Harris and McCaffer [22], Kanji
and Asher [70]
Teams & Two or more people working together to Kanji and Asher [70], Dale [18]
Teamwork accomplish the same tasks
Departmental Analysis aimed at identifying duplication of Kanji and Asher [70], Dale [18]
Purpose Analysis tasks among departments to eliminate those
(DPA) which do not add value
Quality Laws and Statutes to which the company must comply Merrit et al [30]
control Regulations to sell its products
Checklists Lists with useful information about tasks or Tague [69]
activities
Housekeeping (5Cs Approach that promotes cleanliness within Dale [18]
or 5Ss) the work environment
Inspection Review of work performed by an inspector Mann and Kehoe [67], Merrit et
al [30]
Sampling Use of a randomly selected sample of Kanji and Asher [70], McCabe et
products to verify their quality al [78]
Quality Audits Review of the company’s quality practices Mann and Kehoe [67], Landin
[79]
Contractor Long term relations with suppliers that Bennet [80] Department of Trade
Partnerships comply with quality standards and Industry [13]
Performance Customer Questionnaire aimed at measuring the level Mann and Kehoe [67],
measures Satisfaction Survey of customer satisfaction achieved after Department of Trade and Industry
having used a product [13]
Customer Notes in which clients manifest their Mann and Kehoe [67], Cohen [6]
Complaints dissatisfaction
Litigation Legal disputes in which a client demands a Reid [81]
company
Technology Planning Software Software tools that help to carry out Software vendor
planning activities
Design Software Software tools to support design activities Software vendor
FEA Software Finite Element Analysis designs structures Software vendor
Computer Network Group of computers sharing information Software vendor
Table 3.1 The More Common Quality Improvement Methods
- 42 -
The list is certainly not exhaustive, nor is it meant to be exclusive to quality
improvement methods. It shows those more commonly used methods that the author
feels would be beneficial in the construction sector to encourage continuous
improvement. Most of them were found in the quality literature. Exceptions were TRIZ,
CE, litigation and the ‘technology’ group, which were included because it was felt that
their utilisation could also support a continuous improvement process in construction.
During the review, it became evident that while some of the initiatives had been
reported as frameworks e.g. CE [41], there were others presented as methodologies e.g.
QFD [6] and others as paradigm shifts e.g. contractor partnerships [80]. Since the idea
was to improve product quality, they were all maintained.
It also became apparent that there was no agreement about the purpose of each
method studied, for example while some authors considered matrix diagrams to be for
data collection [70], others considered it as a planning method [69]. Furthermore, some
methods such as QFD make use of different tools such as customer surveys or affinity
diagrams. Factor analysis was used to validate the content and construct of Table 3.1,
details of which can be found in [29].
While the first group is designed to collect customer requirements, the second is
aimed at classifying their wishes. Those categorised as ‘formal methods’ are structured
approaches that may help to build quality into products. The ‘planning and
programming’ methods as the name suggests, are useful for planning the required
resources (e.g. money, people, plant, material) and the time allocated to each stage in
the process. The methods presented in the ‘quality control’ cluster have the main
purpose of verifying conformance to quality standards and legal requirements.
‘Performance measures’ are aimed at measuring the effectiveness of quality actions and
- 43 -
‘technology’ refers to software and hardware tools, which were considered as an
important aspect because their common use can lead to standardisation.
3.3 Empirical Survey
The next stage was to determine whether the methods listed were used or not in
the construction sector, and if so, the breadth of use and their perceived importance. It
was therefore decided to carry out a survey in both the UK and in Mexico. It was felt
that this could provide evidence of the methods used by companies with different
features, for instance, the author felt that the application of methods such as QFD was
more suited to large companies than small ones. Therefore, questions on the size,
project type and activity of the respondent companies could be included on the survey
form.
The next task was to choose the type of survey to conduct (one-to-one
interviews, telephone interviews or postal questionnaires). It is a known fact that
personal and telephone interviews give a better response rate than postal surveys, but
they are more expensive and time consuming. The latter however, can provide an
acceptable coverage even with a limited budget [71]. Several researchers have used this
type of survey to explore the use of quality methods in practice. For instance Tidd and
Bodley [82] reported on a study carried out in the UK manufacturing sector, Nijssen and
Frambach [83] did so in the Netherlands manufacturing sector, and Lahndt [84] and
McIntyre and Kirschenman [85] employed postal surveys in the construction industry in
the United States.
It was decided to use this medium as a means of data collection, because
potential respondents were distributed throughout the UK and Mexico and a postal
survey provided a relatively cheap and effective way to reach them. Nevertheless, it
- 44 -
should be noted that there are certain disadvantages associated with using postal
questionnaires. These are low response rate, lack of opportunity to clarify respondent
doubts and no control over the speed with which participants return the completed
questionnaires [71]. It was felt that provided the questionnaire was carefully designed
and reviewed, this would go some way to overcoming these problems and so the
advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.
3.3.1 Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire was divided into four sections. The first was to enable
companies to be classified according to size, project type and stage at which they were
involved in the construction process e.g. briefing, designing. In terms of size, the
number of employees only was considered, based on the classification given by the
Commission of the European Communities [86]. This meant that companies with less
than 250 employees were categorised as small and medium i.e. SMEs, while those with
250 or more were taken to be large. The classification proposed by the Mexican
government [87] was the same. Note that there are other factors such as turnover that
affect this categorisation but these were not included. With regard to project type, both
building and civil engineering were considered. With reference to stage, the
questionnaire included the five stages described in Chapter 2 (i.e. briefing, designing,
tendering, construction and commissioning).
The second section of the questionnaire was devoted to the quality activities
currently being undertaken by the respondent companies. These included whether the
company had a certified quality assurance system and whether certain quality initiatives
had been implemented. In order to obtain an indication of when a company started on
its TQM journey, respondents were asked to state the year in which they received
- 45 -
certification for their quality system and also when they first started implementing the
quality initiatives.
The third part of the survey concerned the methods presented in Table 3.1.
Respondents were asked to indicate both the current level of use within their company
and their perceived importance of each. A 5 point Likert scale (1=very low, 2=low,
3=moderate, 4=high, 5=very high) was used for both aspects, with the addition of a zero
score if the method was unknown, not used, did not appear to be relevant to the kind of
work carried out within the organisation or if the respondent was unsure of how to
respond. Participants were asked to state any additional methods that they employed.
The final section of the questionnaire was designed to investigate issues related
to Project Managers’ commitment to quality, to training programmes and to the
recognition of individuals and teams in the company. The survey was addressed to the
Managing Director, who has a complete view of the company, and would, it was felt,
pass the questionnaire to an appropriate member of staff if necessary.
The format, content and wording of the survey form were repeatedly checked
and appropriate alterations made. A pilot study was conducted in four UK companies
and the questionnaire finalised (see Appendix A). It was then translated into Spanish so
that managers within Mexican companies who were not English speakers could
participate in the study. A further four Mexican companies took part in a pilot study but
no modifications to the questionnaire were suggested. Copies together with a covering
letter (see Appendix A) explaining the purpose of the survey were made ready for
distribution.
- 46 -
3.3.2 Methodology
The number of questionnaires to be distributed (300) was based on both previous
experience within the Quality Group at Birmingham and also on the available budget to
carry out the research. It should be noted, however, that the number used is in
accordance with the approach proposed by Burns and Bush [71] for calculating the size
(n) of sample that should be drawn from a population to ensure that the results can be
generalised. Based on their approach, which uses the formula n=z2s2/e2, a value of
z=1.96 was chosen as the Standard Normal Value for a conventional 95% confidence
level, the standard deviation, s, was calculated to be 0.85 (based on their method) and a
precision, e, of ±20% was used (based on both the author’s judgement and on budget
restrictions). This resulted in a value of 69 (i.e. 69 responses should be sufficient for
analytical purposes). Since the expected response rate for such surveys is thought to be
around 25% [71], at least 276 questionnaires should be distributed. The number
calculated is very close to that used in this study, so if the expected response rate was
reached, the results could be generalised.
Construction companies within the UK were chosen from the FAME database
[88] by firstly dividing the country into the following regions: Northern Ireland,
Scotland, Wales, North West, North East, Yorkshire, West Midlands, East Midlands,
London, South West and South East (all of which, apart from the first three, are in
England). Since companies were not homogeneously distributed throughout the country,
for example London had a concentration of more than 20 times the number of
companies present in Northern Ireland, stratified sampling was employed. The 300
Mexican construction companies were chosen from a national database [89]. In this
case, the country was divided into 32 states, and the numbers chosen were again based
- 47 -
on the percentage of such companies within each, to ensure that each region was
appropriately represented.
Once the sample size for each region was defined, the criteria for selection in
both countries were as follows: i) the split between building and civil engineering
companies was approximately 50:50; ii) within each of these two groups approximately
half were SMEs and the remainder large. Although, in general, the proportion of SMEs
in any country is far greater than that of large companies, the same number of each were
chosen to ensure that the number of responses in each group was sufficient to draw
valid conclusions from their analysis. The questionnaires and covering letters were
distributed in February 2004 within the UK and May of the same year in Mexico. A
fortnight after sending them out, a follow up letter was sent to try to improve the
response rate (see Appendix A).
3.4 Survey Results
Of the 300 questionnaires distributed in each country, 72 replies or 24% were
received from the UK but only 16 or 5.3% from Mexico (these percentages are based on
the number distributed). While the former was within the range expected, the latter was
very poor and disappointing. The reason for this low response might be the fact that
companies in Mexico are not used to taking part in research carried out by means of
postal surveys. Anecdotal evidence of this had been given to the author by a Mexican
Institution [90], which had carried out a survey in the sector one year earlier. It
generated a response rate of only 0.2% (compared to this, the 5.3% was good). Another
reason for the low response might be that Mexican Managers are not familiar with some
of the methods presented in Table 3.1, due to the scarcity of available literature
translated into Spanish. But whatever the reason, this low response rate made it difficult
- 48 -
for the author not only to generalise the results but also to carry out statistical analyses
to test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire used in the Mexican survey [91,
92]. Consequently, the results from Mexico can, at best, only be considered indicative.
A reliability test was performed in the UK, using the approach adopted by
Saraph et al. [93]. Cronbach’s alpha, to measure internal consistency was used in the
analysis, its level set at 0.6 as recommended by Black and Porter [94]. The SPSS
Statistical Package for Windows, Version 11.0 [95], was employed. The results are
shown in Table 3.2. Since all the alpha values exceeded its minimum level, the
conclusion was that the instrument had internal consistency and was therefore reliable.
No of Alpha
Group Elements Value
Gathering Customer Needs 5 0.8385
Organising Customer Needs 3 0.8491
Formal Methods 3 0.8090
Planning and Programming Tools 6 0.6588
Quality Control 7 0.8066
Performance Measures 3 0.6026
Technology 4 0.6035
Table 3.2 Reliability Analysis Results for the UK (nUK = 72)
The questionnaire used in the UK was subjected to construct validity testing,
which encompasses: content, face, convergent and divergent validity [25]. The first two
are determined qualitatively (i.e. based on judgment), while the last two can be
established by means of the quantitative method known as factor analysis in which each
group of methods (factor) is checked to verify unifactoriality (full details of the
validation process can be found in [29]). The analysis concluded that the instrument was
valid with respect to its construct and content, hence valid conclusions about the level of
use and perceived importance of the methods could be drawn.
- 49 -
Finally, both sets of questionnaires were tested for possible bias using the
method suggested by Armstrong and Overton [96]. The completed questionnaires were
divided into two groups, the first comprising the earlier respondents and the second the
later ones. If significant differences are found between the characteristics or answers
from the two groups, the same should be expected between the non-respondents
according to Armstrong and Overton [96]. No significant differences were found, so it
is likely that the non-respondents would have similar characteristics to the respondents.
3.4.1 Respondents’ Profile
The profile of the respondent companies in both countries reflected the selection
criteria used. In the UK 34 of the respondent organisations were categorised as building,
14 as civil engineering and 16 as both. The remaining 8 carried out other activities e.g.
plant installation. In terms of their size, 33 of the respondent companies had less than
250 employees and so could be considered as SMEs while the remainder were large
companies. In Mexico 4 were building, 2 were civil engineering, 9 both and 1 carried
out other activities. With regard to size, 11 were SMEs and the remainder large. Most of
the respondent companies worked in at least two of the stages within the construction
process, as can be seen in Table 3.3.
Stage Building Civil engineering Building & Civil eng Other

UK Mexico UK Mexico UK Mexico UK Mexico
Briefing 59% 50% 21% 0% 56% 67% 75% 0%
Designing 79% 75% 64% 0% 87% 67% 87% 100%
Tendering 82% 25% 86% 50% 94% 78% 100% 0%
Construction 94% 100% 79% 100% 94% 100% 88% 100%
Commissioning 62% 75% 43% 0% 50% 78% 63% 0%
Total companies 34 4 14 2 16 9 8 1
Table 3.3 Distribution of UK and Mexican Companies
- 50 -
One of the objectives of the survey was to determine whether there were
significant differences between the methods used by companies with different features.
To test this, only the UK responses were employed, the data from the Mexican ones
being too few (none of the Mexican respondents, for example, could be classified within
the civil engineering-design group). The test showed that, from the 248 possible
combinations (31 methods and 8 types of company e.g. large-civil engineering-design),
only 8 (3%) significant differences existed, so neither the size nor the type of project
and activity had a major influence on the methods that respondent companies employed.
In other words, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that certain methods were
only useful for specific companies, for example large, involved in design activities and
developing building projects.
3.4.2 Quality Initiatives
With regard to the quality initiatives undertaken, Table 3.4 summarises the main
results. As can be seen, 72% of the UK respondent companies had been certified to ISO
9001. Of these, half had updated to ISO 9001: 2000. In the case of ISO 14001, 31%,
(over 60% of which were in the civil engineering sector) were certified to the standard.
It is not surprising that most of the respondents involved in civil engineering hold this
certificate since their projects are more likely to affect the environment than building
ones (the environmental impact of building a house is lower than that of say building a
motorway). On average companies had been certified to ISO 9001 for almost 4 years
whilst for ISO 14001 it was about 9 months.
By comparison only 6% of the Mexican respondents were certified to ISO 9001:
2000, the average time being one year and none to either ISO 9001: 1994 or ISO 14001.
The poor level of quality management systems standard’s certification could be a result
- 51 -
of the economic situation in Mexico, which has prevented more companies from
gaining certification. Rather than implementing quality initiatives (including these
standards), they are fighting on a day-to-day basis for survival.
UK Mexico
Certified to ISO 9001 72% 6%
Certified to ISO 14001 31% 0%
Set up a quality department 56% 19%
Cultural change programme 38% 44%
Strategies for total quality 38% 19%
Employee involvement to improve quality 68% 50%
Customer satisfaction initiatives 74% 63%
Table 3.4 Quality Initiatives Practiced in UK and Mexican Companies
Most of the respondent companies had implemented some kind of initiative. The
results were as follows: in the UK approximately 56% of them had set up a quality
department, which may indicate the high importance that they assign to quality issues.
In contrast, only 19% of Mexican companies had created a new department to deal with
quality. A cultural change programme has been implemented in almost 38% of the UK
respondent companies, in the Mexican study it was 44%. It seems that organisations in
both countries are equally aware of the role that culture plays in the management of
quality. While strategies for total quality have been implemented in almost 38% of the
UK respondent companies, the figure for Mexico was only 19%. Nonetheless, this
means that TQM ideas have begun to influence management practices in the sector.
This was encouraging since, at the time of the survey, the Egan Report [37] inspiring
the UK industry to adopt manufacturing methods had been published for 6 years and the
results demonstrate that the challenge is being taken up.
The two initiatives with the highest scores in both countries were: employee
involvement to improve quality and customer satisfaction initiatives. 68% of the
respondent UK companies have implemented the former and almost 74% the latter. The
- 52 -
corresponding figures for Mexico were 50% and almost 63%. These results show that
efforts are being directed towards motivating employees to satisfy external customers in
both regions. On average, in the UK at least one of the five initiatives had been
employed for 6.5 years, whilst in Mexico the average was 5.
In the UK, some respondents reported other initiatives that had been
implemented such as the balanced scorecard, continual process improvement,
benchmarking through key performance indicators, integrated departments and key
stage system checking on site. In Mexico, no more initiatives were cited.
3.4.3 Use of Methods
As mentioned earlier, one of the main objectives of the survey was to determine
the breadth of use and the perceived importance of the different methods in the
construction sector. Mean use and mean perceived importance values were calculated
for each and are presented in Table 3.5 for the UK and Table 3.6 for Mexico. It should
be noted that the opinion of both users and non-users was taken into consideration to
calculate the average ratings i.e. participants who rated a particular method as 0, were
included in the calculations. This is because the author felt it appropriate to analyse not
only the ‘voice of users’ but also the ‘voice of non-users’ to gain a general view within
the sector.
With regard to the mean level of use, in the UK, the scores ranged from 0.36 to
4.17. When they were ordered, computer networks (technology), laws and regulations,
checklists, inspection (quality control) and customer complaints (performance
measures) were the five most used by the respondent companies while tree diagrams,
matrix diagrams (organising customer needs), QFD, CE and TRIZ (formal methods)
were the least used. In Mexico, the averages were more widely spread, ranging from
- 53 -
0.38 to 4.25. Computer networks, design software (technology), customer satisfaction
surveys (performance measures), contractor partnerships and laws and regulations
(quality control) received the five highest scores whilst, again, tree diagrams, matrix
diagrams (organising customer needs), QFD, CE and TRIZ (formal methods) were the
five least used. This may indicate that construction companies are oblivious to the value
in the sector of the last two groups of methods.
Group Methods Mean Mean tcalc P- Result

use Importance value
Gathering Customer Surveys 2.97 3.44 4.435 0.000 Sig
customer needs One-to-one Interview 2.60 3.25 4.614 0.000 Sig
Phone Interview 1.72 2.08 3.163 0.002 Sig
Brainstorming 2.32 2.75 4.054 0.000 Sig
Focus Groups 1.88 2.35 3.521 0.000 Sig
Organising Affinity Diagram 0.60 0.63 0.815 0.418 Not Sig
customer needs Tree Diagram 0.69 0.71 0.331 0.741 Not Sig
Matrix Diagram 0.92 0.89 -0.390 0.698 Not Sig
Formal methods QFD 0.56 0.63 1.925 0.058 Not Sig
TRIZ 0.36 0.38 0.445 0.658 Not Sig
CE 0.56 0.53 -0.445 0.658 Not Sig
Planning and Mission Statement 2.89 2.99 0.708 0.481 Not Sig
programming Gantt Chart 2.44 2.49 1.000 0.321 Not Sig
tools CPM 2.69 2.93 2.463 0.016 Sig
PERT 2.03 2.14 1.183 0.241 Not Sig
Teams & Teamwork 3.42 3.65 2.854 0.006 Sig
DPA 1.25 1.53 2.742 0.008 Not Sig
Quality control Laws and Regulations 4.00 4.10 0.961 0.340 Not Sig
Checklists 3.69 3.76 0.779 0.439 Not Sig
Housekeeping (5Ss) 2.19 2.33 1.857 0.068 Not Sig
Inspection 3.97 4.06 0.973 0.334 Not Sig
Sampling 2.75 2.82 0.869 0.388 Not Sig
Quality Audits 3.54 3.69 1.443 0.153 Not Sig
Contractor Partnerships 3.17 3.29 0.964 0.338 Not Sig
Performance Satisfaction Survey 3.50 3.88 4.095 0.000 Sig
measures Customer Complaints 3.71 4.07 3.163 0.002 Sig
Litigation 1.63 2.21 3.986 0.000 Sig
Technology Planning Software 3.61 3.65 0.520 0.605 Not Sig
Design Software 3.31 3.26 -0.478 0.634 Not Sig
FEA Software 0.69 0.82 2.005 0.049 Sig
Computer Network 4.17 4.10 -0.779 0.439 Not Sig
Importance –UK (5% level of significance used throughout)
It was no surprise to see computer networks first in both countries since this is
the age of technology; laws and regulations are obviously of prime importance and
software is being used in all sectors now. The low level of use of CE, and more
- 54 -
particularly QFD, possibly means that more attention needs to be paid to the methods
that help to consider all the factors associated with the life cycle of a product [4] and to
analyse the voice of the customer during the design stage, thereby ensuring that quality
is built into projects. Similarly, a low usage of TRIZ was found in both countries; this is
in line with previous research [97]. In addition, attention needs to be paid to the
methods that help to organise customer requirements such as matrix diagrams and tree
diagrams.
Group Methods Mean Mean tcalc P-value Result

use Importance
customer One-to-one Interview 3.44 3.88 1.962 0.069 Not Sig
needs Phone Interview 3.06 3.38 2.076 0.055 Not Sig
Brainstorming 1.75 2.50 2.324 0.035 Sig
Focus Groups 1.19 1.75 1.861 0.083 Not Sig
Organising Affinity Diagram 0.69 1.38 1.696 0.111 Not Sig
customer Tree Diagram 1.31 1.50 0.764 0.456 Not Sig
needs Matrix Diagram 0.81 1.50 1.741 0.102 Not Sig
Formal QFD 0.38 1.19 1.888 0.078 Not Sig
methods TRIZ 0.81 1.44 1.431 0.173 Not Sig
CE 0.69 1.06 1.103 0.287 Not Sig
Planning and Mission Statement 3.13 3.69 1.861 0.083 Not Sig
programming Gantt Chart 3.06 3.13 0.565 0.580 Not Sig
tools CPM 2.44 3.13 1.963 0.068 Not Sig
PERT 1.56 2.00 1.239 0.234 Not Sig
Teams & Teamwork 3.19 3.94 2.818 0.013 Sig
DPA 2.63 3.25 1.346 0.198 Not Sig
Quality Laws and Regulations 3.44 3.88 1.815 0.089 Not Sig
control Checklists 2.38 3.19 2.784 0.014 Sig
Inspection 3.19 3.81 3.101 0.007 Sig
Sampling 2.75 3.44 1.900 0.077 Not Sig
Quality Audits 1.13 2.50 3.467 0.003 Sig
Contractor Partnerships 3.63 3.94 2.611 0.020 Sig
Performance Satisfaction Survey 4.19 4.31 1.000 0.333 Not Sig
measures Customer Complaints 3.13 4.00 2.907 0.011 Sig
Litigation 1.00 1.50 1.225 0.240 Not Sig
Technology Planning Software 2.63 3.19 2.334 0.034 Sig
Design Software 3.88 4.31 1.962 0.069 Not Sig
FEA Software 3.13 3.75 1.718 0.106 Not Sig
Computer Network 4.25 4.50 1.074 0.300 Not Sig
Importance -Mexico (5% level of significance throughout)
- 55 -
3.4.4 Perceived Importance of Methods
With regard to the levels of perceived importance, as shown in both Tables 3.5
and 3.6, it is evident that companies in both countries placed a higher degree of
importance on almost all the methods than was displayed by their level of use. The
averages ranged from 0.38 to 4.10 in the UK, and from 1.06 to 4.50 in Mexico. The UK
respondents placed computer networks (technology), laws and regulations, inspection
(quality control), customer complaints and customer satisfaction surveys (performance
measures) as the five highest and affinity diagrams, matrix diagrams (organising
customer needs), QFD, CE and TRIZ (formal methods) as the five lowest. The Mexican
companies ranked computer networks, design software (technology), customer
satisfaction surveys, customer complaints (performance measures) and contractor
partnerships (quality control) as the top 5, whilst they ranked housekeeping (quality
control), affinity diagrams (organising customer needs), QFD, CE and TRIZ (formal
methods) the lowest. As can be seen, in both countries these results were in line with
those reported for use.
This indicates that although respondent companies in both countries think that
‘technology’ (e.g. computer networks and design software) and ‘performance measures’
(e.g. customer satisfaction surveys and customer complaints) are very important, they
think that methods to ‘organise’ the voice of the customer (e.g. matrix diagrams, tree
diagrams and affinity diagrams) and ‘formal methods’ (e.g. QFD, CE and TRIZ) have
low importance. Leaving aside the specific methods to analyse the voice of the
customer, it is obvious that customers’ wishes should be better considered if customer
satisfaction is to increase. Unless this is done, any other initiative aimed at satisfying
customers will almost certainly fail.
- 56 -
3.4.5 Significance Tests on Difference of Means
As stated earlier, generally the respondent companies in both countries rated the
perceived importance of the methods higher than the extent to which they were used.
Statistical tests were performed, however, to ascertain whether these differences were
significant or not. Two further tests were conducted to see if there were differences
between the UK and the Mexican respondents. The following hypotheses were
formulated and a 5% level of significance used throughout.
1. To test for a significant difference between the use and the perceived importance
means for the UK sample:
H0: µu - µi = 0, i.e. there is no difference between the two means;
H1: µu - µi ≠ 0, i.e. there is a significant difference between the two means.
2. To test for a significant difference between the use and the perceived importance
means for the Mexican sample, similar hypotheses were used.
3. To test for a significant difference in the extent of use between respondent
companies in the UK and those in Mexico:
H0: µUKu - µMEXu = 0, i.e. there is no difference between the level of use of each
of the methods in UK respondent companies and in Mexican respondent
companies;
H1: µUKu - µMEXu ≠ 0, i.e. there is a significant difference between the practices
of the UK respondent companies and those of Mexico.
4. To test for a significant difference in the perceived level of importance reported
by the UK respondent companies and those in Mexico:
H0: µUKi - µMEXi = 0, i.e. there is no difference between the perceived level of
importance for each of the methods of UK respondent companies and those in
Mexico;
- 57 -
H1: µUKi - µMEXi ≠ 0, i.e. there is a significant difference between the perceived
level of importance of UK respondents and those in Mexico.
While the application of metric statistics is normal practice in rated
questionnaires [98], using average scores is not always suitable for analysing this sort of
data. In the case of rated scales it is more appropriate to use the median, frequency and
quartiles in their analysis rather than the mean and standard deviation [99].
Nevertheless, because the differences between successive points in a rated scale are
equal, the results can be dealt with as metric data from an interval scale [100]. This
assumption was made and used in the analysis.
The first two hypotheses were tested using a paired comparison t-test, whilst the
other two were analysed using an ordinary comparison t-test. Levene’s [101] test for
equality of variances was calculated and the results considered when performing the
latter tests [102]. Again, SPSS 11.0 [95] was employed in all cases. When comparing
the mean use and mean perceived importance for the UK sample, significant differences
were found for all five of the methods within the ‘gathering customer needs’ group and
all three within the ‘performance measures’ one (see Table 3.5). This means that the
importance perceived by respondent companies for these methods has not been
transformed into action i.e. companies are aware of the importance of these methods but
are not applying them. Likewise CPM, teams & teamwork and finite element analysis
software were rated higher for perceived importance than for current use and were
significantly different.
As can be seen in Table 3.6, in Mexico, significant differences were found in
two of the five methods that help to gather customer needs i.e. customer surveys and
brainstorming. The same happened with teams & teamwork, which means that
respondent companies are aware of the importance of teamwork but have not put it into
- 58 -
practice. Likewise checklists, inspection, quality audits, contractor partnerships
(quality control), customer complaints (performance measures) and planning software
(technology) received a significantly higher score for perceived importance than for use.
The third comparison was between the UK respondents and those in Mexico
with regard to current use. The results are summarised in Table 3.7. In this case an
ordinary comparison t-test was performed.
Group Methods Mean Mean Use tcalc P-value Result

use UK Mexico
customer One-to-one Interview 2.60 3.44 -1.779 0.079 Not Sig
needs Phone Interview 1.72 3.06 -3.321 0.001 Sig
Brainstorming 2.32 1.75 1.237 0.220 Not Sig
Organising Affinity Diagram 0.60 0.69 -0.269 0.789 Not Sig
customer Tree Diagram 0.69 1.31 -1.578 0.118 Not Sig
needs Matrix Diagram 0.92 0.81 0.252 0.801 Not Sig
Formal QFD 0.56 0.38 0.550 0.584 Not Sig
methods TRIZ 0.36 0.81 -1.056 0.305 Not Sig
CE 0.56 0.69 -0.367 0.714 Not Sig
Planning and Mission Statement 2.89 3.13 -0.483 0.630 Not Sig
programming Gantt Chart 2.44 3.06 -1.130 0.262 Not Sig
tools CPM 2.69 2.44 0.516 0.607 Not Sig
PERT 2.03 1.56 0.852 0.397 Not Sig
Teams & Teamwork 3.42 3.19 0.472 0.638 Not Sig
DPA 1.25 2.63 -3.088 0.003 Sig
control Checklists 3.69 2.38 2.766 0.013 Sig
Housekeeping (5Ss) 2.19 0.81 3.525 0.001 Sig
Sampling 2.75 2.75 0.000 1.000 Not Sig
Quality Audits 3.54 1.13 5.328 0.000 Sig
Contractor Partnerships 3.17 3.63 -0.969 0.335 Not Sig
Performance Satisfaction Survey 3.50 4.19 -1.583 0.117 Not Sig
measures Customer Complaints 3.71 3.13 1.284 0.214 Not Sig
Technology Planning Software 3.61 2.63 2.178 0.032 Sig
Design Software 3.31 3.88 -1.136 0.259 Not Sig
FEA Software 0.69 3.13 -6.917 0.000 Sig
Table 3.7 Ordinary Comparison Statistics for UK versus Mexican Companies

for Mean Use (5% level of significance)
It was expected that there would be a great deal of difference between the two
groups under study. The reason for this is that the author believes that companies in
developed countries have more opportunities to apply different methods, because the
- 59 -
wealth of the country allows them to have more contracts and therefore more money to
invest in improvement. However, only eight methods showed significant differences,
they were: customer surveys, customer telephone interviews (gathering customer needs),
DPA (planning and programming tools), checklists, housekeeping, quality audits
(quality control), planning software and finite element analysis software (technology).
Table 3.8 presents the results for the final test on perceived importance, carried
out between the two respondent groups.
Group Methods Mean Mean tcalc P-value Result

Importance Importance
UK Mexico
Gathering Customer Surveys 3.44 3.06 0.833 0.407 Not Sig
customer One-to-one Interview 3.25 3.88 -1.292 0.200 Not Sig
needs Phone Interview 2.08 3.38 -2.914 0.005 Sig
Brainstorming 2.75 2.50 0.504 0.616 Not Sig
Organising Affinity Diagram 0.63 1.38 -1.686 0.108 Not Sig
customer Tree Diagram 0.71 1.50 -1.553 0.137 Not Sig
needs Matrix Diagram 0.89 1.50 -1.150 0.254 Not Sig
Formal QFD 0.63 1.19 -1.100 0.285 Not Sig
methods TRIZ 0.38 1.44 -2.032 0.058 Not Sig
CE 0.53 1.06 -1.108 0.282 Not Sig
Planning and Mission Statement 2.99 3.69 -1.481 0.142 Not Sig
programming Gantt Chart 2.49 3.13 -1.166 0.247 Not Sig
tools CPM 2.93 3.13 -0.375 0.708 Not Sig
PERT 2.14 2.00 0.246 0.806 Not Sig
Teams & Teamwork 3.65 3.94 -0.582 0.562 Not Sig
DPA 1.53 3.25 -3.411 0.001 Sig
control Checklists 3.76 3.19 1.169 0.257 Not Sig
Sampling 2.82 3.44 -1.247 0.216 Not Sig
Quality Audits 3.69 2.50 2.037 0.056 Not Sig
Contractor Partnerships 3.29 3.94 -1.277 0.205 Not Sig
Performance Satisfaction Survey 3.88 4.31 -1.020 0.311 Not Sig
measures Customer Complaints 4.07 4.00 0.180 0.857 Not Sig
Technology Planning Software 3.65 3.19 1.037 0.303 Not Sig
Design Software 3.26 4.31 -2.688 0.012 Sig
FEA Software 0.82 3.75 -7.594 0.000 Sig
Table 3.8 Ordinary Comparison Statistics UK versus Mexican Companies

for Mean Perceived Importance (5% level of significance)
It was surprising to see that only four methods showed significant differences,
they were: customer telephone interviews, DPA, design software and finite element
- 60 -
analysis software. Maybe the fact that telephone calls are generally charged by the
minute in the UK but by call in Mexico encourages the use of telephones in the latter.
With regard to ‘technology’, respondents in Mexico perceived that their use
during design activities was highly important. From the distribution of Mexican
respondents (Table 3.3) it is evident that, after the construction stage most companies
were involved in design. This could explain the importance placed on design software.
From this analysis it is evident that companies in both countries have, in general, similar
opinions about the level of importance of the methods shown in Table 3.1.
3.5 Quality Issues
The final section of the questionnaire requested information about general quality
issues. While 96% of the respondent UK companies considered that the quality of their
products/services could be improved, all the Mexican respondents did. In 94% of the
UK companies, Project Managers were committed to quality, indicating the concern and
importance of quality aspects in the industry, whilst the corresponding figure for
Mexico was 75%.
According to Dale [18], training to support continual improvement is very
important. The appropriate type of training should be given to the right people,
highlighting the purpose of the methods along with their benefits and limitations. In
spite of this, only 72% of the UK respondents replied positively to the question “Do
your employees receive training in any of the methods listed in Table 3.1?” and 56% in
Mexico.
Recognition plays a key role within the TQM philosophy [66]. It consists generally
of “ceremonial” actions performed to acknowledge the work of both individuals and
teams, with the main focus being the improvement of activities. From the responses
- 61 -
obtained, it could be said that there is an awareness of this important aspect because
88% of the UK respondent companies recognised the efforts of teams, and 94% did so
in Mexico. Finally, 96% of the UK respondent companies recognised the efforts of
individuals while 100% did so in Mexico.
3.6 Summary
In this chapter various quality improvement methods believed to be appropriate
for the construction industry have been identified and grouped by means of affinity
diagrams. Although more than 100 methods were found in the literature, only a
proportion of them were selected because a great many were variations of those
selected. They were classified into seven groups. The use and perceived importance of
these methods was investigated based on a postal survey that was conducted in both the
UK and Mexico. The results from the UK allowed the author to validate the instrument
in terms of reliability and content. In addition, the two survey instruments were tested
for possible bias. In this regard, it was concluded that there was little or no non-response
bias in either.
With reference to the UK survey results, it was found that there were not
significant differences between the methods employed by companies with different
characteristics. Hence, respondents reported similar levels of application regardless of
company size, type of project or activity. A similar analysis for the Mexican survey was
not feasible because of the low response rate.
In relation to practice, computer networks (technology), laws and regulations,
checklists, inspection (quality control) and customer complaints (performance
measures) are common in the UK respondent companies while computer networks,
design software (technology), customer satisfaction surveys (performance measures),
- 62 -
contractor partnerships and laws and regulations (quality control) are more common in
those in Mexico. Companies in the UK assigned higher levels of importance than the
extent to which they were used for methods in the ‘gathering customer needs’ and
‘performance measures’ groups, which means that they are aware of the importance of
these methods but have not put them into practice. In Mexico the same was true,
mainly, with regard to the ‘quality control’ methods.
In contrast, the number of users of such methods as tree diagrams, matrix
diagrams (organising customer needs), QFD, CE and TRIZ (formal methods) is still
very limited in the industry. These results were not surprising and are in accordance
with those reported in the literature [97, 103]. A possible solution to this situation could
be to encourage the application of quality improvement methods in the construction
industry by tailoring them and developing approaches for helping their implementation,
as has been done in the manufacturing sector.
In general, not many significant differences were found between the UK and
Mexico, so companies in both countries had similar ratings for level of use and
importance of the methods studied. The only major surprise was the low number of
companies certified to the ISO 9001: 2000 standard in both countries. It was expected
that by the time the survey was conducted, more than 3 years after the introduction of
the standard, a greater proportion of companies would be certified.
The utilisation of quality improvement methods in the construction industry will
continue to capture the attention of professionals and academics. The results from this
research will form the foundation on which to base the development of the framework,
which will be presented in the next chapter.
- 63 -
4-Framework
Chapter 4. Framework Development
4.1 Introduction
The rationale for developing a framework is that it provides the structure for
launching quality initiatives in a planned manner and offers step-by-step guidance on
how to proceed if a set of goals is to be achieved. So, the advantage of having such a
tool is that it shows the way forward in the construction process and can be used as a
means to develop plans for improvement during its stages and to programme the
allocation of resources and personnel. A framework should cover the whole process,
from gathering customer needs through to maintenance activities. In addition, it is
believed that it should be useful for all types of construction projects i.e. “building” and
“civil engineering”.
The development of the framework will now be discussed. First, its main
requirements will be established, then the initial draft will be presented along with a
detailed explanation of its main components. The guide for implementing the methods
included in the framework will then be described and finally its expected outputs and
main features highlighted.
4.2 Main Requirements
Using Kano’s terminology [104], the requirements of a framework have been
divided into two categories, “expected” and “attractive”. The first refers to those
requisites that must be satisfied in order to ensure that the framework answers both
“what is” and “how to” achieve quality in construction. The latter however, refers to
features that may enhance the framework but are not essential. With regard to the first
category, the author adopted and adapted the ideas of Dale and McQuarter [65], Yusof
- 64 -
4-Framework
[105], and Dale [18] -developed in the TQM arena- to generate the following list of
requirements. A framework must:
1. be able to answer “what is quality in construction?” (i.e. present the elements that
constitute quality)
2. display a general picture of the activities that could be applied for building quality
in, and
3. determine the role of various quality improvement methods within the whole
construction process (i.e. show how to achieve quality).
In addition to these, a set of “attractive” requirements will also be suggested. It
was argued in Chapter 2 that most of the initiatives reported in the construction
management literature either only addressed one or two quality issues e.g.
communication, participants’ role [53] or were limited to one sector in the industry e.g.
affordable housing [63] or only covered one or two stages in the construction process
e.g. briefing, tendering [41, 59]. Drawing from these weaknesses and the key points
proposed by Evbuomwan and Anumba [31], Yusof [105], Koskela [14] and
Tzortzopoulos et al [106], the following attractive requirements are suggested as a guide
to developing any framework. It should be:
4. Simple i.e. user friendly to everyone involved in a project e.g. customers, designers,
engineers, contractors, etc.
5. Easy to understand by all the participants in a construction project
6. Systematic i.e. gives guidance on how to perform various activities (e.g. gathering
and organising customer needs) during the stages of the construction process and
provides the necessary methods to support these activities
7. Well structured i.e. clearly presents both the elements that will help to build quality
into projects and the links between them
- 65 -
4-Framework
8. Comprehensive i.e. applies to a great variety of projects and supports the activities
performed during the whole construction process
9. Practical i.e. the relevant participants in a construction project can use it in real
situations without the need of experts, and
10. Applicable i.e. it is accepted and perceived as credible and useful by its users in a
wide variety of projects e.g. building projects.
Not only do these requirements give support to build up a new framework but
they can also be used as criteria for its evaluation. In fact, they offered guidance for the
development of the proposed framework, the ultimate objective of which was to provide
practitioners with a tool that may be applied in construction projects to improve
performance, quality and ultimately customer satisfaction.
4.3 Stages in the Framework Construction
To address the question “what is quality in construction?”, the literature related
to the concept of quality reviewed in Chapter 2 was used. In general, it has been
categorised into three main groups: corporate, product and service [107].
Corporate Quality
Corporate quality refers to the image that customers have of an organisation.
Yasamis et al [46] stated that this type of quality referred to that expected from a
company rather than that from a product or service. They went on to say that quality-
conscious companies normally have a strong quality culture, which is helpful for
achieving customer satisfaction. The foundations of corporate quality are defined at
organisational rather than at project level.
- 66 -
4-Framework
Yasamis et al [46] developed an approach to explain quality in the construction
context and adopted the manufacturing critical success factors (CSFs) of TQM as
indicators of corporate quality. They argued that companies practicing these are likely
to have an established corporate quality culture. In order to determine whether or not the
same CSFs were appropriate to the construction sector, a postal survey of UK
construction companies was carried out by a Postgraduate student at the University. Full
details of this can be found in [108]. The main conclusion from the study was that
manufacturing companies had more experience in the application of such factors than
their construction counterparts, but in general, both industries recognised the same
factors as critical for successful TQM implementation. Table 4.1 shows the proposed
CSFs for the construction industry.
According to Yasamis et al [46], the use of these factors at corporate level is
critical for achieving customer satisfaction and in fact, they could be used as predictors
of the corporate quality that a construction company should provide. The author feels
that the awareness and use of such CSFs is apparent in the quality policy of the
company, which according to Seaver [109], plays a key role in corporate quality. From
the customer perspective this may be a valuable simplification because the quality
policy may be the only evidence that customers will have, prior to setting up a working
relationship with a company, about its commitment to providing both corporate and
product/service quality. Seaver [109] argued that organisations should aim to surpass
customer expectations (delight customers) and that the quality policy should recognise
this fact.
- 67 -
4-Framework
Factors Constituent elements

Management 1. Management provide policies promoting customer satisfaction
Leadership 2. Management build an improvement culture
3. Management practice participation in decision making
4. Communication links established between employees and management
5. Clear mission developed regarding business objectives
6. Management act as key driver in continuous improvement
Continuous 1. There is a quality improvement coordinating body (e.g. quality steering committee)
improvement system 2. Improvement teams exist in all functions
3. Quality tools and techniques are widely used
4. Recognition given for contributions on improvement ideas
5. Continuous improvement conducted to improve processes.
Measurement and 1. A system to feedback customer concerns is established.
feedback 2. Internal measures (such as quality costs, quantity of rejects) collected to monitor
quality improvement.
3. Critical processes are identified for improvement.
4. Measurements from critical processes are taken for improvement purposes.
Improvement tools 1. Statistical techniques used in design processes
and techniques 2. Statistical techniques used in contract processes
3. Training on tools and techniques provided
4. Marketing and Sales use quality tools for improvement activities.
5. Appropriate techniques are implemented when necessary.
Supplier quality 1. Suppliers are involved in customer’s improvement activities.
management 2. Supplier audit and evaluation are important activities to be conducted.
3. Suppliers provide relevant quality data.
4. Working with suppliers towards long term partnerships
5. Training of suppliers is conducted.
6. Suppliers selected on the basis of quality aspects.
Systems and 1. Systems and procedures for quality assurance are implemented
processes 2. Information and data collection system established to monitor improvement
activities
3. Relevant training system in place
4. Key business processes identified, improved and monitored
5. Key business processes focused on meeting the needs of customers
Resources 1. Sufficient financial resources provided to support improvement activities.
2. Human resource availability considered in improvement activities.
3. Investment decisions based on sound resources consideration.
4. Technical resources (e.g. software, equipment) are provided.
Education and 1. Employees are trained in job-specific skills.
training 2. Employees are trained in quality-specific tools and techniques.
3. Employees are trained on total quality concepts.
4. Training time is provided for employees.
5. Management always update their knowledge.
6. Continuous learning is provided through education and training.
Work environment 1. A pleasant environment exists in working areas.
and culture 2. Positive values such as trust, honesty, hardworking, are fostered by management.
3. Teamwork and involvement are normal practices.
4. Attitudes and behaviours are reinforced through a caring culture.
5. The current pay scheme motivates employees to contribute towards building a
quality culture
Table 4.1 CSFs for TQM Implementation in the Construction Industry
(Source: [108])
In order to establish whether a quality policy can be used to reflect the
awareness and use of the CSFs presented in Table 4.1, five were reviewed. These were
the policies of the companies that responded to the UK survey described in Chapter 3.
For confidentiality reasons none of the organisations will be identified but excerpts
- 68 -
4-Framework
from their quality policies are quoted below. Most of them included at least one
paragraph related to one or more of the CSFs.
1. “Managers at all levels are responsible for ensuring that all subordinates are
trained in and comply with the requirements of the company quality manual and
quality programme manuals which have the full and unqualified support of the
Board of Directors” (management leadership). “The company implements
systematic, planned and cost effective procedures for determining and
controlling all activities that affect the quality of the service and the end product
provided to Clients” (systems and processes).
2. “Continuously review and improve business processes, ensuring that customer
requirements and statutory and regulatory requirements are met, maintained
and exceeded if possible” (continuous improvement system). “Establish and
develop sustainable relationships, based on mutual trust, with all parts of the
supply team” (supplier quality management). “Provide adequate, competent
resources to ensure the highest standards of quality” (resources).
3. “Adopting an approach of evaluating the effectiveness and adequacy of
operations and processes through established monitoring, measuring and
reporting methods, and to ensure that as improvements are identified, they are
introduced in all relevant parts of the business” (measurement and feedback).
“Providing relevant training to ensure all employees are competent to carry out
their work” (education and training).
4. “The company will identify customers’ needs in accordance with best national
and international practise” (improvement tools and techniques).
- 69 -
4-Framework
5. “The company is totally committed to providing a comprehensive and efficient
service to its customers through a trained, experienced and motivated
workforce” (work environment and culture).
As can be seen, the five quality policies cover all of the proposed CSFs. This
was expected since all five companies have been certified to ISO 9001: 2000, which
requires organisations to establish quality policies consistent with TQM principles [24].
Consequently, in the framework under development, the quality policy may be
considered as a good indicator of the awareness and use of CSFs within construction
organisations, which in turn reflects quality at corporate level [46].
Product Quality
In terms of projects, the final output of the construction process consists of
products and services, so customer satisfaction at this level will result from both
elements. With reference to product quality, as discussed in Chapter 2, Garvin [47]
suggested the following eight dimensions, which according to Yasamis et al [46] are
applicable to the products of the construction industry.
• Performance- basic functions of the facility
• Features- characteristics that supplement the basic functions of the facility
• Reliability- the level of confidence with which occupants can use the facility
without failure
• Conformance- the extent to which the facility is consistent with pre-defined
standards
• Durability- the amount of time that occupants can use the facility before
replacement is required
• Serviceability- the speed and ease with which maintenance can be carried out
- 70 -
4-Framework
• Aesthetics- the degree of satisfaction that occupants experience with the
facility’s look and feel, and
• Perceived quality- the degree of satisfaction that occupants experience with the
facility’s image.
While product quality is mainly associated with the users and occupants of the
finished facility (clients could also be users in some cases), in construction, clients are
the direct recipients of service quality. Therefore, it is important to consider both
aspects.
Service Quality
With reference to service quality, Parasuraman [48] suggested the following ten
dimensions, which according to Maloney [60], could be used in the construction
industry.
• Access- the ease with which the customer can contact the construction company
• Communication- the ability to disseminate information about the construction
project to the customer
• Competence- the company’s ability to carry out the service offered to the
customer
• Courtesy- the degree of respect, politeness, kindness and consideration of the
company’s personnel to the customer
• Credibility- the ability of the company to do what it says it will do
• Reliability- the degree to which construction activities are correct
• Responsiveness- the ability to react to problems that have arisen during the
project
• Security- the ability to keep customer information confidential
- 71 -
4-Framework
• Tangibles- the appearance of both the personnel and the facilities of the
company to the customer, and
• Understanding the customer- the ability of the company to understand customer
needs and offer personalised attention to the customer.
These ten dimensions could be used as a checklist when providing services to
customers. It is important to highlight that regardless of the main activity of the
construction company (e.g. design, construction) the dimensions for quality are equally
applicable. For instance, design organisations are responsible not only for providing a
service but also for ensuring that drawings and specifications for the product are correct
and readily address the needs of customers. In the case of contractors, whilst they are
mainly responsible for building a quality product, they simultaneously offer a service.
By dividing construction quality into the three main components presented i.e.
corporate, product and service, the question “what is quality in construction” is
addressed. The next step in the framework’s development process involved the second
requirement i.e. to display a general picture of the activities that could be applied for
building quality in. In fact, the third requirement i.e. to determine the role of various
quality improvement methods within the construction process, was simultaneously
addressed, since both are related. In order to better understand how these two
requirements have been considered in the framework, construction stages will now be
discussed.
Construction Stages
The major activities performed during the construction process have been
explained in detail in Chapter 2. The quality improvement methods discussed in Chapter
3 will now be linked with those construction stages to which they are most appropriate.
- 72 -
4-Framework
The details are listed in Table 4.2. Note that the group ‘technology’ can be applied
throughout. The last stage in the construction process, not shown in Table 4.2, is
maintenance. This activity was not studied in detail during this research project.
Stage Brief Description Quality Improvement Methods

(Groups)
Briefing Customer needs are collected and a blueprint elaborated Gathering Customer Needs, Organising
Customer Needs and Technology
Designing The facility that will satisfy the customer needs is designed. Formal Methods and Technology
The specification documents that will help to assemble the
final product are developed
Bidding A contractor is chosen to carry out the site construction work Planning and Programming Tools and
Technology
Construction The facility is built in accordance with drawings and Quality Control and Technology
specifications. Construction materials are selected.
Commissioning Users take over the facility Performance Measures and Technology
Table 4.2 Quality Improvement Methods for Supporting the Construction Process
Having linked the activities in the construction process and the potential quality
improvement methods to support them, the question “how to achieve quality in
construction?” has been addressed. Applying the relevant quality improvement methods
at each of the stages within the construction process can help to ensure that quality is
delivered to the customer. It is worth emphasising at this point that a service is being
provided to the customer during the whole construction process and the quality
improvement methods apply equally to this. For instance, the needs of customers in
terms of service may be collected by means of personal interviews or customer surveys.
Similarly, service requirements can be analysed and then translated into technical jargon
by means of a formal method such as QFD.
4.4 Framework Representation
The next step in the framework development process was to create a schematic
that considered all the essential and the attractive requirements discussed. To do so
- 73 -
4-Framework
entailed two decisions. The first was related to corporate quality. As argued earlier the
CSFs for TQM implementation can be used as indicators of an organisation’s quality
level, but since their awareness and use can be reflected in the company’s quality
policy, it was decided to incorporate this into the framework rather than the CSFs (note
that the quality policy may be directly formulated from the list of CSFs shown in Table
4.1, by generating statements such as those excerpted from the policies presented
above). The second decision was related to the construction participants and their
culture. The development of the quality policy, the execution of construction activities
and the application of quality improvement methods depend on people, so it was felt
essential that they were included in the framework. Top Management were put as a
separate entity. A first draft was structured as a pyramid (see Figure 4.1).
As can be seen, it comprises three main levels: (i) the quality policy, defined by
Top Management, (ii) the construction process and (iii) the set of quality improvement
methods aimed at supporting the activities during the construction process. Note that
people, and more particularly culture, form the foundation of the pyramid, since the
success or otherwise of the implementation of the framework’s methods directly
depends on them. Top Management were located at the top of the pyramid because they
lead the quality efforts within an organisation.
4.5 Elements of the Framework
With regard to quality at corporate level, Top Management should determine the
vision of the company, the quality policy and the annual objectives. As already
discussed, not only should the quality of the end product be considered during the
construction process but also the quality of the service that the company provides must
- 74 -
4-Framework
be taken into account. The dimensions associated with both of these aspects can be used
as checklists to ensure that customers will receive both.
Top
Mana-
gement
Quality
Policy
Product Service
Input:
Customer Needs
Schematic
Design
Detailed
Design
Construction
Documentation
Design
Bidding
Construction
Output:
Facility
Build
Maintenance
Gathering Formal Quality

Customer Methods Control
Needs
Organising Planning Performance

Customer Tools Measures
Needs Improvement
Technology Methods
People (Culture)
Figure 4.1 First Draft of the Framework
The middle part of the pyramid shows the construction process and its stages,
each of which may be supported by the use of different quality improvement methods
- 75 -
4-Framework
and technology. In fact the lines shown in the figure represent the links that are possible.
Having described the framework in general, each section will now be described in more
detail. In addition, the guide for implementing the framework’s methods will be
presented.
4.5.1 Quality Policy
An organisation’s quality policy is part of its strategic planning process, which
includes setting the direction for the company to improve its situation for long-term
prosperity and finding the means to achieve that direction [18]. The main idea is to
communicate throughout the company that something should be done in terms of
quality if the company is to survive and compete in the future. The Japanese approach
known as ‘Hoshin Kanri’, or policy deployment, can be adopted when defining a
company’s quality policy. Tennant and Roberts [110] described its major elements as:
• A five-year vision: a draft plan elaborated by Top Management i.e. the President
and an executive group. It normally contains an improvement plan based on
internal and external obstacles that enable Top Management to create the vision
that will result in the desired action
• A one-year plan: entails the selection and rating of plans to achieve the desired
results
• Deployment to departments: involves the selection of optimum targets and
means. The main focus is on the recognition of key implementation items and an
evaluation of how they can systematically accomplish the plan
• Detailed implementation: includes the implementation of the plans. Once
recognised, the steps to accomplish the tasks in the plan are ordered in a logical
manner and followed
- 76 -
4-Framework
• A monthly diagnosis: an analysis of corrective actions that both hindered and
benefited the progress of the plan. The main focus is on the process rather than
the goal
• The President’s annual diagnosis: a review of the progress achieved, based not
only on the numerical targets established from the outset but also on the
processes to accomplish them.
In order to establish the quality policy within the organisation, Top Management
should have a customer-focused vision, relevant for people at all levels within the
company, and appropriate for the next five years. Dale [18] suggested gathering
information on the company, its clients, competitors and market, and then holding
meetings between top management strategists and employees to determine the vision.
He also mentioned that it was important to be realistic and communicate the result to
everyone in the organisation.
Before embarking on the strategic planning process, Tennant and Roberts [110]
suggest that the following questions should be answered: “what business do we want to
be in?, what are our long-term objectives?, do we have the correct core competences?”.
Using the approach suggested by Dale [18], the information collected can be classified
using a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis (see
Appendix B.1). This helps to identify those factors with the highest overall priorities
which are chosen to generate the vision (see Appendix B.2) of the company i.e. a
statement that indicates where the organisation would like to be in the future [66] and
then to develop the annual plan suggested by “Hoshin Kanri” (see Appendix B.3).
Making use of the Pareto principle2 [66] it may be possible to recognise the factors that
constitute 80% of the total priority and to select them to form the basis of the
2
“In any population which contributes to a common effect, a relative few of the contributors account for
the bulk of the effect” [66]
- 77 -
4-Framework
company’s quality policy (see Appendix B.4 for an example). Alternatively, the list of
CSFs shown in Table 4.1 may be employed as a starting point to identify improvement
areas within the company. Regardless of the approach employed, the outcomes of the
policy deployment process should be visibly displayed in common areas within the
company so that everybody (including customers) can see them [18].
4.5.2 Activities for Building Quality into Projects
The middle part of the pyramid, as already stated, shows the stages that are
normally carried out during the construction process. They have been broken down into
activities (see Table 4.3) using ideas from [31, 41, 63, 64, 66, 111, 112].
Three teams are suggested to carry them out, the design team (e.g. architects,
civil engineers), the construction team (e.g. contractors, suppliers) and the
implementation team i.e. people responsible for implementing quality improvement
methods (e.g. quality manager, external consultant). More details of the latter will be
given later in section 4.5.3.
The marked cells within the table identify the team responsible for the particular
activity and the unmarked ones include recommendations that may be useful during
their execution. As can be seen, there are activities in which the three teams could take
part simultaneously e.g. detailed design. This idea has its origin in CE principles [31],
which promote the integration, collaboration and coordination of the construction
process players as early as possible to consider various life-cycle-issues of the project
e.g. maintenance costs, demolition issues.
Once the client has decided on a particular project, a construction company is
approached to carry out the work. The successful company identifies the characteristics
of the project and defines it with regard to: name, customer(s) details, location, time
- 78 -
4-Framework
span, budget, land area, procurement approach to be employed and other features that
may be relevant e.g. refurbishment work. Design and implementation teams (along with
a construction team) are formed to work on the project (checklists for each of these are
given in Appendices B.6 and B.7).
Stages Activities Design Team Construction Team Implementation Team

INPUT Customer The client approaches a
Needs construction company with a
general idea about the facility
Schematic Define Project Personnel within the construction The participation of the
Design and form company identify the main construction team is
Design Team characteristics of the project and recommended at this stage of
forms a design team (see the process to ensure that it
Appendices B.5 and B.6 for will be represented in the
project definition and design team design team (Appendix B.7
checklists) presents a list of its
members)
Identify and The design team may help to carry Customer groups are
Prioritise out these activities identified and prioritised
Customer (see Appendices B.8 and
Groups B.9 for detailed steps)
Gather and The design team may help to carry More detailed needs than
Organise out these activities those stated at the beginning
Customer of the project are collected
Groups’ and organised (Appendix
Needs B.10)
Translate The technical characteristics that The construction team may The implementation team
Customer will satisfy the needs of the help to carry out this activity may help to carry out this
Needs into customer groups are determined. activity
Technical
Characteristics
Detailed Translate The technical characteristics are The construction team may The implementation team
Design Technical transformed into specifications help to carry out this activity may help to carry out this
Characteristics (e.g. drawings, plans and activity.
into schedules).
Construction
Specifications
Bidding Translate The design team may help to carry The specifications are used to The implementation team
Construction out this activity. quantify the materials, labour may help to carry out this
Specifications and equipment required to activity
into Materials, build the facility.
Labour and
Equipment
Construction Translate Materials, Labour and The implementation team
Materials, Equipment are controlled to may help to carry out this
Labour and ensure that a quality product activity
Equipment is built.
into Controls
OUTPUT Facility Measurement and feedback
are used to determine the
level of success of the
project (Appendix B.11)
Table 4.3 Activities for Building Quality into Construction Projects
- 79 -
4-Framework
The implementation team firstly identifies the future customers (users) of the
facility, the list of whom obviously depends entirely on the type of building to be
constructed (see Appendix B.8 for examples). For instance, if a family house is to be
built, the customers may be: the client and his wife, 3 sons, 1 daughter, the housekeeper,
the family’s friends and relatives [41]. Some customers are more important than others,
so they should be prioritised. The most important customers’ needs will be given
preference during subsequent stages of the process. In order to prioritise customers, the
values suggested by Cohen [6] can be adopted: 1-Low priority, 3-Medium priority, 9-
High priority. So, the needs of customers with high priority will be considered more
important than those of customers with low priority. Again, the Pareto principle could
be used to identify the customers that, for example, will occupy the facility most of the
time (Appendix B.9 provides a detailed explanation of how to identify and prioritise
customers).
The next activities comprise gathering and organising customer needs. These
may be addressed simultaneously to save time. Customer surveys is one of the quality
improvement methods that help to support the collection of customer needs, so one to
gather requirements may be developed (an example of a survey for collecting the needs
of family house users is presented in Appendix B.10). If, as in the example, the eight
product quality dimensions (see Product Quality in section 4.3) are used to classify the
needs, the ‘organisation of customer needs’ activity can be eliminated. The ten service
quality dimensions (detailed in Service Quality in section 4.3) can also be included.
Within the survey, the law of ideality promoted by TRIZ [113] is suggested to
encourage customers to think of the best possible facility which will not just satisfy
their needs but exceed them.
- 80 -
4-Framework
As can be seen in Table 4.3, the next activity is to translate customer needs into
technical characteristics. The design team should recognise the requirements that are
more important to customers and determine the characteristics that will satisfy them.
With this information, the HoQ (part of the QFD process) can be used to start the
detailed design phase, in which technical characteristics are translated into construction
specifications (e.g. drawings, plans, schedules). The author believes that regardless of
the procurement approach employed (e.g. design-bid-build, design-build), the
possibility of developing a quality product is high, if the important customer needs have
been included in the final design.
During the bidding stage, members of the construction team translate
specifications into materials, labour and equipment requirements. These will be
controlled throughout the construction phase to ensure that they comply with the
original specifications. For example, the use of inspection and sampling may help to
ensure that materials conform to the standards specified. The final activity is to measure
performance at the end of the construction process. For instance, to assess customer
satisfaction, a similar survey to that used for gathering customer needs could be used.
However, customers now are asked to rate the building’s features with regard to level of
satisfaction rather than importance (Appendix B.11 presents a customer satisfaction
survey for a family house). This activity may help to determine whether the original set
of customer needs were addressed and to what extent the customer is happy with the
final product.
4.5.3 Guide for Implementing the Framework’s Methods
Chapter 3 presented a wide range of quality improvement methods, which were
included in the lower half of the pyramid to support the activities described. Once a
- 81 -
4-Framework
particular method has been decided upon, the author recommends using the guidelines
shown in Figure 4.2 (the elements of which are based on ideas and concepts gathered
from a comprehensive literature review of the implementation of quality improvement
methods [6, 7, 18, 113-118]) to implement it. The sequence with which the steps are
carried out may be modified to suit the particular application.
Although rather obvious, the framework’s methods should not be applied
without careful planning. Their utilisation will require resources such as time, people,
money and equipment. Therefore, before embarking on the methods’ implementation
process, companies will need to establish their necessity. The reason for locating the
quality policy at the top of the pyramid in Figure 4.1 was to show that the application of
the framework’s methods should be directed at achieving the goals set in the company’s
quality plan e.g. to satisfy customers.
Top Management Support
Pilot project Appointment

of a facilitator
Recognition
Planning
Monitoring Implementation
progress Methods team creation
Methods’ Resources
application allocation
Data Training
collection
Figure 4.2 Guide for Implementing the Framework’s Methods
- 82 -
4-Framework
Prior to discussing the steps in the implementation process, the guide’s
methodology will be described. As can be seen in Figure 4.2, the outer circle comprises
Top Management support, this is because they must be committed to implement the
method in question. Before attempting an organisation-wide implementation of the
method, a pilot project should be selected, ideally one that has not yet started, but is
similar to another performed in the past where a customer complaint was received. Top
Management should then choose a facilitator or leader who will plan, organise and
coordinate the implementation activities. Such a person (either an employee or a
consultant) would be responsible for drawing up a plan of the way forward in which
activities are identified along with details of who, when, where, why and what will be
carried out. Depending on the nature of the project, an implementation team may be
created, which would be led by the facilitator. If the project is sufficiently small, there is
no need to create a team because the facilitator can work alone.
It is important to ensure that the project is properly and fully resourced –details
of which should be specified in the plan. The facilitator and the team members should
be trained in the use of the method. Once they are familiar with how it works, data
collection can begin and the method can be applied. It is important that milestones are
set to monitor progress and to verify that everything is working as planned. The last
milestone will be the customer satisfaction measurement. At the end of the project, the
implementation team members and the facilitator should receive recognition for their
work. It is also at the end of the project when the lessons learned can be logged and a
record kept for use in future projects. Unless the method has not worked well, it should
be expanded to other projects until it becomes standard practice within the organisation.
Having presented the general methodology, the implementation steps will now be
addressed.
- 83 -
4-Framework
Different authors [18, 65, 118, 119] agree that Top Management commitment is
an essential ingredient in the implementation process of any new initiative. This is
because not only are they responsible for putting everything in place to ensure that
people are committed to continuous improvement but they also generate an environment
in which everyone in the company is encouraged to improve quality and ultimately
customer satisfaction. If Top Management do not promote such an environment and do
not support the implementation process, employees will realise that they are not serious
about quality and will act in a similar fashion.
Top Management should be participative rather than authoritative if the
implementation of the method is to be successful. Although they will decide whether its
use in a particular project is appropriate, employees should be free to present
suggestions without any fear of recrimination. Trust and respect must be encouraged
between them and Top Management. In addition, activities such as resources allocation,
appointment of a facilitator, monitoring progress and recognition are all dependent on
Top Management. Essentially, they represent the foundation on which the
implementation process will be supported, so they should be involved throughout.
Pilot Project
The method in question could be ideally applied to a new project, similar to one
carried out in the past in which a quality problem was found. In addition, it is
recommended that a project, in which the customer is willing to participate, be selected.
After applying the method in a pilot project, the company may learn important lessons
and may have the opportunity to demonstrate that benefits can be gained by its use,
which is very important to maintain Top Management support in future projects.
- 84 -
4-Framework
At this stage of the process it is difficult to know how the problems encountered
will be solved, however experience and confidence in the use of the method will
delineate the way to be followed in future projects. When this experience has been
gained, its expansion and formalisation in the company’s projects becomes feasible.
Appointment of a facilitator
The appointment of a facilitator –someone who knows and has experience of
using the method- is very important. At the outset it could be either someone inside or
outside of the organisation i.e. an external consultant. If it is an internal appointment, it
is better for a facilitator to be a Manager who is committed to quality improvement
because this sets an example to other employees. If not, then it should be someone who
is not only respected among employees but who also has teaching skills and can
transmit knowledge to others. The facilitator’s role is to lead the implementation and
manage all efforts during the process.
Planning
Planning is a key element of any activity. In this case it should cover the scope
of the initiative, its purpose, the activities to perform, how much money will be
required, who will carry out the activities and how, where they will be performed, what
equipment will be required and when activities will be executed. In addition, potential
implementation team members that will work together throughout the duration of the
project should be identified at this stage. The members chosen will determine their own
training needs e.g. identifying those quality improvement methods with which they are
not familiar. In fact, this information is essential not only for planning purposes but also
- 85 -
4-Framework
for resources allocation. The idea here is to prevent problems from arising during the
implementation process.
Implementation team creation
The creation of an implementation team is very important. Dale [18] highlighted
some associated benefits with teamwork. He stated that teams can:
• Provide a means of communication between employees and management
• Provide an opportunity for people to be involved in decision making
• Improve relationships
• Improve method knowledge
• Develop problem solving skills
• Facilitate the awareness of a method’s existence and
• Improve operating effectiveness as people want to achieve the same goals.
He also suggested that for a team to be effective, each member should be clear about its
purpose, the tasks to be performed and its contribution to day-to-day operations. The
implementation team should create a specific plan to achieve its goals, in which
milestones and dates are clearly indicated. The project duration should, preferably, be
short to motivate team members and maintain enthusiasm.
Once created, the implementation team will perform all the necessary activities
under the direction of the facilitator. As already stated, it will work alongside the design
and the construction teams throughout the construction process to ensure that quality
improvement methods are implemented when required. It is recommended that its
members work in similar projects to gain experience in the use of the methods and
overcome the “temporary organisation” construction characteristic.
- 86 -
4-Framework
Resources allocation
Appropriate allocation of resources is required to successfully implement the
method in question. As Dale and McQuarter [65] specified, resources refer to money,
people, facilities, technology and time. Since they are normally scarce within
organisations, it is very important that they are efficiently used. Before allocating them,
companies need to assess their availability and to determine what proportion will be
used in the method’s implementation process. Top Management should ensure that
resources are available when required. It is important to bear in mind that without their
appropriate provision, the implementation of any initiative is likely to fail.
Training
Training is a key element in the implementation phase. Dale and McQuarter [65]
suggested that initially, it was not necessary for employees to become experts in the use
of the more complex methods but to understand and systematically apply the basic ones.
Complex methods could be learned later. A training programme should be developed
for the implementation team members. It is important to highlight that they only should
be trained, otherwise, there is a high risk of training individuals who will not be able to
apply what they have been taught, wasting resources unnecessarily. Since people tend to
forget things easily, training should coincide with the implementation rather than with
trainer availability or at the company’s convenience.
Data Collection
Dale and McQuarter [65] highlighted some important aspects to consider when
collecting data such as: the time required, the knowledge and skills needed, the
terminology used, the preparation, format and construction of data, the means to record
- 87 -
4-Framework
and to ensure data consistency. It is also crucial to collect only data that will be used
and analysed. These aspects should be regarded as important when implementing the
method because they may help to ensure that only relevant information will be
collected.
Method’s application
The application of the method is one of the last activities in the implementation
process. If Top Management does not support it, and one or more of the earlier steps
have not been undertaken (when required), then the experience will almost certainly be
disappointing. On the other hand, if all the aspects mentioned are in place, the
likelihood of applying the improvement method successfully may be increased.
Monitoring Progress
Once the method has been implemented, it is important to measure and monitor
its progress. Since the main objective is to improve quality and ultimately customer
satisfaction, organisations should know how well and how effectively the initiative is
fulfilling its purpose. For instance, the survey presented in Appendix B.11 could be
used at the end of the project to measure customer satisfaction. With appropriate
measurement of progress, the benefits of any method will become evident and people
will be encouraged to use them frequently.
Recognition
The last step, but by no means the least is recognition. This includes
“ceremonial” activities organised to publicly acknowledge employee performance. The
main focus is on improvement activities. It is customary for senior managers to preside
- 88 -
4-Framework
over ceremonies in which either certificates or plaques are given to people who have
finished training courses. Sometimes Top Management participate in dinner meetings
specifically organised to recognise a team that has accomplished its quality goal. Dale
and McQuarter [65] suggested the development of a policy to recognise those
employees who have been successful in the use of improvement methods. If these
ceremonies can not be put in place, a simple “well done” note from senior managers
would suffice. Essentially, the idea is to encourage people to apply the method in
question as part of their daily activities.
4.6 Comparison with Other Approaches
To determine whether the framework has made academic advances, it will be
compared with the published approaches presented in section 2.4. Formoso et al’s [52]
model offers assistance only for house building projects, which limits its application.
Kagioglou et al [53] do not offer any guidance for implementing their model and so
companies may lose direction when trying to apply it. The VPO model [54] encourages
communication among participants only during the early stages of the construction
process, as it puts the VoC at the heart of the design activities. Unlike Kamara et al’s
[41] model, which focuses only on the early stages, the framework developed in this
work covers the entire construction process.
Ballard and Howard’s [39] model lacks implementation guidelines and Serpell
and Alarcon’s [58] methodology, which concentrates on waste reduction, is more
oriented towards the construction stage. Arditi and Lee’s [59] methodology for
assessing quality performance is employed during the selection of contractor(s) in the
tendering stage. Yasamis et al’s [46] framework and Maloney’s [60] approach are
- 89 -
4-Framework
similar in nature. The framework proposed in this thesis is not limited to one or two
stages but covers the construction process from designing through to commissioning.
Al-Momani [61] and Abdel-Razek’s [62] results only show some quality issues
in construction that require attention but they are not organised or included into any
model for companies to use in practice. The developed framework, on the other hand,
may support the value generation concept of the TFV theory put forward by Koskela
[14], but more research is needed to confirm this.
DHUD’s [63] steps are limited to designing quality into affordable housing
projects while the proposed framework is more general. The DQI [64] has been
designed for evaluation purposes at the end of a project. While it can also be used
during its early stages, it certainly does not cover the entire construction process.
It is believed that the author’s proposed framework has addressed most of the
limitations found in these other approaches. It considers quality from three different
angles: corporate, product and service, it covers the whole construction process, it offers
quality improvement methods to support the activities of such a process and has a guide
to help their implementation. In addition, it has novel aspects, because the framework
recommends the use of the law of ideality suggested by TRIZ (a scarcely explored
theory in the construction sector), encourages the collection and organisation of
customer information, a generally neglected area within the construction industry, and
puts the voice of the customer at the heart of the construction process rather than the
voice of the designer.
4.7 Expected Outputs
By applying the framework in a wide variety of projects within a particular
company, a better understanding and knowledge of customer needs can be expected. In
- 90 -
4-Framework
addition, customers can be ensured that their main requirements will be considered
during the construction process. Companies can also expect improved communication
between customers and those in charge of establishing their needs (e.g. implementation
team members). Ultimately, it is hoped that both the level of quality and the level of
customer satisfaction will increase after the use of the framework. Moreover, the
application of the instruments developed as part of this research offer learning
opportunities for those companies that are starting their improvement journey.
Admittedly, the customer surveys proposed and the forms and checklists provided in
Appendix B are not exhaustive. They may be used as a starting point to develop more
comprehensive questionnaires and forms that include the experience acquired by the
company over time.
4.8 Summary
The development of the framework has been presented and the rationale for
having one was explained. It was argued that a framework provides an understanding of
a plan and simultaneously suggests the steps to follow in order to accomplish it.
Following from this discussion, a set of requirements to develop the framework was
proposed, these were categorised as “expected” and “attractive”. The concept of quality
in construction was presented and it was argued that it could be viewed from three
different angles: corporate, product and service. In addition, the role of the quality
improvement methods (studied in Chapter 3) in the construction stages was explained.
To represent the ideas discussed, a pyramid with three main levels was
constructed. Its elements were the company’s quality policy, the construction process
and the quality methods that may support improvement activities during the execution
of construction projects. The components of the framework were presented in detail.
- 91 -
4-Framework
Two alternatives for developing the quality policy were suggested i.e. a SWOT analysis
and the use of CSFs. The activities for building quality were described, along with a
guide for implementing the framework’s methods. The framework was compared with
the approaches found in the literature to highlight its main features together with its
innovative aspects. The framework supports all the stages of the construction process
and may be used by companies regardless of their focus within the sector e.g. building,
civil engineering projects.
At the beginning of this Chapter the requirements for developing a framework
were stated as “expected” and “attractive”. While both were used in its development,
the latter have not received the same level of detail as the former. An initial evaluation
of the framework, based on the “attractive” requirements, will be presented in the next
chapter together with details of case studies that were performed in seven UK
construction companies.
- 92 -
5-Case Studies
Chapter 5. Case Studies
5.1 Introduction
Following the development of the framework, this Chapter presents the results
of seven case studies performed as part of the research to investigate two aspects. The
first was to determine how construction companies are building quality into their
projects and the second to assess the author’s framework for its suitability within the
industry and also to evaluate it in terms of the “attractive” requirements presented in
Chapter 4 i.e. simple, easy to understand, systematic, well structured, comprehensive,
practical and applicable [106].
It should be emphasised that the purpose of these studies was not to carry out a
complete validation of the framework, which would entail its use within a project and
the evaluation of its outcomes, but to determine whether it is a practical and applicable
approach that could be used in the construction industry. A more detailed evaluation of
the framework’s initial stages will be presented in Chapter 6.
The research methodology employed to perform the case studies will firstly be
described, then each company will be presented separately detailing their background,
quality certifications and initiatives, continuous improvement activities and company
processes. The evaluation of the framework will follow for each case. Finally the
general findings will be discussed.
5.2 Research Methodology
Case study research is a strategy aimed at understanding an event in its real-life
context over which the researcher has no control [120]. This approach is suitable when
trying to answer the “how” and “why” questions of research. According to Eisenhardt
- 93 -
5-Case Studies
[121] theories can be built from cases studies by following a series of steps and
performing various activities such as selecting cases, crafting protocols, analysing data,
shaping hypotheses and reviewing literature. Since the main purpose of this research
was to determine “how” construction companies were building quality into their
projects, it was felt appropriate to use the case study strategy.
Within both the quality and the construction fields, various researchers have
recently used the case study approach to investigate current practices. For instance
Barnes et al [122] employed this approach to explore the linkage between internal
marketing, relationship marketing and service quality in a construction-consulting firm.
Pheng and Teo [123] conducted case studies to show how TQM could be successfully
implemented in construction companies. Formoso et al [52] developed a model for
managing the product development process in house building based on two case studies.
Nima et al [124] showed by means of a case study that constructability concepts could
lead to improvement in quality. Likewise Love et al [125] used the approach to
demonstrate that cooperative relationships in a TQM organisation could cultivate a
culture of mutual trust in the construction industry’s supply chain. Mitropoulos and
Howell [126] made use of a case study to investigate the problems that occurred during
the design process of a renovation project and to propose changes to improve the quality
of the process. Chan [127] employed this methodology to evaluate a design-and-build
system in practice and its impact on quality.
According to Yin [120] the first step in case study design is the selection
between a single case and multiple cases, which depends on the type of objectives,
research questions and researcher’s resources available. Evidence from more than one
case study is more persuasive and the whole study can be considered as more robust. In
this sense, carrying out various case studies may be compared with executing various
- 94 -
5-Case Studies
experiments. In terms of units of analysis i.e. the basic definition of the “case”, Yin
[120] stated that there are two possibilities: holistic (single) and embedded (multiple).
While the first may be a group or a company, the latter include the added complication
of subunits within the main unit e.g. individuals within a group or departments within a
company.
In the case of this project, the holistic multiple-case design was used. Each of the
seven companies served as a unit of analysis and approaches towards building quality
into projects were looked at. The main focus of this phase of the research was the
construction company as a whole, hence by carrying out various cases, different
approaches, strategies and suggestions could be analysed and integrated into the
framework, to make it more generic and hence suited to other companies in the sector.
5.3 Data Collection
In order to collect consistent data during the case studies, a protocol was
developed (see Appendix C). Two of the advantages of using such a tool are that it
helps to reduce biases and increases the reliability of the study [120]. In terms of its
content, the protocol was divided into four sections: (1) background information, (2)
open-ended questions on quality initiatives, (3) quality improvement methods utilisation
and (4) evaluation of the proposed framework.
The first section was designed to investigate the background of the company and
to request information about both the respondent and the organisation. In terms of the
company, the protocol contained questions regarding the approximate number of
employees, its main activities and the types of projects in which it was involved. The
second part was intended to investigate the company’s quality activities (in particular
quality initiatives, certifications and continuous improvements) and processes. This
- 95 -
5-Case Studies
information would, it was hoped, enable the author to understand how quality was built
into the various company processes. When required, company documents were
provided. In addition, direct observation was used in order to achieve triangulation i.e.
protocol responses, company documents and author’s observation [120].
The third section of the protocol helped to determine what initiatives and
improvement methods had been used and how the companies were applying them.
Since the framework is based on the use of quality improvement methods, it was hoped
that the data provided could be used to assess its appropriateness for the construction
industry. The last part of the protocol was centred on the evaluation process. Companies
were asked to rate the “attractive” requirements of the framework by means of a 5 point
scale in which 1 meant strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 neutral, 4 agree and 5 strongly
agree. In addition, companies were asked to provide comments and suggestions to
improve the framework.
The case studies consisted of an interview with either one or two managers from
each company, based on the developed protocol. With reference to the interviews, their
intended length was between 3 and 4 hours (half a day). In practice, most of them lasted
3 hours. They were carried out at the companies’ premises. Twenty-eight construction
companies that had responded to the earlier survey, and indicated their willingness to
participate in the case study phase of the research, were contacted (see Appendix C for a
sample letter). In the event, seven agreed to take part. The first two were used as a pilot.
5.4 Case Study Results
As stated earlier, each study will be reported individually and then they will be
cross-analysed. The results were compiled into reports which were returned to the
appropriate interviewees to ensure the accuracy of the information and to avoid bias.
- 96 -
5-Case Studies
With regard to the organisations visited, the activities in which they were involved
ranged from designing and building family houses to maintaining motorways. In terms
of size, both large companies and SMEs were represented. It is believed that through
this approach, the feedback received and included in the final version of the framework
will help to make it generic for the construction industry rather than limited to one
specific activity or size of company. To preserve the confidentiality of the data supplied
each is identified by a letter. Table 5.1 shows their general information.
Company No of Type of projects Activities Year in which the

employees company was
certified to ISO-
9001: 2000
A 90 Commercial and industrial development, Design and 2002
public services, health, education, leisure, construction
motor trade, social housing and residential
care.
B 2,500 Social housing, interior solutions, airports, Construction 2004
defence property, telecommunications,
education, heritage, health.
C 322 Research, retail, industrial, airports, defence, Design and 2004
residential, leisure, offices, healthcare, construction
education.
D 3,500 Healthcare, government, education, Design and 2004
infrastructure, custodial, construction
E 65 House building and flats Design and -
construction
F 190 Underground, building, civil engineering, Design and 2003
bridges, commercial construction
G 380 Commercial, leisure, retail, healthcare, Design and 2004
education, restoration, public houses, bridges construction
& structures, environmental & amenities,
industrial, transportation, water treatment,
bespoke products, buildings, civil
engineering, utilities
Table 5.1 Case Companies General Information
5.4.1 Company A
Background
This Company is located in the West Midlands and has about 90 employees in
total. Its presence within the region is strong but it also offers national coverage in a
wide variety of projects such as commercial and industrial development, public
- 97 -
5-Case Studies
services, health, education, leisure industry, motor trade, social housing and residential
care. The company is committed to its clients and tends to get involved early in the
construction process to ensure a successful project. The main activities performed
within the organisation are: site finding, design and build, general contracting,
construction management, project management, cost control, maintenance support and
latent defects insurance. It also carries out other activities such as partnership
agreements, value engineering and asset management. The Company has gained
different accreditations because of its commitment to quality, training and safety.
Among its clients are such organisations as: West Midlands Police Authority,
Wolverhampton University, Vauxhall Motors Ltd, Honda UK and Nissan (GB) Limited.
Quality initiatives and certifications
In order to accomplish the company objectives and also serve as a guide for new
employees to do the job right-first-time, Top Management decided to implement a
quality assurance system. It was certified to ISO 9001: 2000 in 2002 with the help of an
external consultant but the system is maintained by internal people. As a result, the
company now has a universal system that everybody can follow. It has led to
consistency and has helped the organisation to demonstrate its high commitment to
quality among those clients who constantly insist on it.
Continuous improvement
While currently there is no a formal system to carry out improvement activities,
the company is looking into this. Since the National Federation of Builders has
promoted an initiative in which only those companies with accreditation can be selected
to work for the government, Company A has become qualified under the Construction
- 98 -
5-Case Studies
Accredited Partnership Scheme. The main focus of this initiative is on supply chain
issues. Senior Management has played an active role in the accreditation process and
has encouraged Managers to meet on a regular basis to review and discuss both
accreditation matters and ways to improve different aspects within the company.
Meetings are held twice a month not only to examine every project in which the
company is involved but also to solve any specific problem that might have arisen.
Although there is no formal procedure to measure performance, these meetings have
proven to be an efficient way to determine whether the company is doing well or not
and to take adequate action if required. With regard to recognition, the company offers
both financial and promotional incentives to those individuals who perform well.
Company processes
Company A uses different procurement approaches to perform its projects such
as traditional contracts, two stage tendering, partnership arrangements by negotiation
and design-build contracts. In terms of the two stage tendering approach for example, a
client asks an agent to contact two construction companies in order to look at design
drawings to build a new facility. Each company sets an estimated price to carry out the
project and one is selected to do it. Negotiations then start with the chosen company to
agree its profit and therefore the final price of the project. With reference to design-
build, the use of value engineering is promoted to add value and maximise the use of the
company’s experience.
When asked about the key activities that could be improved during the
construction process, the interviewee recognised that communication within the
company was one, along with the decision-making process. CE is one approach that can
help to facilitate communication because it promotes the participation of all parties
- 99 -
5-Case Studies
involved from the first stages of a project. In terms of the decision-making process,
there are different methods such as decision trees and QFD that could be used to
support it.
Another aspect that had the potential for improvement was clients having all the
information and resources ready before starting a project. Without them at the outset,
jobs take longer to start than those that are adequately planned and have financial issues
solved from the beginning. The use of databases and the company’s experience could
help the client to provide the data required not only before a project starts but also
during its phases. Resources are one critical success factor that should be in place to
ensure that the project will be successfully finished in terms of quality and time so the
client should be aware of this situation early in the process to avoid failures. The
Company has recognised that in general, construction is very weak with regard to hand
over of contracts, which means that commissioning has great room for improvement. As
a result, the company spends more time at this stage of the process i.e. showing the
users how the new facilities should be used, operated and maintained.
Clients and client agents are directly involved with the company and keep
regular contact during the construction process. Progress meetings are held every two
weeks to verify that everything is running according to plan and is under control.
Although the company does not have designers and architects in house, there is
somebody within the organisation i.e. an internal designer, who knows about these
aspects and deals with both external firms and customers when necessary. In order to
ensure quality products, the company launched an initiative called “key stages on site”
in which independent engineers verify the quality of foundations, steel work,
mechanical installations, etc. In addition, the company is subscribed to the Considered
Contractor Scheme, a programme aimed at constantly inspecting contractors to
- 100 -
5-Case Studies
determine how considerate they are to the neighbourhood, parking, people transiting
nearby and other similar issues.
The company practices a systematic framework to build quality into projects,
which includes the “key stages on site” check and the revision of projects fortnightly.
Furthermore, the use of digital photos is encouraged during the meetings to see
advances on-site and a detailed review of the activity programme is performed. Safety
and quality issues are thoroughly monitored on every job to ensure high standards of the
latter while keeping accidents to a minimum. This approach has enabled the company to
repeat business with the same clients over the last decade. The author generated a
graphical representation of this framework based on the interviewee’s response, which
is shown in Figure 5.1.
Activities on site Management activities
Key stages on site Meetings every two weeks
Project Revision
Digital photos with advances on site Activity programme revision
Safety
Quality control
Figure 5.1 Company A’s Framework
5.4.2 Company B
Background
Company B is a specialist construction and building services company with
nationwide presence in the UK and has about 2500 employees in total. The projects in
- 101 -
5-Case Studies
which the company is normally involved include: social housing, interior solutions,
airports, defence, telecommunications, education, heritage and health. By focusing only
on these areas, the Company has become an organisation that is aware of its customers’
needs and applies its wide experience to meet them. In addition, this approach has
enabled the company to establish long-term relationships with its clients, who recognise
that collaboration is the best way to reach their goals. In fact, a recent review revealed
that practically 90% of the company’s business comes from clients who had worked
with them in the past. Among its clients are: Liverpool Garston Library, BAA Terminal
3 at London Heathrow, Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport, University of Bradford,
British Museum, Westminster Palace and London Ravenscourt Park Hospital.
The quality initiatives that the company has implemented include the creation of
a business improvement unit. It is used to identify improvement areas within the
organisation and then to set increasing annual targets. The use of Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) to measure customer satisfaction is widely promoted and has enabled
the company to improve. Such KPIs include customer satisfaction-product, customer
satisfaction-service, elimination of defects, environmental awareness, extent of user
friendliness and likelihood of repeat business. There is also a risk management
framework within the company.
All these initiatives come from the idea of being a more profitable and better
company, able to attract not only more customers but also more suppliers willing to do
business with it. Company B does not claim to be the cheapest construction service
provider around but the best and part of its vision in fact, is to be the most admired
construction company in the UK. The origin of these initiatives goes back to 1991 when
- 102 -
5-Case Studies
a quality consultant was hired to give one-to-one advice on quality management issues.
Ever since, the Company has constantly increased both turnover and profit by offering
better quality and gaining more work. As a result, the levels of customer satisfaction,
95% in 2004, were above those in the industry (in terms of customer assessment of
elimination of defects, only four years ago the organisation was 40% behind the average
within the industry but currently it is 9% ahead) so its clients know that it is doing
something good, different and better than its competitors.
The Company has an integrated management system that meets the requirements
of OHSAS 18001: 1999, ISO 9001: 2000 and ISO 14001: 1996 and incorporates safety,
quality and environmental issues. It is used as a consistent and coherent way to manage
the risk of the activities in which the company is involved. In addition, the “plan,
implement, check, review and improve” management principle is used as a framework
to keep under control all the activities that the company performs.
Company B has developed a formal system to carry out improvement activities.
It comprises three groups i.e. function, process and product. The first establishes the
best practices within the company whilst the second offers the mechanisms to
encourage collaboration when different departments work together. The latter focuses
on service and delivery to keep customers satisfied. The use of quality circles is widely
promoted within the system to look at best practices and markets. Every circle is
responsible for its improvement activities, which are revised at least twice a year. Here
representatives from different locations discuss various issues and problems e.g. what
can put the company apart from others?.
- 103 -
5-Case Studies
All departments are involved in continuous improvement activities, which are
aligned to the corporate strategy. The Company now forms part of a bigger group,
which establishes the targets and medium term plans. Company B’s Business
Improvement Manager advises the executive board on improvements that can be
realistically achieved. Department heads then respond to the established targets and a
review is performed to verify that they were actually achieved. Letting customers know
that the Company will donate £10 to a charity if they take part in a customer satisfaction
survey, encourages their use and has led the company to achieve a response rate as high
as 82%. Aspects such as service delivery and how many projects were finished on time,
on budget, without complaints and non-conformances are therefore measured.
While there is no formal recognition system within the company because
employee dissatisfaction is not perceived, for those employees that perform well, the
company offers acknowledgment. Each month those who have excelled are listed on a
notice board located in a public place within the premises. For example somebody that
had successfully completed an MSc in Construction Management appeared.
Company processes
The company practices various procurement approaches such as design-bid-
build and design-build. Although there are very few designers in-house, the Company
develops project management plans in which the company’s targets, customer’s needs
(written and verbal) and legal requirements are identified for each project from design
through to construction. When the client does not provide them, external architects and
designers are engaged in a particular project along with Company B’s Site Managers,
Contract Professionals, Surveyors and specialists such as Structural Engineers and
Planning Engineers. While the members of this team contribute with their experience
- 104 -
5-Case Studies
and qualifications to enhance project performance, the company has noted that aspects
such as the identification of customer needs could be improved. Consequently, it uses
pre-start meetings with the customers in which the company explains to its clients how
it will use their money to fulfil their requirements. In addition, a database has been
created with the most frequent customer requirements, which is shown to clients, when
required, to give them an idea of what the company has built in the past.
The fact that the company specialises in a limited variety of projects is not a
coincidence. Rather it is a strategy to avoid naïve and irregular clients, a category that
does not know what it wants. This helps to guarantee that the company’s customers
have both construction experience and a clear idea about what they require. In order to
ensure quality products, the company carries out a thorough analysis of subcontractors
and suppliers. No external revision is required on-site because there is a customer care
manager who participates during the latter months of the project to make sure that the
product is correct. Furthermore, inspections and tests are widely practiced for the
duration of the project in order to ensure quality.
The Company has, in fact, created a framework (Figure 5.2), which includes
most of the aspects previously described. It starts with the development of the project
management plan, which includes the subcontractors’ management programmes. The
latter describe the specific activities that the subcontractors have to accomplish. These
are inspected and reviewed during meetings to make sure that quality has been
achieved.
- 105 -
5-Case Studies
Project mangement plan
Subcontractors management plans
Mini master plan Mini master plan Mini master plan Revision
for subcontractor for subcontractor for subcontractor Meetings QUALITY
Inspection
Figure 5.2 Company B’s Framework
5.4.3 Company C
Background
This construction company has a strong presence in the South of England, with
offices in Bath, Heathrow and Portsmouth. It employs 322 people in total and is
involved in the design and construction of a variety of projects such as: research, retail,
industrial, airports, defence, residential, leisure, offices, healthcare and education. The
company has acquired experience not only in the use of traditional procurement but also
in other procurement routes such as: design-build, prime contracting, partnerships and
strategic alliances. By participating early in the construction process, the company
ensures that every project will be a success. Company C offers different services, for
instance: design management, project programming, cost planning, value engineering,
risk management, buildability reviews and performance measurement. Among its
clients are: Sainsbury, Mc Donalds and WH Smith in the retail arena, Heathrow,
Gatwick and Southampton airports, Oxford, Bristol, Portsmouth and Reading
Universities and IBM, Ford and Sony UK in the industrial sector.
- 106 -
5-Case Studies
The Company started to implement its first quality initiatives in 1993. Four years
later a quality department was set up to develop a quality system. Since that time,
employees have been involved in quality improvement activities and Top Management
have developed strategies for quality management. Its in-house quality system became
certified to ISO 9001: 2000 at the beginning of 2004. In addition, there is a supply
management system in place and the company invites its suppliers twice a year to
participate in workshops within the company. This shows that there is a strong
relationship between the company and its suppliers. Not only is quality an important
issue but so also is safety. In fact, the Company has gained various safety awards
including one from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the
prestigious Industry Silver Helmet Award in 2001.
The main motivations to implement these initiatives were to increase customer
satisfaction and therefore to repeat business. As a result, customer satisfaction levels
have risen, business has been repeated and quality costs have decreased. In addition the
company has gained more work from new clients due to its reputation as a quality
company. All these results are reflected in the annual growth that the company has
recently experienced (its turnover was £67m in 2001 and it was hoping for a turnover of
£110m at the end of 2005).
There is a formal system in place to carry out improvement activities in which
different champions look for potential innovations and improvements within the
company’s processes. During brainstorming sessions both external consultants and
internal champions make use of their expertise to suggest ways for implementing
- 107 -
5-Case Studies
improvement activities. In fact these internal people constitute the company’s
improvement team and they come from all departments. Top Management establish the
path to be followed and set departmental objectives, which are deployed to all levels
and staff by means of meetings.
In order to verify that the objectives and targets are being reached, the company
measures performance. The use of KPIs, the analysis of the costs of defects in projects
and the use of quality control sheets in each project help to accomplish the measurement
task. At the moment there is no formal system to recognise individual efforts but the
company is currently reviewing this.
Company processes
In addition to traditional procurement, the company practices design-build,
negotiations, partnerships and straight construction. In the traditional approach once a
client has expressed a set of requirements, the design of a new facility is completed
externally. The company is then shown drawings with the outline of the project so that
costs can be estimated. During the estimation process various “packages” of work for
subcontractors are built and each subcontractor quotes a price to carry out the job. In the
end, a final price is submitted to the client who decides whether the company will be
employed or not. If the contract is won, the team of subcontractors work with the
company to build the facility always trying to complete the project on time, within
budget and with high quality standards. Safety is also paramount. At the end of the
project, the new building is reviewed to verify that everything is working properly.
When asked about the activities that could be improved during this process, the
interviewee mentioned “to terminate the project on time”. Formal methods such as CE
can be used to accelerate the construction process and to ensure that projects will be
- 108 -
5-Case Studies
finished on time. By promoting early participation of all parties and early consideration
of all life-cycle aspects of a project, savings in time can be gained and therefore the new
facility can be built faster than with traditional methods.
Although customers’ requirements may come from their own external
consultants, at the beginning of each project, Company C establishes a set of parameters
in order to ensure that such requests are clearly understood. The use of workshops with
clients is not uncommon as a way to ensure that the company understands what the
customer wants. In addition, every month the company launches customer satisfaction
surveys to verify that clients are satisfied and ensure repeat business. Furthermore, the
company makes use of value engineering for helping customers to optimise resources.
Design activities are outsourced, so various consultants solve design problems
and one of the 15 company’s Design Managers works on site to ensure that construction
is carried out in accordance with drawings. To ensure quality on site, the company
practices inspections and checks against specifications and drawings. If non-
conformances are found, they are reported and a detailed investigation is started to
determine the cause. This allows the company to ensure that systems and processes
really work and to achieve the customer quality expectations.
The company uses the framework presented in Figure 5.3 for building quality
into projects. The key aspect is uniformity. It includes the project manager manual, of
which all managers are familiar, it is used to ensure that they know how things work
within the company. It also helps to train new managers. Regardless of the project,
managers will always follow similar proven steps so that quality is ensured.
- 109 -
5-Case Studies
Workshop with clients
Client requirements understood
Check specifications
Inspection
Work on site
Check drawings
Non-conformances Project
Management
Plan
yes no
Non conformances
report
QUALITY
Repeat Business
Figure 5.3 Company C’s Framework
5.4.4 Company D
Background
The Company’s headquarters is located in Sweden and it is one of the world’s
leading construction companies. The UK office has 3500 employees in total and the
division visited has 900. The company works under three business streams: Public
Finance Initiative/Public Private Partnerships (PFI/PPP), Civil Engineering and
Specialists, and Construction. Under the PFI/PPP scheme, the company has participated
in a wide variety of government projects covering: healthcare, custodial, education,
transportation and defence sectors. With regard to civil engineering the main areas of
infrastructure operation in which the company is involved are: water, roads and bridges,
tunnelling, rail, motorway communications and utilities. The specialists businesses
operate in areas such as piling, foundations and ground engineering, suspended ceilings,
glass reinforced gypsum and decorative plasterwork and structural steel decking. In the
- 110 -
5-Case Studies
construction market the company’s experience covers the entire scope of construction,
mechanical, electrical and facilities management. Its UK contracts include: the Royal
London Hospital, Derby Hospital, 30 St Mary Axe –London’s latest landmark, channel
tunnel rail link and the new headquarters for the Meteorological Office in Exeter.
Company D has developed an integrated management system, certified to ISO
9001: 2000, OHSAS 18001 and ISO 14001, to deal with quality, safety and
environmental matters, however the division visited has only integrated ISO 9001: 2000
and ISO 14001, it has a separate health and safety management system certified to
OHSAS 18001. Work is under way to combine all three. It is concerned with heating
and ventilation systems and, with reference to quality, it has started a customer
satisfaction initiative. Such an initiative is included in the “customer focus strategy
plan”, which has been developed to ensure that the organisation delivers the expected
quality, at the agreed time and within budget. By means of a questionnaire, customers
are asked to weight different criteria including the company, presentations, project team,
installation process and commercial performance issues. Respondents should then score
both the company’s current performance and the customer’s required performance. This
information is analysed and the differences between current and required performance
are used to classify areas as either “appropriate” or “priority for improvement”. In cases
where the difference is considerable, urgent action is required and a steering group
develops an action plan to carry out further investigation aimed at eliminating the
causes of the problem and eventually improving the area.
The main motivations to implement this type of initiative stem from the need to
satisfy customers and to have repeat business. In addition, the Group encourages all its
- 111 -
5-Case Studies
companies to be proactive and look for better ways to accomplish tasks. Although the
organisation employs people with expertise in many areas, external consultants may be
engaged to help with various issues e.g. environmental. This approach has enabled the
company to repeat work for the same customers and to establish long-term relationships
with them. Other results include good performance in terms of growth and profitability.
The company has a formal system to carry out improvement activities.
Essentially, there is a standard form within the management system called
“improvement action request”. Anyone can propose modifications to improve internal
processes by means of such a form, which is submitted to the Integrated Systems
Manager for analysis. If the proposal seems feasible, it is discussed with the heads of
the relevant departments in order to decide whether it is worth doing or not. If the
suggestion is accepted, then it is incorporated into the management system, otherwise
the form is recorded and classified as rejected.
While there is currently no special improvement team within the company, the
Integrated Systems Manager is planning to set up a committee for reviewing different
procedures and identifying improvement areas. At present, all departments are involved
in continuous improvement activities and everyone can recommend better ways to
perform tasks based on the company’s policy. In this sense, everyone within the
company is aware of its quality policy, from new employees (during the induction
process people are given a copy of the policy) through to senior staff (the company’s
intranet contains both the policy and the annual objectives for quality).
Although customer satisfaction is the main performance measure utilised within
the division, maintenance contracts are required to measure KPIs. If these measures
- 112 -
5-Case Studies
indicate that an individual or team has performed a good job, then recognition is given.
This is not financial, it comprises either articles in the internal magazines and
newsletters or a note on the company’s website. At corporate level, the so-called
“business unit of the year award” is used to encourage units to deliver excellent results.
Company processes
Procurement approaches generally practised within the company include design-
build and two stage tendering. Regardless of the approach, the organisation usually
hires both consultants to design and subcontractors to build. Therefore, the company’s
main role is to manage the construction process. To do so, clients discuss their
requirements with both hired and internal people. Once they have been identified,
designers develop a brief which is then reviewed several times to ensure that there is no
customer information missing. When the client approves the final design,
subcontractors start working on-site until the new system is installed. In the
commissioning stage, there is a detailed assessment to determine whether the system
works as planned or not.
During this process, one activity that could be improved is design. In particular
design for maintenance and design for installation are of prime importance. For
instance, recently a machine could not be installed because it was so big that it could not
get through the doors of the building in which it was to be used. In these cases, CE
could be used because it encourages the consideration of all life-cycle aspects in a
facility from design through to installation and maintenance. In terms of the recognition
of customer needs, the company has learned to examine customer desires and to use its
experience to show that some solutions are better than others. When the best solution is
identified for a particular project, drawings and specifications are generated. During this
- 113 -
5-Case Studies
process if a new way to solve a problem is found, the company shares the knowledge
with its sister companies. This approach has allowed the organisation to generate a
knowledge database that can be used with future customers who have similar
requirements.
To control the quality of materials, the Company has developed a supply
management system and its supply chain includes 18 companies, which offer products
to the level of quality that the company demands. However the division visited is
somewhat behind in this activity. In order to control the quality of its processes, the unit
carefully selects its subcontractors and regularly uses those who have demonstrated
work to a high quality standard. In addition, all work on-site is supervised and there is
also a ‘snagging’ stage i.e. a remedying phase in which all problems encountered at the
end of the project are solved before the client takes over the facility. In fact, the
company’s approach includes not only the activities previously discussed but also the
use of established procedures that have been used effectively in the past. In addition, the
organisation uses prefabricated modules on-site in order to facilitate work and save
construction time. Figure 5.4 shows Company D’s framework (which the author
developed from the interviewee’s responses).
Design Construction
Meetings with customers Company expertise Selection of subcontractors Supervision
Pre-Design Quality Design Pre-fabrication Quality Construction
External Consultants Customer needs Supply chain management Snagging
Figure 5.4 Company D’s Framework
- 114 -
5-Case Studies
5.4.5 Company E
Background
This is a small company located in the South of England, with a presence in
Kent, Sussex and Surrey. It employs 65 people in total and is involved in the design and
construction of luxury homes and flats. In addition, the company carries out a wide
variety of activities from buying land for constructing new developments and eventually
selling them through to designing and building customised houses. Wealthy people
from the areas in which the company operates represent its main market. In terms of
projects, the organisation recently launched two exclusive developments, one of ten
classically styled 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom apartments and the other of sixteen 3 and 4
bedroom townhouses designed to emulate the “Royal Crescent” in the city of Bath. The
Company is so proud of its work that even two of its five Directors live in a house it has
developed. Similarly customers perceive the quality of its products as high, evidence of
this is that the company has just fully sold a new development in record time.
As part of the quality initiatives implemented during the last year, the Company
appointed a Quality Control Manager, formerly their Customer Service Manager, to
work in both the construction and the customer services departments. His
responsibilities include after sales care, and ensuring that the houses developed by the
company are ready to use before customers actually receive their keys. By
implementing this type of initiative, the organisation tries to involve its people in
quality issues and in fact, a cultural change programme started a year ago to make
people aware of the importance of quality.
- 115 -
5-Case Studies
Another initiative is related to a customer satisfaction survey launched two years
ago. Prior to its use, the company believed that it was performing well and above the
industry’s average. Having carried out the survey, the results showed that this was not
the case and in fact helped the organisation to find better ways to perform its activities.
These initiatives originated from a wish to build a quality product, a need to improve
profits and a desire for a better reputation. In this sense, the Construction Manager is
really committed to deliver quality products and once a week visits the construction
sites to verify and check that an excellent house is being built. As a result, customer
satisfaction has been rising and all its recent customers surveyed were willing to
recommend the company to their best friends in contrast to the 62.5% reported one year
earlier.
While the company has an internal system to manage quality, it has not been
certified to ISO 9001: 2000. Nevertheless it has received awards for best exterior
design, best development, best 3 bedroom and 5 bedroom family house, best luxury
development, best energy saving development and best small house builder. These
awards demonstrate that the Company is performing well and its work is being
recognised. In addition, the organisation encourages the involvement of its employees
and trains them in appropriate quality activities. The company has also won the
Investors in People award.
Although the company does not have a formal system for carrying out
continuous improvement activities, the use of regular meetings and inspection is widely
practiced. Internal memos are used as the main channel of communication within the
company. With reference to quality, the Quality Control Manager identifies problems
- 116 -
5-Case Studies
and proposes ideas to solve them. Actually, everybody is encouraged to take part in
improvement activities, from the Design & Construction Departments through to Sales.
This has enabled the organisation to be successful even without having quality
certifications. Its customer satisfaction surveys form the basis for measuring
performance. While there is no formal recognition system for individuals, the company
promotes discussion and informally recognises the work of employees that are
performing well. The existence of a profit scheme in which individual performance is
reviewed to decide whether his/her salary will be increased or not is used instead of a
recognition system.
Company processes
The main procurement route employed by the company is design-build, which
means that it performs design activities in-house and then the construction department
builds the new home. In this process, all the activities are carried out within the
company e.g. analysis of sites, planning, drawings, specifications, budgets, etc. The
interviewee recognised that all the steps followed to deliver a house could be improved.
Since the company is involved in the construction of similar projects repeatedly, there is
a risk that people lose interest in their jobs. However, the use of continuous
improvement allows the organisation to look for improvement opportunities and to
differentiate one project from previous ones.
The Company’s Sales Department is in direct contact with the customer in order
to determine their needs. When these have been gathered, the construction department is
informed and a meeting arranged to meet the customer. During the first 3 or 4 meetings,
designers elaborate a scheme that will be developed in detail once it has been agreed.
The Land Director carries out the initial planning and then, during the design stage, two
- 117 -
5-Case Studies
internal designers continue the elaboration of the plan. Designers generate different
drawings, which are discussed with the customer and modified until everybody
understands what will be built. Eventually construction is initiated and the responsibility
to deliver the product on time, to the agreed quality, within budget and with an excellent
safety record is passed to a project manager. Such a manager may be in charge of two or
three projects simultaneously and has direct contact with customers, architects,
engineers and authorities.
The Company normally uses an informal framework, shown in Figure 5.5, that
combines the aspects previously discussed and others such as the appointment of a site-
manager for every job, constant inspections by the Quality Control Manager on site,
verification from both internal and external consultants at various stages of the process
to ensure the quality of the work e.g. frames, plumbing, electrical, etc., and review
meetings to solve problems related to the construction work.
Customer
Quality Control Manager
Sales
Supervision Internal experts
Customer needs
Project Manager Quality Construction Sales Manager
Design meetings
Inspection External consutants
Figure 5.5 Company E’s Framework
- 118 -
5-Case Studies
5.4.6 Company F
Background
Company F’s headquarters is located in the highest building in the UK in
London. Its number of employees varies from more than 700 during peak times to
approximately 200 when there are no ongoing projects. The company provides a wide
diversity of services such as: design and project management, estimating and cost
planning, risk analysis, value management, strategic planning and project phasing, and
trade contractor procurement in pre-construction stages. During the construction stage it
offers: cost management, trade contractor and interface management, project logistics,
and commissioning management and hand over to end user. There are different notable
buildings in which the company has been involved, for example: a citigroup’s building
with the fastest lifts in Europe, an HSBC building with sophisticated power and
communications systems and a building with one of the largest ground floor lobbies in
Europe. To date, the company has delivered more than 7 million square feet of space
including: offices, trading floors, directors’ suites, auditoria, client meeting rooms,
broadcast and video conference studios, health clubs and swimming pools, staff
restaurants, retail and office support facilities.
During its 12 years of life, the Company has implemented various quality
initiatives including: a quality assurance system, customer satisfaction surveys and
subcontractor assessments not only in terms of quality but also in health and safety and
environmental issues. The company has been certified to ISO 9001: 2000, OHSAS
18001 and ISO 14001 in order to control its processes in all three aspects and to ensure
- 119 -
5-Case Studies
that it delivers what it is supposed to deliver to its clients. To keep its management
systems up to date the company makes use of both internal and external experts who are
responsible for training staff in aspects such as health and safety. The organisation has
started to integrate these systems into one.
To date the results of this initiative have been positive. The company has
improved its designs significantly and its buildings now have excellent performance in
terms of environmental, power and communications issues. When Company F designs a
building, it learns and applies this knowledge in subsequent designs to improve them.
As mentioned in one of its information leaflets “After all, when you build 10 million
square feet in seven years, you get a lot of opportunities to improve not only your
specific processes, but also your overall approach to project delivery”. The company
has also acquired important experience not only in recycling waste but also in using
new materials.
The Company uses a formal system to carry out improvement activities. Reports,
which are completed from observations made during audits on either design or
construction activities, are raised as preventive action. The details are then translated
into action plans for improvement in which specific targets and objectives are set.
Departments are involved in the achievement of their own targets and objectives, the
internal audits help to determine whether they have been achieved or not. To ensure that
relevant people are aware of their department’s targets, the company relies on its
intranet to which all divisions have access. The intranet has proven to be not only a very
efficient communication system but also a good document control system e.g. drawings
are sent electronically to designers when corrections are needed.
- 120 -
5-Case Studies
The organisation operated a Knowledge Management (KM) system that was
responsible for the intranet and other knowledge related issues, however the KM
department became redundant and it is now run by Quality Assurance. The utilisation of
the latter department allowed the company to work in a very efficient manner and, in
collaboration with other departments, enabled the Company, for instance, to finish a 35-
floor building in only 2.5 years rather than the 5 years average for the industry.
With regard to performance measurement, the company makes use of different
approaches to determine whether it has improved or not. At the end of each project an
analysis is carried out to identify the lessons learned which again are used as
improvement opportunities in future projects. In addition, project managers assess
contractors’ performance to decide whether they will be used in subsequent projects.
Although time is an important constraint, the company performs management reviews
and evaluates its suppliers continuously throughout the duration of a project. When an
individual or team has performed an excellent job, the company offers bonus schemes
that are paid at the end of the year. In addition, Managers always try to say “well done,
thanks”.
Company processes
The main procurement route that the company has used to deliver its projects is
design-build, so it manages both the design and construction activities of each. The
internal planning department supervises designers and subcontractors to ensure that
their tasks are finished on time, within budget and at the expected level of quality. In
addition, subcontractors are requested to carry out tests on materials to guarantee that
the quality of the products received by their suppliers is satisfactory. Monitoring the
extent to which departments have provided feedback to their internal customers was
- 121 -
5-Case Studies
recognised as an activity that could be improved. This is because if information
concerning errors is not monitored and reported on time, subsequent phases of the
construction process may experience delays and re-work.
In order to recognise and gather customer needs, the company promotes client
meetings in which both parties discuss the objectives of the project i.e. what will be
built. Sometimes clients have their own project teams, which convey to the organisation
their customer wishes. During these meetings, all client concerns are clarified. When
customers suggest one way to perform a certain activity and the company finds a better
one, the client is informed and a decision made regarding the adoption of the new
approach. Throughout a particular project, customers are contacted almost on a daily
basis, a practice that has enabled the Company to ensure their satisfaction.
When customers are not sure about what they want, the company shows them
previous projects to give them an idea about what can be offered. For instance, the
flooring used in one building may provide a benchmark for the best quality material in
this respect that the organisation can offer. Moreover, the constant training of people
allows the Company to appoint only qualified staff on its projects i.e. personnel that will
be able to help the customer as much as needed and will perform an excellent job.
The company has developed a framework, which is shown in Figure 5.6. During
the design stage, the organisation allocates internal designers to supervise and control
all drawings and specifications generated by external design teams. Through
construction, a careful selection of subcontractors is carried out before assigning
construction activities to them. In terms of suppliers, the company samples and tests
construction materials and randomly conducts factory visits to ensure that the
manufacturers are providing quality products. Specifications issued at the contract stage
are used as a means to assure quality. Basically, the specifications establish the different
- 122 -
5-Case Studies
procedures that subcontractors should follow regarding quality, health and safety and
environmental issues.
Customer Customer’s project team
Meetings
Company’s team
AUDITS
QUALITY - HEALTH & SAFETY - ENVIRONMENT
Design Construction
Internal designers Internal supervision Internal Managers
Supervision Factory visits Contracts
External designers Material suppliers Subcontractors
Quality Health & Safety Environment
Figure 5.6 Company F’s Framework
5.4.7 Company G
Background
Company G is a construction company based in central England with regional
offices in Derby, Birmingham, Worcester and Eye. It employs around 400 people and is
experienced in three main sectors: building, civil engineering and construction. In fact,
the organisational structure of the company includes them as divisions along with a
fourth called Total Hire and Sales. With regard to the first division, the projects in
which the company has been involved include: commercial, leisure, retail, healthcare,
- 123 -
5-Case Studies
education, restoration and public houses. The civil engineering division’s main projects
are: bridges and structures, environmental and amenities, industrial, transportation,
water treatment and bespoke products. Finally, construction projects include: buildings
and utilities. The company is mainly concerned with general building and most of its
design activities are outsourced. Among the key clients of the organisation are: Severn
Trent Water Limited, Birmingham City Council, Derbyshire City Council and
Staffordshire City Council. Notable projects include: Leicester Railway Station,
Loughborough Hospital extension, refurbishment of Nottingham Castle and the Pride
Park Stadium in Derby.
The group is proactive and has started various quality initiatives such as the
appointment of a Quality Manager in each division, apart from Total Hire and Sales, to
carry out internal quality audits. Certification to ISO 9001: 2000 of its quality system,
employee involvement in continuous improvement activities, customer satisfaction
schemes and the initiation of a TQM programme are also part of these plans. When they
were launched, the company expected to have better control over the quality of its
products, to make sure that it was consistently providing the quality that its customer
requested, to carry out activities right-first-time and to satisfy customers. In the event,
the company has achieved important results as a consequence of the initiatives. The
general quality of their products has improved, internal people take quality more
seriously than they did in the past, performance has improved constantly and the
organisation regularly repeats business. Since the group’s reputation has also increased,
the Marketing Department has been able to promote the company and enlarge its market
- 124 -
5-Case Studies
share. In fact, the turnover of the company has grown by almost 70% between 2001 and
2004.
Among its affiliations and accreditations are: National House Building Council,
the Chartered Building Company, ISO 14001, the Construction Confederation and the
Gold Standard. The organisation’s commitment to deliver a quality product within time
and budget has led it to win the following awards: Craftsmanship Award, Gold Award
for Considerate Constructor, Lord Mayors Award for Urban Design, Sewer Care
Contractor of the year and Severn Trent Customer Care Awards.
The company makes use of standard KPIs to identify improvement areas and to
establish quality targets. Once an improvement area has been identified and objectives
agreed to enhance performance, a quarterly management review is carried out. Quality
auditors determine whether the objectives were reached or not and update the
management system if necessary. For example, if the auditors discovered new practices
that offer better results than those currently used, the management manual would be
updated to include them. The quality auditors along with the company’s Directors are
always open to receive suggestions for improvement and discuss them in committee
meetings to determine their appropriateness. If the recommendations are deemed
feasible, the old practices are removed from manuals and replaced with the new.
All departments within the company are involved in continuous improvement
activities. For instance, the Estimating Department is generally seeking to improve its
efficiency, the Purchasing Department aims to ensure that the company buys the correct
materials and the production team tries to develop high quality products. In addition to
the internal quality auditors, there is a third party external inspector who verifies the
- 125 -
5-Case Studies
company’s quality system once a year. The use of notice boards at every site and
constant personnel training has enabled the organisation to ensure that everybody knows
the quality policy and works to achieve the quality objectives established in it.
As has already been mentioned, in order to measure performance, the
organisation uses KPIs both internally and externally. For instance, with regard to the
latter, at any one time the Company may be working for a customer in conjunction with
another two or three construction companies. In this case, it is normal for the client to
generate a table in which standard KPIs (i.e. time, cost, quality, client satisfaction,
change orders, business performance and health and safety) are reported for all its
contractors. This offers the organisation the opportunity to compare its performance
against those of other companies and is an effective way to both improve and repeat
business. With reference to recognition, Company G has a profit share scheme based on
the idea that the larger the company’s profit, the more employees will have as a result of
its distribution. Independent of the annual salary increase, this approach has allowed the
organisation to encourage staff to do things right-first-time.
Company processes
The company has experience in the use of different procurement routes such as
design-build, competitive tendering, partnering and negotiation work. Once a contract
has been negotiated, the estimating department calculates the total cost of the work, and
then planning people draw up plans and programmes to carry out the construction
activities. The use of value engineering and risk analysis is widely promoted during
these early stages of the project. Through construction, a monthly review is carried out
both on site to discuss quality issues and problems in general and off site to examine
financial aspects. At the end of the project, before the building in question is handed
- 126 -
5-Case Studies
over to the client, there is a ‘snagging’ stage to ensure that everything works as it is
supposed to.
Some of these activities have the potential for improvement. For instance the
involvement of the company at the very beginning of the project would lead to a better
use of value management practices than is the case now. CE is one approach that
promotes the early involvement of construction companies in design activities. In
addition, the commissioning stage could be enhanced if detailed quality inspection was
performed before the facility was transferred to the client. This is the reason why the
Company frequently practices customer one-to-one interviews, to determine what the
customer wants at all stages of the project. In fact, during the construction process
customers are regularly approached to establish whether their needs have changed or
not. Similarly, clients are always verifying that the company works according to their
desires and makes every effort to satisfy them.
The supply chain plays a key role in this process, therefore the company carries
out constant evaluations to assess subcontractors’ performances on site. By giving them
feedback, the Company has been able to improve their performance and establish long-
term relationships with them. In addition, subcontractors are given quality parameters at
the beginning of the contract to guarantee that they will provide what the client requires.
The quality of materials is also inspected to ensure that they satisfy at least minimum
quality specifications. Staff expertise is a crucial aspect in the work that the company
performs. As a result, their technical knowledge and training are increased by means of
courses to ensure that the company makes use of the industry’s best practices. The
company has a framework that includes the aspects already presented and the use of a
quality manual within each department (Figure 5.7).
- 127 -
5-Case Studies
In general terms, subcontractors are given feedback and the expected quality
parameters are explained. There is a Contract Manager who is responsible for these
tasks. Both the company and the customer supervise the project management team to
verify that it is working according to what was agreed. When clients have their own
architects and designers, the latter are invited to take part in the process and to review
that everything complies to their specifications.
Customer Customer consultants
One-to-one interview
Company’s staff
Construction
Supervision Supervision
Feedback Feedback
Supplier Subcontractors
Figure 5.7 Company G’s Framework
5.5 Evaluation of the Framework
The final section of the case studies was devoted to the evaluation of the
proposed framework (see Figure 4.1). As mentioned earlier, it was piloted in companies
A and B, to enable the author to gather the voice of potential users before carrying out
further evaluations. The suggestions made by them are discussed and reasons for
modifying the framework or otherwise are given. The new version was then evaluated
- 128 -
5-Case Studies
in the other five companies. The results along with further suggestions for improvement
will then be discussed.
5.5.1 Pilots
While Company A’s respondent gave positive comments about the framework,
he also made different suggestions for improvement. They were centred on the
incorporation of various aspects that appeared to have not been included in its graphical
representation. Because Company A is an organisation committed to safety issues, the
interviewee proposed that a box called “health and safety” be added. A similar
recommendation was made with respect to environmental issues. Further proposals
included the consideration of the life-cycle costs of large projects, from designing
activities through to demolition and the production of manuals to operate the new
facility. Both of these elements were implicitly considered within the maintenance stage
of the framework and, the author believes, do not therefore need explicit representation
since they should be normal practice in the industry. It was also observed that the box
“input: customer needs” should not only be linked with the first stage of the
construction process i.e. “schematic design”, but with all stages through to
“maintenance”. The author agreed with this observation.
A final recommendation was concerned with the inclusion of all stakeholders i.e.
all interested parties taking part in a construction project. The respondent considered
this as a key feature that the framework should show. Additional comments were made
in terms of the implementation and use of the proposed framework. According to the
Managing Director, this type of tool requires a great deal of commitment not only from
Top Management but also from staff at all levels in order to be successfully
implemented and used. This observation had already been considered by the author,
- 129 -
5-Case Studies
who took into consideration the CSFs for TQM implementation, an element included in
the quality policy. In addition, the guidelines for implementing the framework’s
methods (Figure 4.2) also considered this support as crucial.
Company B’s respondent’s impression of the graphical representation was again
good but suggestions were offered to improve it. Since this Company had developed an
integrated management system, it was proposed that both safety and environmental
issues be incorporated into Figure 4.1. Since these were both highlighted as omissions
by the first pilot company, the idea of having a three-faced pyramid was discussed, with
the interviewee, quality being the “observed” face and safety and the environment on
the other two. This modification was made to the framework, because it was felt that the
inclusion of the other two faces would give construction companies a general picture of
the topics in the sector that demanded attention. However, it was explained that the
scope of the framework was limited to product and service quality issues and that the
new faces of the pyramid would have to be part of future research i.e. the new faces
would not be developed in detail during this investigation.
Another recommendation related to the relocation of the words “Top
Management” from the top of the pyramid to the bottom. It was felt that these words
may mislead users of the framework by giving the impression that Top Management
was the most important element within it (because it was at the top) while people were
not important (because they were at the bottom). The author agreed with this
observation and relocated Top Management as suggested to present the elements of the
framework in a more logical way.
Due to the strong emphasis that the company gives to its suppliers, it was
suggested that they be included. Although one of the improvement methods considered
within the planning group was “contractor partnerships” which implicitly referred to
- 130 -
5-Case Studies
suppliers, this element was incorporated to clarify the point. So “suppliers” were located
along with people at the bottom of the pyramid because they also support all the
activities and initiatives to improve the quality of the company’s products.
Another interesting observation was concerned with the management of risks. It
was mentioned that one of the highest risks for any construction company was litigation
i.e. being prosecuted. This affects not only the finances of the organisation but also its
reputation. Risk assessments should be carried out regarding operations, the use of
external facilitators, safety issues, etc. This was considered to be normal practice within
the industry so it was not explicitly included within the framework. Other comments
included the consideration of the product life-cycle within the design activity and the
importance of ensuring that all people within the company share its vision.
Having discussed the framework with practitioners in companies A and B, the
author considered it appropriate to relocate the performance measures from the right
hand side of the schematic to the centre (this is to show that performance should be
measured during the whole construction process rather than at the end, an insight gained
during the interviews). Since the aim of the framework was to improve quality
performance and ultimately customer satisfaction, these measures (customer
satisfaction, customer complaints and litigation, as highlighted in Chapter 3) could be
used as success indicators. This would provide tangible benefits for managers to apply
the framework in future projects.
As a result of the suggestions made during the two pilot studies, the framework
was modified, the new version is shown in Figure 5.8. This was the one that was
evaluated in companies C, D, E, F and G.
- 131 -
5-Case Studies
Environmental Health &

Policy Safety
Policy
Quality
Policy
Product Service
Input:
Customer Needs
Schematic
Design
Detailed
Design
Construction
Documentation
Design
Bidding
Construction
Output:
Facility
Build
Maintenance
Gathering Quality
Formal Control
Customer Methods Planning
Needs Tools
Organising Performance
Customer Measures
Needs Improvement
Technology Methods
People (Culture)-Stakeholders (Management, Employees, Suppliers, Others)
Figure 5.8 Modified Version of the Framework for Building Quality
Into Construction Projects
- 132 -
5-Case Studies
5.5.2 Evaluation Exercise
I-Company C
As mentioned earlier, the idea was to evaluate the framework with reference to
the “attractive” requirements used in its development. Company C’s interviewee
assigned the quantitative ratings shown in Table 5.2.
Strongly Disagree (2) Neutral Agree (4) Strongly

Requirements
disagree (1) (3) agree (5)
Simple
Easy to understand
Systematic
Well structured
Comprehensive
Practical approach
Applicable to your work
Table 5.2 Company C’s Evaluation of the Framework
While the respondent, in general, made positive comments about the revised
framework, he was concerned about its comprehensiveness. One comment was related
to the fact that the middle part of the pyramid (see Figure 5.8) only showed the
traditional stages within the construction process. According to the interviewee, a “tree”
of options should be generated in order to show different procurement routes. In other
words, “customer needs” and “schematic design” should be the first common steps in
the process followed by branches, each representing different procurement approaches.
The first branch, for example, could include the stages already shown in the pyramid i.e.
detailed design, construction documentation, bidding, construction, use of facility and
maintenance. A second branch could then portray the design-build approach by
showing, in addition to the first two stages, another two: bidding (based on schemes)
and then contractor design and build. A third branch could show an approach in which
- 133 -
5-Case Studies
the detailed design of the project is finished once a contractor has been selected to carry
out the construction work. In this case the contractor would design the final details of
the facility so that the customer was guaranteed that it was constructable.
While the suggestion of showing different procurement routes in the middle part
of the pyramid was opportune, it was felt that the inclusion of so many alternative
routes would lead to complexity and one of the aspects considered when it was
developed was simplicity. The respondent agreed but indicated that in this case,
tailoring would be required when applying the framework.
Other details regarding the procurement routes were discussed during the
interview. For instance, it was mentioned that a stage following “schematic design”
might be “tendering” so various construction companies could compete to carry out
detailed design and eventually build a new facility. Apart from the inclusion of
procurement approaches the interviewee mentioned that his company considered a
quality product as one without waste, delivered on time and under budget. This idea
coincides with the industry perception of quality and is implicitly incorporated within
the “product” and “service” quality part of the framework.
II-Company D
Once the author had explained Figure 4.1 in more detail, the Company’s
respondent’s impression of it was good. Nevertheless, various comments were made
about the framework’s graphical representation. The first was related to the fact that the
pyramid did not show the financial aspect of the organisation, which arguably is one of
the most important issues for any company not only in the construction sector but in all
sectors i.e. making a profit. Furthermore it is related to quality because if a company
cannot offer excellence, then its finances may be damaged. It was felt that this aspect
- 134 -
5-Case Studies
would be implicit for all construction companies so its explicit representation would not
help as much as, for instance, the inclusion of environmental issues, an area that some
companies have not yet considered.
A second suggestion concerned the “purchasing” of materials and
subcontractors. There is no doubt that they play a key role in the construction of quality
and their representation in the framework is important. It was recommended that a new
box called “purchasing” should be included after the box “construction” in the middle
part of the pyramid. The author explained that the pyramid’s base already incorporated
suppliers and in fact, supplier quality management was one of the critical factors that
should be practiced in the company before it could offer quality to its clients.
Another recommendation dealt with the division of “design quality” and “quality
assurance” for the design and construction stages within the construction process.
Schematically, this suggestion is related to the replacement of the word “design quality”
for “design” and the word “quality assurance” for “build” in the middle part of the
pyramid. Conceptually, during the design phase various activities can be performed to
ensure that the final design of a project will bring quality to the customer. In contrast,
throughout the construction stage quality assurance is important to guarantee that the
new facility really represents the customer’s idea shown in drawings and specifications.
Since this study was not a pilot, the schematic was not modified at this stage, but this
suggestion was noted for further consideration at the end of the case studies.
Apart from these recommendations the interviewee mentioned two more issues,
not directly related to the schematic. The first referred to the verification of Managers’
capability to coordinate the various activities during the design process in order to
ensure that all relevant aspects that will affect the quality of the new facility are
considered at that stage. With regard to the second, he mentioned that construction
- 135 -
5-Case Studies
companies should offer a warranty period to its clients in which the contractor is
obliged to repair any defective work without charging the client.
With regard to the proposed framework, the interviewee assigned the
quantitative ratings shown in Table 5.3. He agreed that all the requirements were
evident except in the case of “easy to understand”. He graded this as neutral because he
had difficulty interpreting the lines linking the construction stages and the quality
improvement methods. Once the lines on the pyramid had been explained he was happy
with it.

Requirements
Simple
Easy to understand
Systematic
Well structured
Comprehensive
Practical approach
Table 5.3 Company D’s Evaluation of the Framework
III-Company E
In general, the interviewee’s perception in Company E was good. He gave the
quantitative rankings presented in Table 5.4. During the feedback session, the
respondent made some useful comments to improve the ratings that received a 3. The
first observation was related to the emphasis that should be given to preparation work in
a construction project i.e. planning, because it saves time in the end. This aspect has
been considered within the framework and consequently different methods to carry out
the planning activity have been included in it.
- 136 -
5-Case Studies

Requirements
Simple
Easy to understand
Systematic
Well structured
Comprehensive
Practical approach
Table 5.4 Company E’s Evaluation of the Framework
A second observation was concerned with the use of as many meetings as
possible before work commences. In these meetings the use of pre-start checklists that
consider design, health & safety, electrical, tendering, staff and service issues for
instance would be highly recommended. The idea is to have all resources in place at the
right moment to avoid delays. Moreover, it was mentioned that the industry has a
problem with regard to preparation time. Since there is normally a deadline to finish the
work, the elaboration of detailed plans to carry out every job is not always possible.
In terms of the framework, not only is the use of checklists and meetings
implicit within it but so also are resources. In fact, the adequate provision of resources is
one of the critical factors that should be in place before trying to generate a quality
product. The final remark dealt with meetings and discussions, two ways that could be
used to build quality into projects. This comment was also related to preparation work
and planning, aspects covered in the gathering customer needs and planning tools
groups of methods proposed within the framework.
IV-Company F
The overall impression of Company F’s respondent was good and he gave the
ratings shown in Table 5.5. In addition, some recommendations were given during the
feedback session. The first observation was related to the use of KPIs as a way to
- 137 -
5-Case Studies
measure performance and look for improvement activities. While this was considered a
good idea, the pyramid already included performance measures at its base. However,
since KPIs were used in other companies, they were added to the suggestions’ list for
further consideration.

Requirements
Simple
Easy to understand
Systematic
Well structured
Comprehensive
Practical approach
Table 5.5 Company F’s Evaluation of the Framework
Another comment referred to the fact that people play a key role in construction
projects. This aspect had already been included in the pyramid, following the pilot
studies. The appointment of contractors and suppliers on the basis of quality rather than
price was also mentioned. In addition, subcontractors should be assessed before being
appointed. In this case, supplier quality management is one of the critical factors that
should be practiced before a company can offer quality to its customers. Since this was
also an issue covered by the framework (quality policy), it was not listed for further
consideration.
Construction companies should learn from each building and apply their
knowledge in subsequent projects. KM is an emerging area that makes use of different
tools, one of which is technology. This was already incorporated in the framework.
However, KM was added to the suggestions’ list for further investigation once the case
studies had been concluded.
- 138 -
5-Case Studies
The ‘snagging’ period at the end of the project is a good opportunity for the
client to express any worries about the new building. Any finishes or materials that are
not to the client’s standard can be repaired/replaced as necessary. The last
recommendation received was related to the fact that, in order to be used in the industry,
the framework should be simple and easy to understand. In fact this observation was in
line with the requirements used to develop it and was supported by the pilot companies.
V-Company G
Company G was the last organisation in which the revised framework was
evaluated. While the interviewee perceived it well (see the ratings in Table 5.6), some
recommendations were given during the feedback session.

Requirements
Simple
Easy to understand
Systematic
Well structured
Comprehensive
Practical approach
Table 5.6 Company G’s Evaluation of the Framework
The observations were centred on the inclusion of two important methods within
the graphical representation of the framework. The first was related to value engineering
and the second to risk analysis. The suggestions were considered valid. With reference
to the first, the use of the formal methods shown in the improvement methods level of
the pyramid promotes the addition of value for the customer. In terms of the latter, it
was not originally inserted within the framework because it was felt that construction
companies would perform such an analysis as a general rather than an improvement
- 139 -
5-Case Studies
method. However, these two methods were also mentioned in other companies both
during the pilot and the case studies. As a result, the author decided to add them to the
suggestions’ list, which was to be considered once all the studies were finished.
5.5.3 Results of the Evaluation
Table 5.7 presents a summary of the ratings given by participants in the five case
companies. Looking at extreme values, it can be seen that only one company (C)
disagreed that the framework was comprehensive. As mentioned earlier, the interviewee
would have preferred to see a tree in the middle of the pyramid with various alternatives
representing different procurement approaches. This was felt to be adding complexity to
the framework and so it was not modified, instead it could be tailored to the particular
procurement route that a company will follow when undertaking a specific project. At
the other extreme, only one company (D) “strongly agreed” with the applicability of the
framework.
Company Company Company Company Company Mean

Requirements
C D E F G Score
Simple 4 4 4 4 4 4
Easy to understand 4 3 4 4 4 3.8
Systematic 4 4 4 4 4 4
Well structured 4 4 3 4 4 3.8
Comprehensive 2 4 4 3 4 3.4
Practical approach 4 4 3 4 3 3.6
Applicable to your work 4 5 3 4 4 4
Note: 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neutral 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree
Table 5.7 Ratings for the Evaluation of the Framework
Apart from these, participants agreed, in general, that the framework provided a
simple, systematic and applicable way to build quality into construction projects (these
three requirements obtained 4). They also tended to agree that it was easy to understand,
well structured and practical, since the mean scores for these three aspects were 3.8, 3.8
and 3.6 respectively. The comprehensiveness of the framework had the lowest score
- 140 -
5-Case Studies
(3.4). This result was not surprising since, as already mentioned, the score given by
Company C to this requirement was low.
In an effort to further improve the framework, the author analysed the
suggestions gathered during the case studies. Company D suggested replacing the word
“design” with “design quality” and the word “build” with “quality assurance”. This was
not done because the middle part of the pyramid is designed to show the construction
process in general and the top part is meant to present the quality issues that should be
considered during such a process. In addition, no other company mentioned this as a
possibility for improvement.
Company F recommended the use of KPIs for measuring performance and for
identifying improvement activities. The inclusion of KM within the framework, a
formal method to manage knowledge within the organisation, was also mentioned. In
addition, Company G suggested the inclusion of two formal methods, value engineering
and risk analysis. It became apparent that, while the KPIs could be incorporated within
the performance measures group, the other three approaches could be included in the
formal methods. However, since the methods already integrated in the framework were
thoroughly analysed with reference to reliability and validity, the inclusion of “new”
approaches without systematic investigation was felt to be inappropriate. An example
can be cited to support this argument, Morrison [130] reported that Parasuraman et al
had developed a multiple item scale to measure service quality. They carried out a
comprehensive analysis to demonstrate the reliability and validity of their instrument,
called SERVQUAL. When their framework was evaluated, one of the first criticisms
was related to negatively-worded items. Parasuraman et al reworded the items to avoid
confusion. “However, given the extensive testing and piloting in the development of the
original items, ‘such ad hoc procedures for amending the original SERVQUAL
- 141 -
5-Case Studies
instrument questions the utility of the thorough and detailed process … as the basis for
development’ (Smith 1995, p. 259)” [130].
One other point that was considered at this stage was the difficulty that each
Manager expressed in understanding the flow in the framework, therefore an alternative
to the pyramid was sought. The Integration Definition for Function Modelling (IDEF-0)
[128, 129], was thought to be a better representation, especially in view of the fact that
the ISO 9001:2000, now being a process based system, used a similar layout and
therefore companies would be more familiar with this. Figure 5.9 shows the elements of
the framework in IDEF-0 format, which provides a clearer idea of the flow.
Quality Policy,
Product & Service
Quality
Develop Blue-
Customer
Scheme print
Needs
Design Drawings
Facility
Docu-
Generate
ments
Construction
Specifications
Bid
Prepare
Bid
Construct Facility
Facility
Maintain Functional
Facility Facility
Gathering & Organising Performance

Customer Needs, Measures Quality Control,
Performance Measures & Performance Measures
& Technology Technology & Technology
Formal Methods Planning Tools,

Performance Measures Performance Measures
& Technology & Technology
Figure 5.9 Framework Elements in IDEF-0 Format
- 142 -
5-Case Studies
5.6 Cross Case Analysis and Discussion
Having analysed the case studies, some salient points emerge. Firstly, it is
apparent that the companies surveyed are trying to build quality into projects using their
own methodology. This was evidenced by all seven using structured steps to ensure that
quality was considered, even though graphical representations of their practices were
uncommon. With regard to improvement methods application, Company A, for
instance, uses one-to-one interviews (progress meetings) with customers to ensure that
their needs are understood at all times. Company B encourages the use of customer
satisfaction surveys by making donations to a charity for each response received and
Company D has developed relationships with those suppliers (contractor partnerships)
that are able to offer quality products to build the facility in question.
Secondly, quality is enhanced by constantly employing the improvement
methods and initiatives. For instance, in Company C customer satisfaction levels have
risen, business has been repeated and quality costs have decreased. In addition the
company has gained more work from new clients because of its reputation as a quality
company. Company F has improved its designs significantly and its buildings now have
excellent performance in terms of environmental, power and communications issues. In
Company G the general quality of products has improved, internal people take quality
more seriously than they did in the past, performance has consistently improved and the
organisation regularly gets repeat business. In addition, because of an increase in
reputation, Company G has been able to enlarge its market share.
Thirdly, companies in the sector are considering both product and service quality
to achieve customer satisfaction. For example, Company B has developed a formal
system that makes use of two KPIs to measure this for both aspects. It is aimed not only
at measuring performance but also at recognising areas with the potential for
- 143 -
5-Case Studies
improvement. Until recently, Company E had a Customer Service Manager, who
worked in both the construction and the customer services departments. His
responsibilities included after sales care, and ensuring that the houses developed by the
company were ready to use before customers actually received their keys. The Quality
Manager now has this post in addition to managing quality within the company.
These three observations are in accordance with the view perceived in the
literature. For instance, Juran [66] reported that a systematic and structured approach
could help to build quality into products. Koskela [14] mentioned that the use of
methods was important not only for ensuring that value was given to customers but also
for improving performance within organisations. Torbica [131] concluded that quality
service was an important aspect to achieve customer satisfaction, but one that had not
received much attention. Maloney [60] reported that communication between customers
and construction companies was fundamental to ensure both customer satisfaction and
repeat business and Yasamis [46] stated that the quality reputation of a company was
crucial to increase its market share.
While there are similarities in the approaches applied by the companies under
study, it should be recognised that there are also differences. For instance, Company
A’s approach focuses on revisions throughout the construction process, Company B’s
centres on the early development of a management plan for each project in which
quality objectives are established, and the emphasis of Company C is mainly on the
project management manual. Company D, in contrast, relies on a variety of factors to
build quality into projects such as meetings with customers, company expertise and
external consultants. Company E mainly depends on quality control activities, Company
F carries out quality audits and Company G encourages the use of supervision and
feedback from customers, suppliers and subcontractors. In spite of this, the companies
- 144 -
5-Case Studies
still mentioned weaknesses/shortcomings in their processes so it is timely to have a
generic framework.
All these data demonstrate that quality can be built into projects in a number of
ways, and different approaches may be more convenient depending on the company
under study. Arguably, the characteristics and situation of organisations, their
requirements and needs will affect the way in which they achieve this. That is the reason
why it is important to have a general framework that can be tailored to the particular
situation of a company.
With reference to the framework developed as part of this research, its
evaluation was positive. Quantitatively it received good ratings, in general, in all the
“attractive” requirements used to develop it, and qualitatively, encouraging comments
were given by participants in the companies visited. They agreed that the framework
represents a practical approach. In particular, it promotes the consideration of quality at
both corporate and project levels. In addition it encourages the use of quality
improvement methods through the construction process to achieve both product and
service quality.
Moreover, participants acknowledged that the framework was general enough to
be applied in the sector. This is an important result because it confirms that the
framework provides an overall picture of the activities and quality improvement
methods with potential use in the organisation through the construction process.
Essentially, the framework provides the structure for launching quality initiatives in a
planned manner and offers guidance to achieve quality goals.
- 145 -
5-Case Studies
5.7 Summary
Following the development of the framework, the main objective of this
research, its evaluation in five construction companies has been presented. First, the
rationale for carrying out the studies was explained. It was argued that the case study
approach was convenient when trying to answer the “how” and “why” questions of
research. Since one of the main objectives of this stage of the research was to
investigate how construction companies were building quality into construction
projects, this approach was employed. Having decided the type of case study to perform
(holistic multiple-case design) a protocol was developed. This helped to ensure that
consistent data was collected from the seven construction companies. Participants were
not only asked to provide information about their approaches pertaining to quality but
also to evaluate the proposed framework.
An analysis of the results revealed that some companies in the construction
sector are carrying out certain activities for ensuring that quality is built into projects. In
addition, it was observed that the application of quality improvement methods and
initiatives had brought about important benefits from improving quality to increasing
market shares. Finally, the consideration of both product and service quality at a project
level was observed.
In terms of the evaluation, the results of the two pilot studies and the five case
studies were presented. The rationale for carrying out pilot studies was to include the
voice of the practitioners in the framework prior to its evaluation. As a result, two minor
modifications were made to the original framework, “Top Management” was relocated
from the top of the pyramid to the bottom under the “stakeholders” title and two new
faces were included, one dealing with safety and the other with environmental issues.
Links between customer needs and all the stages of the construction process were added
- 146 -
5-Case Studies
and performance measures were relocated to show that they should be considered
throughout the construction process rather than just at the end.
The results of its evaluation in the five companies were, in general, positive and
encouraging. Practitioners concurred that the proposed framework offers a simple,
systematic and applicable approach for building quality into projects. In addition, they
tended to recognise that it offered an easy to understand, well structured and practical
approach. The requirement that received the lowest rating was comprehensiveness. This
result was not surprising since one of the assessors gave a low rating to this aspect as he
found the construction process limited to one procurement route. Once the need for
tailoring the pyramid to the particular project at hand was explained, he was pleased
with it. Overall, the case studies helped to show that the proposed framework is both
practical and applicable. The next chapter will present an empirical study, carried out in
one of the case study companies, in which the first stages of the framework and some of
the quality improvement methods for supporting them were put into practice.
- 147 -
6-Empirical Study
Chapter 6. Empirical Study
6.1 Introduction
Following the evaluation exercise of the framework the next stage is to show that its
development has not only made academic advances but has also contributed to the industry.
Due to time constraints it was not feasible to fully implement the framework, so only the
design element of the construction process was investigated. This was felt to be important
since this area was highlighted by the surveys (Chapter 3) as being one that had received
very little attention to date. In addition, during the case studies, interviewees at companies
D and G stated that the early stages of the process could be improved.
The first task then, which proved to be difficult, was to find a company to take part
in this phase of the research. The reasons were, mainly, the short time frame and the
sensitivity of the information that would have to be divulged. In the event one of the
companies that had participated at the case study stage agreed to help.
This chapter will firstly describe the main characteristics of the project under study,
then the guide for implementing the framework’s methods (described in Chapter 4) is
revisited to explain the steps undertaken. Data collection, together with the analysis of
customer needs and the construction of the HoQ (in the QFD process) follows. Finally, the
main findings and limitations of the study are discussed.
6.2 Project Background
The project concerned the development of a Children’s Nursery in the Birmingham
area. Company G was contacted by Birmingham City Council (BCC) and the National
Health Service (NHS) to carry out the work. It is important to mention, here, that over
recent years, BCC, Company G and a further three companies had developed a partnership,
and BCC offers work to the four construction firms on a regular basis. This is because they
- 148 -
6-Empirical Study
have all demonstrated that they can provide not only quality products and services but also
value for money.
The NHS programme for providing nursery services in England is called Sure Start
[132]. One of its main objectives is to improve health and emotional development during
childhood by providing services in disadvantaged areas. In addition, it offers financial
support for parents to meet the expenses of childcare. With reference to construction, the
programme target is to have a network of up to 2,500 centres in the least favoured areas of
the country by March 2008. In the medium term, the programme is aimed at halving child
poverty by 2010 [132].
Central government requested BCC to coordinate forty three nursery projects in the
Birmingham area, of which thirteen were existing nurseries that could be integrated into the
programme without capital investment, twenty seven involved extensions to existing
buildings and the other three entailed the construction of new facilities. In view of Company
G’s performance in previous projects, they were awarded twenty of the thirty that required
some construction work (two of them “new”). At the time of this study, the Company was
carrying out a feasibility analysis to determine whether or not all the work could be
completed within the available budget of £10 million, which ranged from £200,000 for the
extensions to £1.3 million for the new projects. The two new buildings were given priority
because of the amount of work required before their construction, which is due to start in
October 2006. Figure 6.1 shows the Gantt chart with the master programme of the “new”
project selected for this study.
2006 2007
May
May
Ago
Nov
Mar
Mar
Dec
Apr
Apr
Feb
Sep
Feb
Oct
Jun
Jun
Jan
Jul
Jul
Feasibility
Design
Construction
Figure 6.1 Sure Start Project Master Programme
- 149 -
6-Empirical Study
The Royal Institute of British Architects’ plan of work [133] was used by the
Company in this case as a guide to support the construction process. The first stage,
appraisal, comprises the feasibility analysis and cost of alternative designs to satisfy the
customer requirements. The strategic brief prepared by the client is next delivered to the
construction company. The third stage deals with both the preparation and client approval
of an outline proposal that includes an estimation of construction costs. Finally, the
construction company develops the outline proposal in detail, prepares a cost estimate,
consults statutory authorities and gains client approval for the spatial arrangements, material
and appearance of the facility. The company was given two months for preparing all the
relevant documents up to this latter stage for each project.
The two new projects therefore, provided an excellent opportunity for applying the
author’s ideas. Only one of the new projects was selected, because of the limited time
available.
6.3 Implementation
As stated in section 5.4.7, Company G is quite advanced in its quality journey
having been certified to the ISO 9001 quality standard and been granted many different
awards. Its quality policy reflects its commitment to ‘Total Quality’ practices for ensuring
that customer expectations are always surpassed. This is reflected in the fact that BCC
chose the Company as one of its partners. The guide described in Chapter 4 was used for
implementing some of the methods included in the framework. Specifically customer
interviews, brainstorming, focus groups (gathering customer needs), affinity and tree
diagrams (organising customer needs) and the first part of the QFD methodology (formal
methods) were employed. In addition, ideas from TRIZ (law of ideality) and CE
(implementation and design teams working in parallel) were used. The work performed will
now be described.
- 150 -
6-Empirical Study
The first step in the process was to obtain Top Management commitment for the
empirical study. Following the case study carried out in the organisation, the Marketing
Manager in the Derby office was contacted. In spite of being very busy at the time of the
request, he kindly agreed to participate but felt that the Birmingham office would be a better
base because of its proximity to the University. Contact was made with the Partnership
Development Manager at this site and an appointment set up to discuss the details of the
process. While he was willing to help, he had to seek the Company Director’s approval.
This step took almost five weeks, however, authorisation was finally given.
Pilot Project
The selection of the pilot project, one Children’s Nursery, was briefly introduced in
the previous section. It was hoped at the outset that a comparison could be drawn to identify
any gaps between the nursery project which would be constructed using the author’s
framework and that developed by a partner company. Since completion was not scheduled
until July 2007 this was not possible.
Appointment of a facilitator
The author acted as facilitator, since he was familiar with the details of the
framework. His main role was not only to guide the process but also to plan and coordinate
all the associated activities.
Planning
From the company’s viewpoint the exercise was aimed at applying a systematic
approach to translate the VoC into technical specifications, determining the most relevant
technical features to satisfy customer requirements and identifying any gaps between
- 151 -
6-Empirical Study
internal practices and theory, represented by the framework. From the author’s perspective,
the main objective of the study was to implement the framework’s methods, in the first
stages of the construction process, to evaluate its performance.
In order to fulfil these objectives various activities had to be performed. The first
was to form an implementation team, which would participate in selected briefing and
progress meetings with the Company’s design team to observe how they were carried out
and to gain familiarity with the project. It was envisaged that the team would perform the
study in parallel with the design team, in order to cause least disruption. Meetings took
place at Company G’s premises.
Implementation team creation
The implementation team comprised the author and a final year Manufacturing and
Business Management undergraduate from the University. Project goals, its duration and its
expected outcomes were agreed, even though it was obvious that neither of the two
members would be able to participate through to the end of the project. Apart from the last
period of the data collection stage in which only the final year undergraduate took part, both
members worked together at all times.
Resources allocation
The main resources employed during the implementation process were people, time
and technology (principally e-mail for communication purposes). The implementation team
did not attend all the scheduled meetings in the company but only those in which
advancements were discussed and summarised. In addition, activities such as collecting and
analysing data were carried out without the intervention of the design team, to optimise
everyone’s time.
- 152 -
6-Empirical Study
Training
The undergraduate student was brought up to speed on the activities necessary to
complete the study; the time constraint precluded further training in the company. However,
the familiarity of the company staff with the quality improvement methods included in the
framework enabled the process to continue smoothly.
Data Collection
The implementation team firstly prepared a list that included the minimum
requirements that a building should satisfy to be considered as a Childcare centre. It was
then necessary to find a Children’s Nursery in the Birmingham area to identify and
prioritise the needs of its users. A local Sure Start nursery was visited and agreed to
participate.
A focus group was formed comprising its General, Staff and Facilities Managers, a
Receptionist, a Teacher, a Cook and a Mother, to ensure that customer groups were
represented. However, caution was necessary, since as Burns and Bush [71] stated, one of
the drawbacks of using focus groups is that they may not characterise the general
population.
Methods application
As already stated, since this exercise focused on the first stages of the construction
process, only approaches from the gathering, organising customer needs and formal
methods were employed. With reference to the latter, QFD and more particularly the HoQ
was used to translate the VoC into technical specifications.
- 153 -
6-Empirical Study
Monitoring Progress
Having analysed the data, a progress meeting was convened to determine whether
the exercise had fulfilled its objectives or not. Initial evidence suggested that all the aims
established at the beginning of the study had been accomplished. A more detailed
discussion will be provided in the main findings section. It is important to note, however,
that monitoring activities should continue throughout the construction process to ratify the
results obtained. A customer satisfaction survey could be used at the end of the project for
this purpose. Since there was another similar project running in parallel to this study, in
which the framework was not utilised, the survey could be used to compare the two sets of
results. Alternatively, a comparison could be made between this and the project developed
by the other partner company.
Recognition
The last part of the process is recognition. Since the project was mainly for research
purposes, no “ceremonial” activities were used to acknowledge any individual’s
performance. Having outlined the implementation process, the activities for ensuring
quality and the construction of the HoQ will be explained in more detail.
6.4 Data Collection
In order to complete the project, Company G had to create a design team. Its
composition is shown in Table 6.1 together with the main features of the project, potential
users of the Nursery are also shown. The latter had to be identified at the outset and
suggestions proposed by Juran [66] for recognising customers and their needs were used
(see Appendix B.9). With regard to internal and external customers, the members of the
design team belonged to the first group and both clients and potential users belonged to the
second. While there are other customers that should be included e.g. suppliers, service
- 154 -
6-Empirical Study
providers, they were not considered because the implementation team did not have access to
their requirements. In addition, since one of the main objectives of the exercise was to
increase “end” customer satisfaction, the analysis focused on this group.
Project Features Details

Name Sure Start Project (Children Nursery)
Client(s) BCC and NHS
Location Birmingham
Time span 2 Years (1/Feb/06 – 31/Jul/07)
Budget £1.3 million
Procurement Approach Design-Build
Potential Users General Manager, Staff Manager, Facilities Manager, Secretaries, Receptionists, Cook, Teachers,
Cleaning Staff, Parents and Children
Design Team Architects, Project Managers, Quantity Surveyors, Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Design
Engineers, Commercial and Design Managers, and Consultants (Planning Authority)
Table 6.1 Main Features of the Construction Project
Nursery staff, parents and children will, in this case, be the main users of the
building. As Juran [66] suggested, their needs require special attention and should be
carefully analysed. Based on this classification and analysis, the customers of this project
were identified as the clients (classified as the vital few), nursery staff, parents and children
(the useful many). The former group is crucial and must be catered for on an individual
basis while the latter should be considered as experts that can offer helpful information to
enhance the product. Planning for the latter is performed collectively [66]. In order to gather
their needs, a Building Handbook for Nursery Schools [134]3, the National Standards for
under 8s full day care [135] and the regulations for school premises [136] were reviewed.
With regard to accommodation, the building handbook [134] recommended that the nursery
building should include an entrance, a playroom (including quiet room), children’s toilets,
storage, a utility room, a cleaner’s store, a staff/parents’ room and a staff/visitors’ toilet
(and, in some cases a kitchen). These, together with their minimum requirements are shown
in Appendix D along with those for the site and building.
3
The Handbook contains recommendations for designing children’s nurseries in Northern Ireland and was used
only for guidance purposes. This was because no English equivalent document could be found.
- 155 -
6-Empirical Study
In order to reduce the number of requirements, as already mentioned, a focus group
was run in a nursery that is part of the Sure Start Programme. Participants were asked to
state those requirements that they considered the most important to design an ideal nursery
(based on the TRIZ law of ideality). Having brainstormed them, participants were given the
list (in Appendix D) to peruse, in case there were others that they had not considered. This
resulted in 20 elements, which were organised using affinity and tree diagrams. They are
listed in Table 6.2.
Product Quality Dimension Requirements Detailed Requirements

Performance Environment Temperature in Rooms
Ventilation
Daylight
Acoustics (noiseless)
Size Space in Quiet Room
Space for Storage
Room's Flexibility of use
Staff Offices
Breastfeeding Room
Changing Facilities
Space in Outdoor Play Area
Car Park
Features Security Controlled Access
Monitoring Visitor's Arrivals
Safety Design for Children
Supervision of Children
Fittings Outdoor Shelter
Sink for Children
Lift
Public Telephone
Table 6.2 Simplified Nursery Requirements
Temperature, ventilation, daylight and acoustics were highlighted as the most
important environmental characteristics for the nursery rooms. Temperature control and
ventilation were crucial especially during the summer. Since external windows can not be
fully opened for security reasons (they impede intruders’ access to the building), alternative
forms of ventilation were imperative. In terms of acoustics, its importance becomes
apparent when say a group of children has music sessions in a playroom while another
group is sleeping in an adjacent room.
- 156 -
6-Empirical Study
Various concerns were expressed about size and space. For example, space for
storage was mentioned as one important characteristic of the nursery, so that toys and
equipment which were not being used could be tidied away. Flexibility of use was also
highlighted, particularly the possibility of say connecting two playrooms to generate a
bigger space for group activities. Staff offices were also considered important especially for
administrative personnel. A breastfeeding room, changing facilities and space in outdoor
area were pointed out as necessary characteristics and a car park, at least for staff, was also
required.
With reference to security, the main customers’ anxieties were related to controlled
access within the nursery and monitoring visitors’ arrivals. The first refers to both the
children who can move around within the nursery and to visitors, who are not allowed in
restricted areas such as playrooms. Monitoring who enters the nursery was also considered
an important issue. Nursery staff are responsible for the children’s security, so they have to
ensure that only authorised visitors gain access to the building.
In terms of safety, design for children and supervision of children were mentioned.
Customers were concerned about sharp edges, corners or projections in the building that
may harm children. In addition, teachers wanted to be able to supervise the children at all
times from anywhere in the nursery. Parents also wished to see their children even though
their access to playrooms was restricted.
Finally, within the fittings group, four requirements were acknowledged: outdoor
shelter, sink for children, lift and public telephone. Since the outdoor play area can be
exposed to sunshine during the summer, some shading was necessary; this was also
required on wet days. A sink at low level was also requested for the children to use after
they have finished say painting activities. While not all nurseries have two or more floors,
the existence of a lift was suggested as ideal for moving children and people with
- 157 -
6-Empirical Study
disabilities or equipment. Finally the presence of a public telephone in the entrance area was
considered important. All these customer requirements were used for building the HoQ.
6.5 The HoQ and its Construction
The HoQ, the first matrix used in the QFD process, displays the VoC or the
customer needs against the technical responses to meet them. Figure 6.2 illustrates the
sections/rooms of the HoQ, each of which holds information, specific to a part of the QFD
methodology. The order suggested by the letters A to F is normally followed. Room A
contains a list of customer wants, each of which are assessed against competitors and the
results put into B. Room C has the information necessary to transform the customer
expectations into technical terms and the correlation between each customer want and each
technical response is put into D. The “roof”, E, considers the extent to which the technical
responses support each other. The prioritisation of the technical characteristics, information
on the competition and technical targets all go into F.
[E]
Technical
Correlations
[C] Technical Characteristics
[A]
Customer [B]
[D] Relationships Planning
needs and
benefits Matrix
[F] Technical Targets
Figure 6.2 The House of Quality (Source: [6])
- 158 -
6-Empirical Study
It is the first of several matrices, which result in more detailed decisions during the
product development exercise. In practice the other matrices are rarely used [6], because the
work involved in their construction can use as much as 80 % of a company’s employees
[137]. Dikmen [103] provided references for more information about the construction of
those matrices. It is important to note that, in this research, only the HoQ i.e. the first
matrix, was employed.
Rooms A and B
The VoC summarised in Table 6.2 was put into room A. In order to carry out the
competitive analysis, the Combined Inspection Reports generated by the Office for
Standards in Education (OFSTED) [138] were employed. Children’s Nurseries are
inspected to ensure that they comply with the National Standards for Under 8s Day Care
[135], to identify improvement areas and to provide parents with information about the
quality of the nurseries inspected.
The OFSTED database was used to identify the best children’s nurseries in the
vicinity of the new one. From the 14 national standards (ranging from care, learning and
play through to food and drinks issues), only standard 4, physical environment was
considered relevant to this study. This standard states: “The premises are safe, secure and
suitable for their purpose. They provide adequate space in an appropriate location, are
welcoming to children and offer access to the necessary facilities for a range of activities
which promote their development” [135].
Having identified the best 2 competitors with regard to standard 4, their help was
requested and they agreed. An interview between the undergraduate student and their
respective managers was arranged. They were asked to express their level of importance
and of satisfaction with the requirements stated in Table 6.2, using a 5 point Likert scale in
which 1 was not important at all/very unsatisfied through to 5 very strong importance/very
- 159 -
6-Empirical Study
satisfied. This data together with a set collected from the Sure Start nursery was put into
room B of the matrix, in order to determine the most important customer needs. While the
importance to the customer was the average of the three, each nursery was individually
rated to identify the level of satisfaction that their customers had with the requirements.
A goal for the expected level of satisfaction in the new nursery, was then
established for each customer requirement. This was taken to be the maximum of the three
satisfaction scores registered for each, the rationale for selecting this particular score being
that competitors have reached a particular level of customer satisfaction and the new
building should provide at least the same level. This goal, combined with the customer
satisfaction performance score for the Sure Start nursery, was used to calculate the
improvement ratio, a factor for balancing the “Importance to the Customer” and rearranging
the importance of the customer needs. Finally, the absolute and relative weight for each
customer requirement was obtained. Table 6.3 presents the results of the planning matrix.
performance Sure
(VIII) = (VIIi) / Σ
of
of
to
ratio (VI) = (V) /
Absolute weight
weight
Competitor B (IV)
(VII) = (I)*(VI)
Improvement
Performance
Performance
customer (I)
Importance
Competitor
satisfaction
Customer
Start (II)
Goal (V)
Relative
(VIIi)
Rank
(III)
(II)
Detailed Requirements
Temperature in Rooms 4 4 4 5 5 1.25 5 5% 7
Ventilation 4 4 4 2 4 1.14 5 5% 9
Daylight 4 3 4 4 4 1.33 5 5% 5
Acoustics (noiseless) 3 4 4 4 4 1 3 3% 16
Space in Quiet Room 4 3 4 4 4 1.33 5 5% 5
Space for Storage 4 4 2 4 4 1 4 4% 11
Room's Flexibility of use 4 3 3 3 3 1 4 4% 11
Staff Offices 4 5 2 4 5 1 4 4% 11
Breastfeeding Room 2 5 1 3 5 1 2 2% 19
Changing Facilities 4 5 4 3 5 1 4 4% 11
Space in Outdoor Play Area 5 3 5 4 5 1.67 8 9% 3
Car Park 3 1 3 3 3 3 9 9% 2
Controlled Access 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5% 7
Monitoring Visitor's Arrivals 5 4 5 5 5 1.25 6 6% 4
Design for Children 3 5 2 3 5 1 3 3% 16
Supervision of Children 5 2 5 4 5 2.5 13 13% 1
Outdoor Shelter 3 2 3 3 3 1.5 5 5% 10
Sink for Children 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 4% 11
Lift 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 1% 20
Public Telephone 3 5 5 1 5 1 3 3% 16
Table 6.3 Planning Matrix
- 160 -
6-Empirical Study
From column I, the four most important needs for customers were highlighted as:
space in outdoor play area, controlled access, monitoring visitors’ arrivals and supervision
of children. Surprisingly, a breastfeeding room and a sink for children were only assigned a
value of 2 i.e. minor importance, while a lift was felt to be the least important.
The Sure Start nursery within which the focus group was organised, performs well
with regard to staff offices, breastfeeding room, changing facilities, controlled access,
design for children and lift. However, it was rated low for car park, supervision of children,
outdoor shelter and sink for children. When this performance was compared against that of
the competitors, the requirements that should be given more attention (the improvement
ratio reflects this) were: daylight, space in quiet room, space in outdoor play area,
supervision of children and outdoor shelter. This means that competitors are performing
better than the Sure Start nursery in these aspects.
Having considered both the importance and the competitors’ performance for each
requirement, supervision of children, car park, space in outdoor play area, monitoring
visitors’ arrivals, daylight and space in quiet room were ranked as the most important to
consider. It is worth noting at this stage how using the competitors’ data has changed the
priority of the requirements. For instance, the Sure Start Nursery has a low performance
rating for car park whilst its two competitors have relatively satisfied customers for this
aspect. Hence, car park is an issue that has the potential for improvement and its rank
reflects this.
Room C
The next step was to propose the technical characteristics necessary to satisfy the
customer requirements. The members of the implementation team suggested them based on
experience, the recommendations of the building handbook [134] and the visits to the
participant nurseries. The characteristics were put into room C (see Table 6.4), including
- 161 -
6-Empirical Study
their units of measurement. In addition, each was assigned one of three possible directions
of goodness:
(+) The more the better -the implied target is infinity
(-) The less the better -the implied target is normally zero and
(T) Target is best -the target is as close as possible to a nominal value.
Technical characteristics Units Direction of

goodness
Number of Radiators Number +
Number of Air Conditioning Units Number +
Area of External Windows m2 +
Finishes (Floor, Walls, Ceiling) m2 T
Quiet Room Area m2 +
Storage Area m2 +
Length of Folding Screens Between Rooms m +
Offices Area m2 +
Breastfeeding Room Area m2 +
Changing Facilities Area m2 +
Outdoor Play Area m2 +
Car Park Spaces Number +
Number of Doors with Swipe Cards Number T
CCTV Number of cameras T
Area of Reception Desk at Main Entrance m2 T
Number of Sharp Edges and Projections Number -
Area of Internal Observation Windows m2 +
Outdoor Covered Area m2 +
Sink at Children Level in Playroom Number T
Number of Lifts Number T
Number of Public Telephones Number T
Table 6.4 Technical Characteristics
Room D
The relationships room of the HoQ is the largest section. The purpose is to
determine each technical characteristic’s contribution to achieving customer satisfaction,
and therefore to prioritise them i.e. it shows a mapping between technical features and
customer needs whereby each cell represents a judgment, made by the implementation
team, of the strength of the relation linking each. Cohen [6] proposed the use of the
following scale: 9-strongly linked, 3-moderately linked and 1-possibly linked. Since the
majority of QFD applications adopt this, it was felt to be the appropriate scale to use. The
results of the analysis are shown in Table 6.5.
- 162 -
6-Empirical Study
Length of Folding Screens Between Rooms
Area of Reception Desk at Main Entrance
Number of Sharp Edges and Projections
Area of Internal Observation Windows

Number of Doors with Swipe Cards
Sink at Children Level in Playroom

Number of Air Conditioning Units
Finishes (Floor, Walls, Ceiling)
Number of Public Telephones

Area of External Windows
Breastfeeding Room Area
Changing Facilities Area
Outdoor Covered Area

Number of Radiators
Outdoor Play Area

Quiet Room Area
Car Park Spaces
Number of Lifts
Storage Area
Offices Area
CCTV
Customer Requirements
Temperature in Rooms 9 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 1
Ventilation 9 1 1 1 1 1
Daylight 9 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Acoustics (noiseless) 9 3 3 3 3 3 1 1
Space in Quiet Room 9 9
Space for Storage 9
Room's Flexibility of use 1 1 9 1 1 1 9
Staff Offices 9
Breastfeeding Room 9
Changing Facilities 9
Space in Outdoor Play Area 9
Car Park 9
Controlled Access 9 9 9
Monitoring Visitor's Arrivals 9 9
Design for Children 3 3 3 3 9 3 3 9
Supervision of Children 9 9 9 9 9
Outdoor Shelter 9
Sink for Children 9
Lift 9
Public Telephone 3 9
Table 6.5 Relationship Matrix
If Table 6.5 is analysed column-wise, the contribution of each technical
characteristic to satisfy customer needs can be seen. For instance, the area of external
windows has a direct influence on the temperature in rooms, the ventilation and the
daylight. A row-wise analysis gives the contribution of each of the technical characteristics
to satisfy a particular customer need. For example, controlled access can be satisfied by
installing swipe card readers in doors, CCTV cameras and a manned reception desk at the
main entrance.
Rooms E and F
The “roof” of the HoQ considers the extent to which the technical characteristics
support each other. The information contained in this section helps to identify design
- 163 -
6-Empirical Study
bottlenecks during the planning process. Sometimes the impact between two technical
characteristics is negative, therefore a 6-point scale in which 9 implies strong positive
correlation through to -9 strong negative correlation is used. The implementation team
suggested the relationships between technical characteristics shown in Table 6.6. The
intersection between storage area and outdoor play area, for example, has a score of -9.
This indicates that a trade-off may be necessary between the two characteristics.
Length of Folding Screens Between Rooms

Number of Doors with Swipe Cards

Number of Air Conditioning Units
Finishes (Floor, Walls, Ceiling)

Area of External Windows
Breastfeeding Room Area

Changing Facilities Area

Number of Radiators
Outdoor Play Area

Quiet Room Area
Car Park Spaces
Number of Lifts
Storage Area
Offices Area
Technical characteristics CCTV

Number of Radiators 3 3 9 9 1 9 9 9 9
Number of Air Conditioning Units 9 1 9 9 1 9 9 9 9
Area of External Windows 1 1 1 1 1 1
Finishes (Floor, Walls, Ceiling) 9 9 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Quiet Room Area -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -1
Storage Area -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -1
Length of Folding Screens Between Rooms 3
Offices Area -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -1
Breastfeeding Room Area -9 -9 -9 -9 -1
Changing Facilities Area -9 -9 -9 -1
Outdoor Play Area -9 -9 -1
Car Park Spaces -9
Number of Doors with Swipe Cards 3 1
CCTV 1 -9
Number of Lifts
Table 6.6 The Roof of the HoQ
Unlike the traditional HoQ, cost issues were included in room F, the technical
matrix, to ensure that it did not merely comprise a wish list. The approach suggested by
Wasserman [139] was used for the analysis. The relative weights of the technical
- 164 -
6-Empirical Study
characteristics were calculated by multiplying the scores given in the relationship matrix for
each customer requirement by their respective relative weights (column VIII of Table 6.3).
The resultant products were added to obtain the absolute weights which were subsequently
used to find the relative weights (see Table 6.7).
Cost (£’s per
factor
weight (IX) =
(XII) = (XI)I /
weight (X) =
ost (XIII) =
Importance/c
Σ Ci * VIIIi
(X) / (XII)
IXi / Σ IXi
unit) (XI)
Max (XI)
Absolute
Relative
Targets
Rank
Cost
Technical characteristics
Number of Radiators 46.0 2.3% 600 0.0075 3.0 18 +
Number of Air Conditioning Units 46.0 2.3% 300 0.0038 6.1 11 +
Area of External Windows 137.1 6.8% 300 0.0038 18.1 3 +
Finishes (Floor, Walls, Ceiling) 59.3 2.9% 30 0.0004 78.2 2 T
Quiet Room Area 212.0 10.5% 800 0.0100 10.5 6 +
Storage Area 75.6 3.7% 800 0.0100 3.7 15 +
Length of Folding Screens Between Rooms 85.9 4.2% 900 0.0113 3.8 14 +
Offices Area 75.6 3.7% 800 0.0100 3.7 15 +
Breastfeeding Room Area 66.4 3.3% 800 0.0100 3.3 17 +
Changing Facilities Area 84.8 4.2% 800 0.0100 4.2 13 +
Outdoor Play Area 240.7 11.9% 800 0.0100 11.9 5 +
Car Park Spaces 85.9 4.2% 8000 0.1000 0.4 20 +
Number of Doors with Swipe Cards 46.0 2.3% 200 0.0025 9.1 7 T
CCTV 218.5 10.8% 100 0.0013 86.5 1 T
Area of Reception Desk at Main Entrance 112.7 5.6% 800 0.0100 5.6 12 T
Number of Sharp Edges and Projections 27.6 1.4% 800 0.0100 1.4 19 -
Area of Internal Observation Windows 134.8 6.7% 300 0.0038 17.8 4 +
Outdoor Covered Area 165.6 8.2% 800 0.0100 8.2 9 +
Sink at Children Level in Playroom 64.4 3.2% 300 0.0038 8.5 8 T
Number of Lifts 9.2 0.5% 80000 1.0000 0.0 21 T
Number of Public Telephones 27.6 1.4% 150 0.0019 7.3 10 T
Table 6.7 Technical Matrix
As can be seen, before the insertion of the cost factor, the five most important
technical characteristics (column X) were: outdoor play area, CCTV, quiet room area,
outdoor covered area and area of external windows. Having investigated the cost per unit
(websites were employed to get meaningful data for this purpose) for each of the technical
characteristics, the quiet room area and outdoor play area lost their priority, while due to
their relative low cost, finishes and internal observation windows gained priority.
The final step in the analysis was to compare the most important customer
requirements (supervision of children, car park, space in outdoor play area, monitoring
visitors’ arrivals, daylight and space in quiet room) and the most relevant technical
- 165 -
6-Empirical Study
characteristics (CCTV, finishes, area of external windows, area of internal observation
windows and outdoor play area) to determine whether the first could satisfy the latter. The
requirement, supervision of children, can be satisfied with the inclusion of internal
observation windows and CCTV cameras. Car park has not been given a high priority in the
technical matrix mainly because of its associated costs. Hence, this requirement may not be
fulfilled. The third requirement was space in outdoor play area which can be satisfied with
a larger outdoor play area, if space permits (see Table 6.6 for trade-offs), than that already
available in the Sure Start nursery. Monitoring visitors’ arrivals can be fulfilled with the
installation of CCTV cameras and daylight with an increase in the area of external windows.
Finally, space in the quiet room can be fulfilled with more area in the quiet room, the
characteristic that was ranked 6 in the technical matrix. In short, apart from the car park, all
the important customer requirements can reasonably be satisfied even after the
consideration of costs.
6.6 Main Findings of the Study
The objectives set at the beginning of the study were fulfilled. From the company’s
perspective, the main output is the information contained in Tables 6.3 to 6.7, which is
summarised in Figure 6.3. The analysis allowed the determination of the most important
customer needs and the most relevant technical characteristics for satisfying them. During
the process, a better understanding and knowledge of customer requirements for the nursery
was gained. Communication between customers and the design team was enhanced by
means of the focus group results.
If, at the end of the construction process, customers (clients and users) are satisfied
with Company G’s work, the likelihood of increasing their reputation, repeating business
and attracting more customers is enhanced. In addition, since the new nursery will include
the most valued customer requirements and will be designed to provide satisfaction levels
- 166 -
6-Empirical Study
as high as the best of its competitors, the likelihood of attracting customers to use the
facility is also increased. Both the company and its clients could directly benefit from the
use of the presented structured approach. Essentially, the exercise allowed not only the
identification of customers and their needs but also the execution of a competitive analysis
to determine potential improvement areas (with reference to an established Sure Start
nursery).
Figure 6.3 The HoQ for the Children’s Nursery
- 167 -
6-Empirical Study
The company’s Partnership Development Manager and the other members of the
design team were very satisfied with the results of the study, which after being presented
orally, were summarised in a report for distribution. They will be used to improve the
design of the nursery on which this study was based. In addition, an article describing the
methodology used during this study will be published in the company’s newsletter to
disseminate the results obtained.
From the author’s point of view some of the framework’s methods were
successfully put into practice during the schematic design stage. The exercise showed that
the guide was useful during the implementation process because it gave methodical
assistance throughout. Similarly, the activities for building quality into the early stages of
the project helped to identify customers and their needs and to systematically translate them
into technical characteristics by means of the HoQ.
With reference to the framework’s performance, the initial evidence from this study,
suggests that, during its early stages, it represents a practical approach that can be used in
construction. Nevertheless, further research is needed to explore the subsequent stages of
the framework and to confirm or otherwise the results obtained.
6.7 Limitations
In addition to the benefits of this study, some limitations were also apparent. As is
the case in the industry [14], the construction project undertaken had a major constraint,
time. This impeded carrying out a more detailed analysis of customer needs to increase the
reliability of the results. Focus groups, as has already been mentioned, may not be very
representative of the population and can be expensive. A complementary survey could be
used to cover a wider sample of customers.
The availability of the building handbook [134] for Nurseries helped to save time
during the data collection stage. Such information, however, may not be available for other
- 168 -
6-Empirical Study
types of projects, thereby prolonging this activity. Agreeing the characteristics necessary to
satisfy customer needs and determining the values in the relationship matrix tend to be
time-consuming activities [103].
Since the project undertaken had research objectives rather than commercial ones, it
was relatively easy to run a focus group and to carry out the competitive analysis.
Confidentiality was promoted at all times, so organisations were happy to provide the
required information. This may not always be the case and it may be difficult for companies
to gain access to competitors’ information.
The study was made easier by the fact that the organisation was quite advanced in
its quality journey. The company could appreciate the value of the framework since most of
the methods included in the pyramid were not “new” for its staff. More time and training
(and cost) may be required when performing a similar study in a company that is starting its
quality journey.
The limitations reported here should be considered when applying any stages of the
framework to other projects, as this will help to facilitate the process and to increase its
reliability and validity.
6.8 Summary
In order to assess the framework in the early stages of the construction process, an
empirical study was performed in one of the companies that took part in the previous phases
of the research. The project involved the design of a new Children’s Nursery in the
Birmingham area, as part of the NHS Sure Start Programme to build up to 2,500 such
centres by the end of March 2008.
The implementation guide designed to give assistance during the application of the
framework’s methods was successfully employed to identify customers and their needs and
also to translate them into technical terminology. In this regard, the HoQ proved to be a
- 169 -
6-Empirical Study
very useful approach to prioritise both customer needs and technical characteristics.
Following a literature review, almost 180 requirements were found. A focus group was run
in a Sure Start nursery located near to the new site, to reduce these to a more manageable
number. This resulted in a list of 20 which were ranked by importance at the Sure Start and
two “best” nurseries close to the one to be built. The priority of the customer requirements
changed as a result of the inclusion of competitors’ performance.
A set of technical characteristics was proposed to satisfy the needs collected, and
their relationship with each of the customer requirements agreed. This resulted in a list of
prioritised technical characteristics. To make the exercise more realistic, costs were
considered in the final part of the HoQ. The results pointed out the technical characteristics
that should be given priority during detailed design activities.
The surveys conducted in both the UK and Mexico (see Chapter 3) identified the
early stages of the construction process as the ones in which quality improvement methods
were rarely implemented. Having applied the first stages of the framework in practice, the
preliminary evidence presented here suggests that the methods included in it, can be
“systematically” employed in construction. Essentially, they may be used for: identifying
customers and their needs, determining technical characteristics, enhancing communication
with customers, improving designs and ultimately satisfying customers.
As with many approaches, the one reported here has certain limitations associated
with it. The use of focus groups, for instance, does not ensure that the general population
has been sampled during the data collection stage. Surveys or any other method from those
included in the “gathering customer needs” box in the pyramid, may be used to alleviate
this problem. Databases with customer requirements may not be readily available when
applying the framework. To lessen the impact of this limitation, construction companies can
generate databases with information about previous similar projects.
- 170 -
6-Empirical Study
A full competitive analysis may not be feasible in all cases. This problem could be
lessened with the use of information collected by say government offices, as was the case in
this research. However, such information may not necessarily coincide with that required in
the particular project. Finally, the application of the framework in a company that is starting
its quality journey may require training to ensure that its staff are aware of the relevant
quality methods. This, undoubtedly can make its application more costly. Despite these
limitations, the empirical study presented in this chapter has demonstrated the value of
structured and systematic approaches to building quality into the early phases of
construction projects.
- 171 -
7-Conclusions
Chapter 7. Conclusions and Future Work
7.1 Conclusions
As stated in the introduction, this thesis has dealt with quality issues in the
construction industry. Essentially, the author has gained a better understanding of both
the chronic problems in the sector and various methods, traditionally used in
manufacturing, for quality improvement. This constituted the foundation for proposing
a framework aimed at building quality into construction projects.
The main argument behind this work is that the construction industry requires
systematic approaches for ensuring that quality is built into products to, ultimately,
satisfy customer needs. The author believes that the use of such approaches in practice
can bring about quality improvements and better levels of customer satisfaction. In fact,
the intention of this study was not only to demonstrate that companies can obtain
benefits from such approaches, but also to develop a practical framework to support
practitioners’ efforts for improving quality.
To date, research on quality in the construction industry has received little
attention in comparison with, say, manufacturing. The latter is at the forefront of
developing and implementing quality improvement methods as evidenced from the
amount of literature dedicated to it. Quality performance in construction then, has
normally lagged behind that of manufacturing. Since everybody is a customer of the
industry, improvements in the sector can help to increase the quality of life. Hence,
construction companies require practical advice and support for adopting and
implementing initiatives for continuous quality improvement.
Based on the objectives set at the beginning of this work, the research was
divided into four main stages: literature review, experimental work to determine current
- 172 -
7-Conclusions
practices, then the development and evaluation of the framework. The literature review
has shown that construction has certain characteristics that make it a “peculiar”
industry. In addition, the fact that many parties are involved in the execution of a single
project has normally led to fragmentation. It is no surprise then, that construction has
chronic problems linked to customer’s needs management, design management,
contractual arrangements, control of construction and quality.
Practitioners, researchers and governments have tried to solve some of these
problems by developing models, frameworks and methodologies aimed at improving
performance. However, they focus on one or two quality issues only, just on one or two
stages in the construction process, or on particular types of project e.g. affordable
housing. A common feature of most of these approaches is that there is little evidence in
the literature of their practical application.
The industry has been challenged to adopt some of the concepts and methods
that have produced quality improvements in manufacturing. In order to address this
issue in more detail, a review of quality improvement methods was carried out. In the
event, more than 100 such methods were found, but only a fraction of them was chosen
for further analysis because some were either variations of others or were too specific in
their scope of application.
The resultant methods were grouped into seven categories and a postal survey
carried out in both the UK and Mexico to determine their level of use and perceived
importance within the construction industry. Having analysed the instrument in terms of
reliability and content with the data collected in the UK, its validity was demonstrated.
The same was not possible with the information gathered in Mexico because of the low
response rate, however this was felt not to present a problem since the same
categorisation of methods was used in both cases.
- 173 -
7-Conclusions
The results of the survey revealed that the industry had paid very little attention
to analysing customer needs and implementing formal methods for building quality into
their projects. While the Mexican results could not be generalised, an interesting finding
was that, in general, they were in agreement with those obtained in the UK. With
reference to use, quality control, performance measures and technology were the most
widely practiced methods. The results for perceived importance were, in most cases, in
line with those reported for use, although generally the importance ratings were ranked
higher. These similarities allowed conclusions to be drawn which together with the
information gleaned from the literature review provided a good basis on which to
develop the framework.
To overcome the drawbacks found in the approaches reported in the literature,
the concept of quality in construction was divided into three main groups: corporate,
product and service quality. With reference to the first, previous researchers had
proposed the use of CSFs for TQM implementation as indicators of the quality
practices. Since those reported were valid for manufacturing rather than construction, a
postgraduate in the University carried out an independent study to verify their relevance
to the sector [108]. A further analysis of these factors was carried out to determine how
they could be integrated into the framework. Having analysed the quality policies of
five companies, it was observed that they could be integrated into this document. This
constituted the first element in the framework. Product quality was addressed by
adopting the eight dimensions reported in the literature and service quality by the ten
associated ones. The quality improvement methods were then linked to the most
suitable construction stages and a graphical representation created. It not only displayed
the key components: quality policy, product and service quality, the construction
- 174 -
7-Conclusions
process, quality improvement methods, people and their culture, but also fulfilled the set
of “attractive” requirements.
The framework was piloted in two UK companies, which resulted in minor
modifications being made to it. Before its evaluation in five UK companies, interviews
were arranged with representatives from each. The interviewees concurred that the
framework was simple, systematic, easy to understand, well structured, practical and
applicable to the construction sector. One of the case-companies considered that it was
not comprehensive mainly because it did not show the various procurement routes that
can be followed. Since this would have lead to a more complex layout, it was felt better
to leave the framework as it was and to tailor it, if necessary, to the particular project.
Concurrent with the evaluation, the companies’ approaches to building quality
into projects were investigated. Some had informal methodologies but could use the
framework to “formalise” practices and make them systematic. Most of the
organisations were familiar with some of the quality improvement methods included in
the framework, however QFD, TRIZ and CE (formal methods) were considered “new”.
This observation is in line with the findings of the survey.
The last phase of the research dealt with the implementation of some of the
framework’s methods (particularly those from the groups gathering, organising
customer needs and formal methods) that support the design stage of the construction
process. This included the use of the implementation guide associated with the
framework. The outcomes from this empirical study were a better understanding of
customer needs, their main requirements to be considered during the latter phases of the
construction process, and better communication with customers in comparison with
previous similar projects. It was impossible to determine whether customer satisfaction
had increased, because the project was not due for completion until 2007, however
- 175 -
7-Conclusions
during the focus group exercise the customers showed a great deal of interest in the
methodology because it was obvious that their opinions were being considered. The
company will now look at the results generated by this method and those from the
design team to ratify the customers’ requirements before the next stage.
To summarise, the key objectives presented in Chapter 1 have been fulfilled.
Various quality improvement methods, which can be applied in construction, were
reviewed and their level of use and importance determined by means of a postal survey
conducted in the UK and in Mexico. Having analysed the data, a set of ‘best practices’
for the sector was attained. The results of the review and the survey provided a good
foundation on which to base the development of a framework, which addressed most of
the limitations of the published approaches in the sector to date. Finally, case studies
were conducted to investigate how construction companies dealt with quality issues and
to evaluate the proposed framework. Overall, this research has demonstrated that the use
of systematic approaches for building quality into construction projects is not only
feasible but also beneficial.
7.2 Limitations and Further Work
While the key objectives of this research have been achieved, there were a
number of limitations associated with the work, which could be addressed in further
research. First of all, the response rate from the survey conducted in Mexico was
somewhat low, even after follow up letters had been sent to increase it. This impeded
reliability and validity analyses to be conducted on these results and so the conclusions
could not be generalised. However, since the survey form was validated with the data
collected in the UK, this weakness did not influence the framework development. To
- 176 -
7-Conclusions
consider the Mexican construction industry would necessitate an alternative type of
survey to be performed.
With reference to the comprehensiveness of the framework, there are various
aspects that should be mentioned. The emerging TFV theory, one of the most recent
developments in construction management, promotes task, flow and value management.
The first two were neglected in the framework but could certainly be included.
Essentially, the insertion of supportive methods in the base of the pyramid is
recommended. A similar survey to that carried out in this research may be conducted to
determine the extent of application of various task and flow management tools e.g. the
last planner, design structure matrix, work breakdown structure. The results would
indicate which tools are being applied in practice and which need more development.
Although this research focused on quality, during the case studies it became
evident that the industry was also concerned about safety and environmental issues.
Further research is required to address these two important aspects that, undoubtedly,
would make the framework more comprehensive. Safety and environmental
improvement tools would then need to be investigated in detail along with their
potential roles within the construction process.
The proposed framework evaluation was limited to a “walk-through” in five UK
construction companies. Its use in practice is the best way to identify its limitations and
improvement opportunities. In this regard, an empirical study was conducted on the
design stage of the process which led to positive results (e.g. better communication with
customers, better knowledge of customer requirements). Further research however is
needed to confirm both these and the remainder of the framework.
Although the survey was conducted in companies involved in both building and
civil engineering, the framework evaluation was limited to a building project only.
- 177 -
7-Conclusions
Further research is required to determine its relevance to civil engineering projects.
Another limitation of the work was that a large company rather than a small one took
part in the empirical study. The framework has not taken into account the effect of a
company’s size. While this aspect was considered in the survey, the results of which
were subsequently used as a basis for developing the framework, and the tool was
intended to be useful to companies of all sizes, this has not been accomplished. Case
studies in SMEs should, therefore, be considered.
Two other areas that could be investigated to further the research already
undertaken are:
1) The possibility and development of supportive software to facilitate the
implementation of the framework. This could then be used in
conjunction with that already available on the market for the
improvement tools.
2) To determine alternative methods that could be used to give the
customer benchmarking data suitable for use in the HoQ matrix.
Finally, the objectives set at the outset of this research have been achieved and it
is hoped that this thesis will be beneficial to many companies and will encourage future
studies in the construction field.
- 178 -
References
References
1. Kathawala, Y. and Motwani, J., (1994), Implementing QFD: a Systems
Approach. The TQM Magazine. 6(6), pp. 31-37
2. Martins, A. and Aspinwall, E.M., (2001), Quality Function Deployment: an
Empirical Study in the UK. Total Quality Management. 12(5), pp. 575-588
3. Shulyak, L., (1997), Introduction to TRIZ, in 40 Principles. TRIZ Keys to
Technical Innovation, G. Altshuller, Editor, Technical Innovation Centre, Inc.:
Worcester, ME.
4. Abdalla, H.S., (1999), Concurrent Engineering for Global Manufacturing.
International Journal of Production Economics. 60-61, pp. 251-260
5. Carter, D.E. and Baker, B.S., (1991), Concurrent Engineering: The Product
Development Environment for the 1990s. Ed. Addison-Wesley. Reading,
Massachusetts, US.
6. Cohen, L., (1995), Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for
You. Ed. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. US.
7. Mann, D., (2001), An Introduction to TRIZ: The Theory of Inventive Problem
Solving. Creativity and Innovation Management. 10(2), pp. 123-125
8. Domb, E., (1997), TRIZ Case Studies: Report on the Total Product Development
Symposium, TRIZ Journal Online. (December)
9. Sobek, D.K., Ward, A.C. and Liker, J.K., (1999), Toyota's Principles of Set-
Based Concurrent Engineering. Sloan Management Review. 49(2), pp. 67-83
10. Walker, A., (2002), Project Management in Construction. 4th ed. ed. Blackwell
Publishing. UK.
- 179 -
References
11. Pheng, L.S. and Peh, K.W., (1996), A Framework for Implementing TQM in
Construction. The TQM Magazine. 8(5), pp. 39-49
12. Wilson, B., (2002), Accelerating Change: A Report by the Strategic Forum for
Construction. Ed. Department of Trade and Industry. UK.
13. DTI, (2003), Construction Statistics Annual. Department of Trade and Industry.
UK.
14. Koskela, L., (2000), An Exploration Towards a Production Theory and its
Application to Construction. Espoo, VTT Building Technology. Finland.
15. DTI, (2003), Review of Early Estimates of Construction Output for GDP in
2003. Department of Trade and Industry. UK.
16. INEGI, (2004), GDP for economic activity since 1960. National Institute of
Statistics, Geography and Informatics. Mexico. www.inegi.org.mx
17. RAM, (2004), Construction Industry Market Review 2003,
www.researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?cat_id=0&report_id=34791
18. Dale, B.G., (2003), Managing Quality. 3rd ed. Ed. Blackwell Publishing. UK.
19. Ortega, I. and Bisgaard, S., (2000), Quality Improvement in the Construction
Industry: Three Systematic Approaches. Total Quality Management. 11(4, 5&6),
pp. S383-S392
20. Brockmann, C., (2002), Modelling Customer Satisfaction for the AEC Industry.
in AACE International Transactions. pp. PM16.1-PM16.8
21. Diaz-Murillo, M., (1993), A Strategy for the Implementation of Quality Function
Deployment in the Design-Construction Industry, PhD Thesis, Texas A&M
University, US
22. Harris, F. and McCaffer, R., (1995), Modern Construction Management. Ed.
Blackwell Science. UK.
- 180 -
References
23. Koskela, L., Huovila, P. and Leinonen, J., (2002), Design Management in
Building Construction: From Theory to Practice. Journal of Construction
Research. 3(1), pp. 1-16
24. ISO9001, (2000), Quality Management System: Requirements. British Standard
Institution. London.
25. Brewer, J. and Hunter, A., (1989), Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles.
Ed. Sage Library of Social Research. US.
26. Delgado, D., Benites, A. and Aspinwall, E., (2006), New Product Development
Empirical Studies in the UK. Accepted International Journal of Product
Development.
27. Delgado, D. and Aspinwall, E., (2003), QFD vs TRIZ as Manufacturing Design
Tools-A Review. in Proceedings of the 20th International Manufacturing
Conference. Cork, Ireland: Cork Institute of Technology. pp. 133-140
28. Delgado, D. and Aspinwall, E., (2005), Improvement Methods in the UK and
Mexican Construction Industries-A Comparison. in Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Quality and Reliability. Beijing, China: Beijing
Institute of Technology. pp. 929-941
29. Delgado, D.J. and Aspinwall, E., (2005), Improvement Tools in the UK
Construction Industry. Construction Management and Economics. 23(9), pp.
965-977
30. Merrit, F.S., Loftin, M.K. and Ricketts, J.T., (1996), Standard Handbook for
Civil Engineers. 4th ed. Ed. Mc Graw Hill. US.
31. Evbuomwan, N.F.O. and Anumba, C.J., (1998), An Integrated Framework for
Concurrent Life-Cycle Design and Construction. Advances in Engineering
Software. 29(7-9), pp. 587-597
- 181 -
References
32. Koskela, L., (2003), Is Structural Change the Primary Solution to the Problems
of Construction? Building Research & Information. 31(2), pp. 85-96
33. Hughes, W., (1991), Modelling the Construction Process Using Plans of Work.
in East Meets West: International Conference on Construction Project
Modelling and Productivity. Dubrovnik. pp. 81-86
34. Austen, A.D. and Neale, R.H., (1984), Managing Construction Projects: a
Guide to Processes and Procedures. Ed. International Labour Office. Geneva,
Switzerland.
35. AIA, (2004), Primer on Project Delivery. The American Institute of Architects
and The Associated General Contractors of America. US.
36. Turin, D.A., (2003), Building as a Process. Building Research & Information.
31(12), pp. 180-187
37. Egan, J., (1998), Rethinking Construction. Department of Environment,
Transport and the Regions. UK.
38. Ballard, H.G., (2000), The Last Planner System of Production Control, PhD
Thesis, The University of Birmingham
39. Ballard, H.G. and Howell, G.A., (2003), Lean Project Management. Building
Research & Information. 31(2), pp. 119-133
40. Winston, E.P., (1997), Managing the Development Process. The Pratt Institute
Center for Community and Environmental Development (PICCED). NY.
www.designadvisor.org/pdfs/managing.pdf
41. Kamara, J.M., Anumba, C.J. and Evbuomwan, N.F.O., (2000), Establishing and
Processing Client Requirements-A Key Aspect of Concurrent Engineering in
Construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 7(1),
pp. 15-28
- 182 -
References
42. Serpell, A., De Solminihac, H. and Figari, C., (2002), Quality in Construction:
the Situation of the Chilean Construction Industry. Total Quality Management.
13(5), pp. 579-587
43. Koskela, L., (1992), Application of the New Production Philosophy to
Construction. Stanford University. Stanford, CA.
44. Eldin, N., (1997), Concurrent Engineering: A Schedule Reduction Tool. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management. 123(3), pp. 354-362
45. ISO9000, (2000), Quality Management System: Fundamentals and Vocabulary.
British Standard Institution. London.
46. Yasamis, F., Arditi, D. and Mohammadi, J., (2002), Assessing Contractor
Quality Performance. Construction Management and Economics. 20, pp. 211-
223
47. Garvin, D., (1984), Product Quality: An Important Strategic Weapon. Business
Horizons. (March-April), pp. 40-43
48. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., (1985), A Conceptual Model
of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research. Journal of
Marketing. 49(4), pp. 41-50
49. Taylor, M. and Hosker, H., (1992), Quality Assurance for Building Design. Ed.
Longman Scientific & Technical. UK.
50. OED, (2005), Oxford English Dictionary, www.oed.com
51. Wong, K.Y., (2005), A Framework for Knowledge Management Implementation
in SMEs, Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Birmingham
52. Formoso, C., Tzortzopoulos, P. and Liedtke, R., (2002), A Model for Managing
the Product Development Process in House Building. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management. 9(5/6), pp. 419-432
- 183 -
References
53. Kagioglou, M., Cooper, G., Aouad, G. and Sexton, M., (2000), Rethinking
Construction: the Generic Design and Construction Process Protocol.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 7(2), pp. 141-153
54. Emmit, S., Sander, D. and Christoffersen, A., (2004), Implementing Value
Through Lean Design Management. in 12th Annual Conference on Lean
Construction. Denmark
55. Kamara, J.M. and Anumba, C.J., (2001), ClientPro: A Prototype Software for
Client Requirements Processing in Construction. Advances in Engineering
Software. 32, pp. 141-158
56. Womack, J., Jones, D. and Roos, D., (1990), The Machine that Changed the
World. Ed. Rawson. NY.
57. LCI, (2000), Lean Construction Institute, www.leanconstruction.org
58. Serpell, A. and Alarcon, L., (1998), Construction Process Improvement
Methodology for Construction Projects. International Journal of Project
Management. 14(4), pp. 215-221
59. Arditi, D. and Lee, D., (2003), Assessing the Corporate Service Quality
Performance of Design-build Contractors using Quality Function Deployment.
Construction Management and Economics. 21, pp. 175-185
60. Maloney, W.F., (2002), Construction Product/Service and Customer
Satisfaction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 128(6), pp.
522-529
61. Al-Momani, A.H., (2000), Examining Service Quality within Construction
Processes. Technovation. 20, pp. 643-651
- 184 -
References
62. Abdel-Razek, R., (1998), Quality Improvement in Egypt: Methodology and
Implementation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 124(5),
pp. 354-360
63. DHUD, (2005), Project Book: A Design-Focused Workbook. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. US. www.designadvisor.org
64. CIC, (2003), Design Quality Indicator. Construction Industry Council. UK.
www.dqi.org.uk
65. Dale, B.G. and McQuarter, R., (1998), Managing Business Improvement &
Quality. Implementing Key Tools & Techniques. Ed. Blackwell Publishing. UK.
66. Juran, J.M., (1992), Quality by Design: The New Steps for Planning Quality into
Goods and Services. Ed. The Free Press. US.
67. Mann, R. and Kehoe, D., (1994), An Evaluation of the Effects of Quality
Improvement Activities on Business Performance. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management. 11(4), pp. 29-44
68. Mears, P., (1995), Quality Improvement Tools & Techniques. Ed. Mc Graw Hill.
US.
69. Tague, N.R., (1995), The Quality Toolbox. Ed. Quality Press. US.
70. Kanji, G.K. and Asher, M., (1996), 100 Methods for Total Quality Management.
Ed. SAGE Publications. UK.
71. Burns, A.C. and Bush, R.F., (2001), Marketing Research. Ed. Prentice Hall. US.
72. Berent, P.H., (1966), The Depth Interview. Journal of Advertising Research.
6(2), pp. 32-40
73. Nayar, S., (2003), A Window into What Customers Think and Feel. American
Demographics. 25(2), pp. 6
- 185 -
References
74. Bossert, J.L., (1991), Quality Function Deployment: A Practitioner's Approach.
Ed. ASQC Press. US.
75. Chua, D.K.H., (2003), Value Improvement Methods, in The Civil Engineering
Handbook: New Directions in Civil Engineering, W.F. Chen and J.Y.R. Liew,
Editors, CRC Press: US.
76. Seng, T.J. and Abdalla, H.S., (2004), A Human-Computer System for
Collaborative Design (HCSCD). Journal of Materials Processing Technology.
155-156, pp. 1964-1971
77. Alexander, J., (2004), Crafting Mission Statements. Association Management.
56(1), pp. 23
78. McCabe, B., AbouRizk, S. and Gavin, J., (2002), Time of Sampling Strategies
for Asphalt Pavement Quality Assurance. Journal of Construction Engineering
& Management. 18(1), pp. 85-89
79. Landin, A., (2000), ISO9001 within the Swedish Construction Sector.
Construction Management & Economics. 18(5), pp. 509-518
80. Bennet, J., (2000), Construction: The Third Way. Ed. Butterworth-Heinemann.
UK.
81. Reid, G., (2003), Mediation of Disputes an Option to Litigation. Building
Design & Construction. 44(11), pp. 19-20
82. Tidd, J. and Bodley, K., (2002), The Influence of Project Novelty on the New
Product Development Process. R&D Management. 32(2), pp. 127-138
83. Nijssen, E.J. and Frambach, R.T., (2000), Determinants of the Adoption of New
Product Development Tools by Industrial Firms. Industrial Marketing
- 186 -
References
84. Lahndt, L., (1999), TQM Tools for the Construction Industry. Engineering
Management Journal. 11(2), pp. 23-27
85. McIntyre, C. and Kirschenman, M., (2000), Survey of TQM in Construction
Industry in Upper Midwest. Journal of Management in Engineering. 16(5), pp.
67-70
86. CEC, (2003), Commission Recommendation of 06/05/2003 Concerning the
Definition of Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Commission of the
European Communities.
87. SE, (2004), Definition of Micro, Small and Medium Sized Companies,
www.se.gob.mx
88. FAME, (2004), Financial Analysis Made Easy, www.fame.bvdep.com
89. DEXPRO, (2004), Mexican Construction Companies Database,
www.bdatos.com.mx
90. CMIC, (2004), Personal Telephone Call. Mexican Construction Industry
Department.
91. Coolican, H., (1999), Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Ed.
Hodder & Stoughton. UK.
92. Cooper, C., (2002), Individual Differences. 2nd ed. Ed. Arnold. Malta.
93. Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G., (1989), An Instrument for
Measuring the Critical Factors of Quality Management. Decision Sciences.
20(4), pp. 810-829
94. Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J., (1996), Identification of the Critical Factors of
TQM. Decision Sciences. 27(1), pp. 1-21
95. SPSS, (2001), SPSS for Windows 98. SPSS Inc. US.
- 187 -
References
96. Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S., (1977), Estimating Non-Response Bias in
Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research. 14(3), pp. 396-402
97. Campbell, B., (2002), If TRIZ is Such a Good Idea, Why Isn't Everyone Using
It?, TRIZ Journal Online. (April)
98. Stanton, N. and Young, M., (1999), A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics. Ed.
Taylor and Francis. London, UK.
99. Kinnear, T. and Taylor, J., (1983), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach.
2nd ed. Ed. Mc Graw Hill. NY.
100. Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L., (1989), Using Multivariate Statistics. 2nd ed. Ed.
Harper Collins. NY.
101. Levene, H., (1960), Robust Test for Equality of Variances, in Contributions to
Probability and Statistics, I. Olkin, Editor, Stanford University Press.
102. Blouin, D.C. and Riopelle, A.J., (2004), The Difference Between t and z and the
Difference it Makes. Journal of General Psychology. 131(1), pp. 77-84
103. Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M.T. and Kiziltas, S., (2005), Strategic Use of Quality
Function Deployment (QFD) in the Construction Industry. Building and
Environment. 40(2), pp. 245-255
104. Corbella, D.S. and Maturana, S., (2003), Citizen's Role in Health Services:
Satisfaction Behaviour: Kano's Model, part 1. Quality Management in Health
Care. 12(1), pp. 64-71
105. Yusof, S.M., (2000), Development of a Framework for TQM Implementation in
Small Businesses, Unpublished PhD Thesis, The University of Birmingham
106. Tzortzopoulos, P., Sexton, M., Cooper, R. and Kagilglou, M., (2004),
Evaluation of Product Development Process Models Focusing on Their
- 188 -
References
Implementation. in Proceedings of the 12th IGLC Conference on Lean
Construction. Denmark
107. Owlia, M.S., (1996), A Customer-Oriented Approach to the Measurement and
Improvement of Quality in Engineering Education, Unpublished PhD Thesis,
The University of Birmingham
108. Delgado, D., Liu, J. and Aspinwall, E., (2005), A Comparison of Surveys of
TQM Critical Success Factors in Manufacturing and Construction UK
Industries. in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Quality
and Reliability. Beijing, China: Beijing Institute of Technology. pp. 135-145
109. Seaver, M., (2001), Implementing ISO 9000:2000. Ed. Gower. UK.
110. Tennant, C. and Roberts, P.A.B., (2000), Hoshin Kanri: a Technique for
Strategic Quality Management. Quality Assurance. 8, pp. 77-90
111. Preiser, W.F.E. and Vischer, J.C., (2005), Assessing Building Performance. Ed.
Elsevier. UK.
112. Torbica, Z.M. and Stroh, R.C., (1999), Impact of Total Quality Management on
Home-Buyer Satisfaction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management. 125(3), pp. 198-203
113. Terninko, J., Zusman, A. and Zlotin, B., (1998), Systematic Innovation: An
Introduction to TRIZ. Ed. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Fl.
114. Pheng, L.S., (1993), The Rationalisation of Quality in the Construction Industry:
Some Empirical Findings. Construction Management and Economics. 11, pp.
247-259
115. Domb, E. and Kowalick, J., (1997), How to Bring TRIZ Into Your Organisation.
TRIZ Journal Online. (October)
- 189 -
References
116. Gao, J.X., Manson, B.M. and Kyratsis, P., (2000), Implementation of
Concurrent Engineering in the Suppliers to the Automotive Industry. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology. 107(1-3), pp. 201-208
117. Govers, C.P.M., (2001), QFD Not Just a Tool but a Way of Quality
Management. International Journal Production Economics. 69(2), pp. 151-159
118. Baidoun, S. and Zairi, M., (2003), A Proposed Model of TQM Implementation in
the Palestinian Context. TQM & Business Excellence. 14(10), pp. 1193-1211
119. Serpell, A., (1999), Integrating Quality Systems in Construction Projects: the
Chilean Case. International Journal of Project Management. 17(5), pp. 317-322
120. Yin, R.K., (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Ed. Sage
Publications. London, UK.
121. Eisenhardt, K.M., (1989), Building Theories from Case Study Research.
Academy of Management Review. 14(4), pp. 532-550
122. Barnes, R.B., Fox, M.T. and Morris, D.S., (2004), Exploring the Linkage
Between Internal Marketing, Relationship Marketing, and Service Quality: a
Case Study of a Consulting Organisation. Total Quality Management. 15(5-6),
pp. 593-601
123. Pheng, L.S. and Teo, J.A., (2004), Implementing Total Quality Management in
Construction Firms. Journal of Management in Engineering. 20(1), pp. 8-15
124. Nima, M.A., Abdul-Kadir, M.R. and Jaafar, M.S., (2002), Constructability
Concepts in West Port Highway in Malaysia. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management. 128(4), pp. 348-356
125. Love, P.E.D., Irani, Z., Cheng, E. and Li, H., (2002), A Model for Supporting
Inter-Organisational Relations in the Supply Chain. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management. 9(1), pp. 2-15
- 190 -
References
126. Mitropoulos, P. and Howell, G.A., (2002), Renovation Projects: Design Process
Problems and Improvement Mechanisms. Journal of Management in
Engineering. 8(4), pp. 179-185
127. Chan, A.P.C., (2000), Evaluation of Enhanced Design and Build System-a Case
Study of a Hospital Project. Construction Management and Economics. 18(7),
pp. 863-871
128. IDEF, (1993), Integration Definition for Function Modelling (IDEF-0). FIPS
Publication 183 ed. Ed. National Institute of Standards and Technology. US.
129. Wu, B., (1996), Manufacturing Systems Design and Analysis. 2nd ed. Ed.
Chapman & Hall. Oxford.
130. Morrison, L.J., (2004), Measuring Service Quality: A Review and Critic of
Research Using SERVQUAL. International Journal of Market Research. 46(4),
pp. 479-497
131. Torbica, Z.M., (1997), TQM and Customer Satisfaction in Home-Building, PhD
Thesis, University of Florida, US
132. Start, S., (2005), Sure Start Programme Website, www.surestart.gov.uk
133. SFA, (1999), Services Supplement: Design and Management, in Standard Form
of Agreement for the appointment of an architect, Royal Institute of British
Architects: UK.
134. DE, (1992), Building Handbook: Nursery Schools. Ed. Department of
Education. Northern Ireland.
135. DFES, (2003), Full Day Care: National Standards for Under 8s Day Care and
Childminding. Ed. Department for Education and Skills. UK.
136. QPAP, (1999), The Education (School Premises) Regulations. Ed. Queen's
Printer of Acts of Parliament. UK.
- 191 -
References
137. Amos, L., (1997), QFD in Theory & Practice, Unpublished Undergraduate
Research Project, The University of Birmingham
138. OFSTED, (2006), Combined Inspection Reports, www.ofsted.gov.uk
139. Wasserman, G.S., (1993), On How to Prioritise Design Requirements During
the QFD Planning Process. IIE Transactions. 25(3), pp. 59-65
140. Stewart, R.A., Mohamed, S. and Daet, R., (2002), Strategic Implementation of
IT/IS Projects in Construction: a Case Study. Automation in Construction. 11,
pp. 681-694
141. Kärkkäinen, H., Piippo, P., Puumalainen, K. and Tuominen, M., (2001),
Assessment of Hidden and Future Customer Needs in Finnish Business-to-
Business Companies. R & D Management. 31(4), pp. 391-407
142. Budhwani, K., (2002), Once You 've Found Them, Never Let Them Go. CMA
143. Lewis, B., (1999), Focusing on Both Internal and External Customers is the Key
to Career Success. InfoWorld. 21(48), pp. 104
144. Brooks, R.F., Lings, I.N. and Botschen, M.A., (1999), Internal Marketing and
Customer Driven Wavefronts. The Services Industries Journal. 19(4), pp. 49-67
145. Pfau, B., Detzel, D. and Geller, A., (1991), Satisfy Your Internal Customers. The
Journal of Business Strategy. 12(6), pp. 9-13
146. Juran, J.M., (1975), The Non-Pareto Principle; Mea Culpa. Quality Progress.
8(5), pp. 8-9
- 192 -
Bibliography
Bibliography
147. Abdul-Rahman, H., Kwan, C.L. and Woods, P.C., (1999), Quality Function
Deployment in Construction Design: Application in Low-Cost Housing Design.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management. 16(6), pp. 591-605
148. Akao, Y., (1997), QFD: Past, Present and Future. in The 3rd International
Symposium on Quality Function Deployment. Linköping, Sweden
149. Alarcon, L. and Mardones, D., (1998), Improving the Design-Construction
Interface. in 6th Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.
Guaruja, Brasil
150. Apte, P.R., (1999), TRIZ in MEMS. in Proceedings of SPIE, Indo-Russian
workshop on Micromechanical Systems. pp. 42-47
151. Bassioni, H.A., Price, A.D.F. and Hassan, T.M., (2004), Performance
Measurement in Construction. Journal of Management in Engineering. 20(2),
pp. 42-50
152. Bauer-Kurz, L., (2000), A Comparison of the Global-8D-Process and TRIZ.
TRIZ Journal Online. (July)
153. Bird, M., (2003), Can't get no satisfaction? In-Store Marketing. (July), pp. 28-29
154. Brah, S.A., Tee, S.S.L. and Rao, B., (2002), Relationship Between TQM and
Performance of Singapore Companies. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management. 19, pp. 356-379
155. Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M., (1995), Product Development: Past
Research, Present Findings, and Future Directions. Academy of Management
Review. 20(2), pp. 343-378
- 193 -
Bibliography
156. Chan, L.K. and Wu, M.L., (2002), Quality Function Deployment: A
Comprehensive Review of its Concepts and Methods. Quality Engineering.
15(1), pp. 23-35
157. Chaneski, W.S., (1998), The Seven "New" Tools for Quality Management.
Modern Machine Shop. 71(1), pp. 54-55
158. Chen, W.F. and Liew, J.Y.R., (2003), The Civil Engineering Handbook: New
Directions in Civil Engineering. 2nd ed. Ed. CRC Press. US.
159. Cristiano, J.J., Liker, J.K. and White III, C.C., (2000), Customer-Driven Product
Development Through Quality Function Deployment in the US and Japan.
Journal of Product Innovation Management,. 17(4), pp. 286-308
160. Delgado, D. and Aspinwall, E., (2003), QFD Methodology and Practical
Applications-A review. in School of Engineering Research Symposium.
University of Birmingham, UK. pp. 1-5
161. Delgado, D.J., (2006), A Framework for Building Quality into Construction
Projects, Unpublished Ph D Thesis, University of Birmingham
162. Delgado, D.J. and Aspinwall, E.M., (2006), Quality Planning Improvement
Methods in the UK and Mexican Construction Industries. Submitted to Quality
And Reliability Engineering International.
163. Delgado, D.J. and Aspinwall, E.M., (2006), A Framework for Building Quality
into Construction Projects-Part I. Submitted to Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence.
164. Dey, P.K., (2000), Managing Projects in Fast Track: a Case of Public Sector
Organization in India. The International Journal of Public Sector Management.
13(7), pp. 588-609
- 194 -
Bibliography
165. Dorf, R., (2000), Technology Management Handbook. Ed. CRC Press LLC.
Boca Raton, UK.
166. Eldin, N., (2002), A Promising Planning Tool: Quality Function Deployment.
Cost Engineering. 44(3), pp. 28-37
167. Eldin, N. and Hikkle, V., (2003), Pilot Study of Quality Function Deployment in
Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
129(3), pp. 314-329
168. Fernandez, J.E., Chamberlin, J.L., Kramer, E.G., Broomall, J.H., Rori, H.A. and
Begley, R.L., (1994), Making the Neon Fun to Drive. in The 6th Symposium on
Quality Function Deployment. Novi, Michigan. pp. 483-508
169. Franceschini, F., (2002), Advanced Quality Function Deployment QFD. Ed. St.
Lucie Press. US.
170. Furusaka, S., Taira, T. and Aoki, Y., (2000), Application of Revised Quality
Function Deployment to Building Construction Projects. in CIB W78 Workshop.
Reykjavik, Iceland
171. Futrell, D., (1994), Ten Reasons Why Surveys Fail. Quality Progress. (April), pp.
65-69
172. Gargione, L.A., (1999), Using Quality Function Deployment in the Design
Phase of an Apartment Construction Project. in 7th Conference of the
International Group for Lean Construction. Berkeley, CA, US
173. Govers, C.P.M., (1996), What and How About Quality Function Deployment
(QFD). International Journal of Production Economics. 46-47, pp. 575-585
174. Griffin, A. and Hauser, J., (1992), Patterns of Communication Among
Marketing, Engineering and Manufacturing - A Comparison Between Two New
Product Teams. Management Science. 38(3), pp. 360-373
- 195 -
Bibliography
175. Hales, R. and Staley, D., (1995), Mix Target Costing, QFD for Successful New
Products. Marketing News. 29(1), pp. 18
176. Haque, B., Pawar, K.S. and Barson, R.J., (2000), Analysing Organizational
Issues in Concurrent New Product Development. International Journal of
Production Economics. 67(2), pp. 169-182
177. Hassan, S.A., (1999), Concurrent Engineering for Global Manufacturing.
International Journal of Production Economics. 60-61(3), pp. 251-260
178. Hauser, J. and Clausing, D., (1988), The House of Quality. Harvard Business
Review. 66(3), pp. 63-73
179. Huovila, P., Lakka, A., Laurikka, P. and Vainio, M., (1997), Involvement of
Customer Requirements in Building Design, in Lean Construction, L. Alarcon,
Editor, Balkema: Rotterdam.
180. Jones, E., Mann, D., Harrison, D. and Stanton, N.A., (2001), An Eco-Innovation
Case Study of Domestic Dishwashing Through the Application of TRIZ Tools.
Creative and Innovation Management. 10(1), pp. 3-14
181. Katcher, B.L., (2003), Make More Strategic Use of Customer Satisfaction
Surveys. Journal of Business Strategy. 24(1), pp. 34-37
182. Ling, F.Y.Y. and Chong, C.L.K., (2005), Design-and-Build Contractor's Service
Quality in Public Projects in Singapore. Building and Environment. 40(6), pp.
815-823
183. Love, P.E.D., Huang, J.C., Edwards, D.J. and Irani, Z., (2004), Nurturing a
Learning Organisation in Construction: a Focus on Strategic Shift,
Organisational Transformation, Customer Orientation and Quality Centred
Learning. Construction Innovation. 4(2), pp. 113-126
- 196 -
Bibliography
184. Mallon, J.C. and Mulligan, D.E., (1993), Quality Function Deployment-A
System for Meeting Customers' Needs. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management. 119(3), pp. 516-531
185. Mann, D. and Cathain, C.O., (2001), 40 Inventive (Architecture) Principles with
Examples. TRIZ Journal online. (July)
186. Mehta, P., (1994), Designed Chip Embeds User Concerns. Electronic
Engineering Times. (Issue 781), pp. 42-43
187. Moatazed-Keivani, R., Ghanbari-Parsa, A. and Kagaya, S., (1999), ISO9000
Standards: Perceptions and Experiences in the UK Construction Industry.
188. Murakami, R., (1994), How to Implement ISO 9000. CMA Magazine. 68(2), pp.
18-21
189. Nakagawa, T., (2001), Learning and Applying the Essence of TRIZ with Easier
USIT Procedure. in ETRIA World Conference TRIZ Future. University of Bath,
UK
190. Nijssen, E.D. and Lieshout, K.F.M., (1995), Awareness, Use and Effectiveness
of Models and Methods for New Product Development. European Journal of
Marketing. 29(10), pp. 27-44
191. Nunnally, J.C., (1978), Psychometric Theory. Ed. Mc Graw Hill. US.
192. Oakland, J., (1994), Total Quality Management, in Handbook of Quality
Management, D. Lock, Editor, Gower: Brookfield, Vt.
193. Oswald, T.H. and Burati, J., (1992), Identifying Customer Requirements through
Quality Function Deployment: Phase I: Feasibility Study. Construction Industry
Institute. US.
- 197 -
Bibliography
194. Ouellete, J., (1996), TRIZ-Based Tools Promote Innovation. The Industrial
Physicist. 2(3), pp. 14-15
195. Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall, E.M., (1996), A Framework for the Dimensions of
Quality in Higher Education. Quality Assurance in Education. 4(2), pp. 12-20
196. Pheng, L.S. and Yeap, L., (2001), Quality Function Deployment in Design/Build
Projects. Journal of Architectural Engineering. 7(2), pp. 30-39
197. Pheng, L.S. and E.T., F., (2002), Preparations for ISO9001:2000 - a Study of
ISO9001:1994 Certified Construction Firms. Construction Management and
Economics. 20(5), pp. 403-413
198. Poolton, J. and Barclay, I., (1998), New Product Development from Past
Research to Future Applications. Industrial Marketing Management. 27(3), pp.
197-212
199. Rawlinson, G., (2001), TRIZ: How to Manage the Head and Heart of
Innovation. Training Journal. (March), pp. 22-25
200. Rozenfield, H., De Oliveira, C.B.M. and Omokawa, R., (2000), Development of
a Concurrent Engineering Education Environment. International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing. 13(6), pp. 475-482
201. Savransky, S.D. and Stephan, C., (1996), TRIZ: The Methodology of Inventive
Problem-Solving. The Industrial Physicist. 2(4), pp. 22-25
202. Schweizer, T.P., (2002), Integrating TRIZ into the Curriculum: An Educational
Imperative. TRIZ Journal Online. (November)
203. Serpell, A. and Wagner, R., (1997), Application of Quality Function
Deployment (QFD) to the Determination of Design Characteristics of Building
Apartments, in Lean Construction, L. Alarcon, Editor, Balkema: Rotterdam.
- 198 -
Bibliography
204. Shammas-Toma, M., Seymour, D. and Clark, L., (1998), Obstacles to
Implementing Total Quality Management in the UK Construction Industry.
205. Shino, J. and Nishihara, R., (1990), Quality Development in the Construction
Industry, in Quality Function Deployment (QFD): Integrating Customer
Requirements into Product Design, Y. Akao, Editor, Productivity Press:
Portland, Oregon.
206. Stlichler, J.F. and Schumacher, L., (2003), The Gift of Customer Complaints.
Marketing Health Services. 23(4), pp. 14-15
207. Syed, A.M., Sang, L.P. and Torbica, Z., (2003), Use of Quality Function
Deployment in Civil Engineering Capital Project Planning. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management. 129(4), pp. 358-368
208. Tang, D., Zheng, L., Zhizhong, L. and Dongbo, L.Z., (2000), Re-Engineering of
the Design Process for Concurrent Engineering. Computers & Industrial
Engineering. 38(4), pp. 479-491
209. TRIZ, I., (2003), Frequently Asked Questions. Ideation International Inc.
Southfield, MI. www.ideationtriz.com/faq.asp
210. Tucker, D. and Hackney, R., (2000), Towards the Integration of Concurrent
Engineering Environments within Organisational Strategy. Journal of
Management Development. 19(3), pp. 179-189
211. Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D., (1995), Product Design and Development.
International ed. Ed. Mc Graw Hill. Singapore.
212. Yang, Y., Wang, S., Dulaimi, M. and Low, S., (2003), A Fuzzy Quality Function
Deployment System for Buildable Design Decision-Makings. Automation in
Construction. 12(4), pp. 381-393
- 199 -
Bibliography
213. Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E.M., (2000), Critical Success Factors in Small and
Medium Enterprises: Survey Results. Total Quality Management. 11(4/5 & 6),
pp. S448-S462
214. Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E., (2000), A Conceptual Framework for TQM
Implementation for SMEs. TQM Magazine. 12(1), pp. 31-36
215. Zlotin, B. and Zusman, A., (2000), Establishing the TRIZ Market. Ideation
International Inc. Detroit, Michigan. www.ideationtriz.com
- 200 -
Appendices
Appendix A
Survey on Quality Improvement Methods-
Letters and Questionnaire
- 201 -
Appendices
A.1 Original Cover letter
4/Mar/2004
«Title» «Manager_First_Name» «Manager_Last_Name»

«Manager_Function»
«Company_name»
«Address»
«Zip_code»
«Region»
Subject: Survey on Quality Improvement Methods in the Construction Industry
Dear «Title» «Manager_Last_Name»,
The application of quality improvement methods is an important aspect for building

quality into construction projects. The School of Engineering at the University of
Birmingham is currently researching the development of a framework for suggesting
different quality improvement methods depending on the nature of the construction
project to be developed.
The attached questionnaire is part of the first stage of the research in which it is hoped
to identify the breadth of usage of the different quality improvement methods within the
construction industry. I would greatly appreciate your help in completing it. It should
only take about 10 minutes to complete.
Your assistance is very important for the success of the study, which in turn could be
useful to many companies in the sector, including yours. Even if you are not making use
of quality improvement methods, please respond to the relevant questions to allow the
collection of a complete profile for analysis.
The information will be treated with the utmost confidence and will be used only for
research purposes. I would be very grateful if the completed questionnaire could be
returned to me at the address shown below by Friday 19th March 2004. Should you have
any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Mr David J Delgado,
Room G47M
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
Tel: 0121–414 4158; e-mail: djd242@bham.ac.uk
c.c. Mrs Elaine Aspinwall

Head of Quality Research Group
Tel: 0121-414 4249/Fax: 0121-414 4152
E-mail: e.aspinwall@bham.ac.uk
- 202 -
Appendices
A.2 Follow up letter:
23/Mar/2004

«Company_name»
«Address»
«Zip_code»
«Region»
Re: Survey on Quality Improvement Methods in the Construction Industry
I am writing regarding a questionnaire that was sent to you at the beginning of this
month related to improvement methods utilisation in the construction industry. If you
have completed the survey form and returned it, please disregard this reminder.
Although some responses have been received, they are not enough to draw valid
conclusions. I am well aware of your busy schedule and the number of requests of this
type that you must receive, but the success of the survey and hence the following stages
of the work carried out, very much depend on a high level of response.
I would therefore be very grateful if you could spend a little of your valuable time
completing the attached questionnaire and returning it to me at the address shown below
by Friday 2nd April 2004. As stated in my previous letter, the questionnaire should take
less than 10 minutes to complete. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
THANKING YOU IN ANTICIPATION.
Yours sincerely,
Mr David J Delgado,
Room G47M

Tel: 0121-414 4249/Fax: 0121-414 4152
- 203 -
Appendices
A.3 Survey on Quality Improvement Methods in the Construction Industry
Introduction
This survey is part of a study aimed at determining the breadth of use of different
quality improvement methods in the construction industry. The results will be used for
both, research purposes and the development of a framework for suggesting
improvement methods depending on the nature of the construction project to be
developed. No attempt will be made to identify any individual or organisation in any
publication.
Instructions
This questionnaire consists of four main sections. Please tick the appropriate box or
complete the answer in the space provided.
Section I – General Information

This section requests general information about your company.
1 – What is the approximate number of employees in your company?
250 or Less More than 250
2 – What kind of construction projects does your company carry out? (Please tick as
many as appropriate)
Building Civil engineering Other (please specify): __________________
3 – At what stage(s) of the construction process does your company take part? (Please
tick as many as appropriate)
Briefing Designing Tendering

Construction Commissioning Other (please specify): ____________
Section II – Quality initiatives

This section deals with the quality initiatives undertaken in your company. If your
company does not apply any quality system, then go to Section III.
4 –Is your company certified to ISO-9001:2000? Yes No
5 – If certified, please state when the certificate was attained? Year __________
6 –Is your company certified to ISO-14001? Yes No
7 – If certified, please state when the certificate was attained? Year __________
8 –Is your company certified to any other quality assurance system?
Yes No
- 204 -
Appendices
9 – If certified, please state both, the standard and when the certificate was attained:
Number __________________________________ Year __________
10 – Which of the following quality initiatives has your company implemented?
Setting up a quality department

Employee involvement to improve quality
Cultural change programme
Customer satisfaction initiatives
Developing strategies for total quality
Other (please specify):_______________________
11 – Approximately when did you first start implementing the above initiatives?
Year __________
Section III – Quality Improvement Methods

This section deals with your company’s use of a variety of methods, available to
improve your overall quality system. Please indicate your opinion about both, the level
of use and the perceived importance of each tool in your company:
(1) Very low (2) Low (3) Moderate (4) High (5) Very high
If you are not familiar with the method, it does not apply to your work, you do not use it
or you are unsure of how to respond, please tick (0).
Perceived
Use Methods Importance
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Gathering Customer Needs
Customer Surveys
Customer One-to-one interview
Customer telephone interview
Brainstorming
Focus groups
Other (please specify):
Organising Customer Needs
Affinity Diagram
Tree Diagram
Matrix Diagram
Formal Methods
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ)
Concurrent Engineering (CE)
- 205 -
Appendices
Perceived
Use Methods Importance
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Planning and Programming Tools
Mission Statement
Gantt Chart
Critical Path Method (CPM)
Programme Evaluation and Review Technique
(PERT)
Team & Teamwork
Departmental Purpose Analysis
Quality control
Laws and regulations
Checklists
Housekeeping (5Ss: sort, set in order, shine,
standardise and sustain)
Inspection
Sampling
Quality audits
Contractor Partnerships
Performance Measures
Customer satisfaction survey
Customer complaints
Litigation
Technology
Planning software (e.g. primavera, ms project)
Design software (e.g. autoCAD)
Finite element analysis software (e.g. SAP 2000)
Computer network (e.g. e-mail)
Section IV – Quality Issues

This section deals with more general quality issues.
12 – Do you think that the quality of your company products/services could be

improved?
Yes No
13 – Are your Project Managers committed to quality?
Yes No
- 206 -
Appendices
14 – Do your employees receive training in any of the tools listed in section III?
Yes No
15 – Does your company recognise the efforts of teams?
Yes No
16 – Does your company recognise the efforts of individuals?
Yes No
17 – Would you consider taking part in the next phase of the research?
Yes No
(It entails a case study approach. If yes, please attach a business card)
18 – Would you like to have the results of this study?
Yes No
(If yes, please attach a business card)
Thank you for participating in this study. All responses will be treated with the
utmost confidence and no single set of responses will be readily identifiable.
Please reply to:
Mr David J Delgado,
Room G47M

Tel: 0121-414 4249/Fax: 0121-414 4152
- 207 -
Appendices
Appendix B
Forms, checklists and surveys to support
the use of the framework
- 208 -
Appendices
Quality Policy
B.1 Example of SWOT analysis in a construction company, with regard to quality
(adapted from Stewart et al [140]):
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

[SS] Skilled/ experienced [RC] Employees’ resistance [CS] Improve customer [VC] Very competitive
staff, workforce to change satisfaction industry
[ML] Market leader in the [WC] Workers being [CC] Improve communication [FL] Possible financial
construction of concrete poached by competitors and coordination between losses if quality is
structures [EC] External contractors project participants i.e. mismanaged
[MC] Top project managers having low quality capability customer, designer and [BC] Depressed economy
with high commitment to [PT] Personnel require contractor causing quality budgets cuts
quality training related to quality [OS] Increase the order and [IC] Increasing quality
[QB] High value of projects, issues speed in the project’s progress control and inspection costs
increases on quality budgets [SC] Short construction [RQ] Reduction in poor [NI] Negative image if
[QS] Extensive quality timeframes impede training quality costs and re-work quality initiatives fail to
support [PR] Poor relations among [MP] Ability to attract more improve quality
[DC] Diversified company departments within the local and international projects
[DT] Strong business company [AC] Reduce incident of
development team [LD] Lack of corporate internal audit non-compliance
management direction [IS] Improve conformance to
design specifications
B.2 Example of Mission and Vision statements in a construction company with
regard to quality, derived from the SWOT analysis (adapted from Juran [66] and Dale
[18]):
Construction Company’s Mission and Vision

Mission: Our aim is to give supreme customer satisfaction by Vision: Our aim is to reduce the cost of poor quality by 50%
ensuring product conformance to design specifications, on time in 5 years. Our measure of success will be the reduction on
delivery and competitive cost. Always developing our the final cost for each project performed by the company.
personnel to their full potential and involving them to ensure
quality.
B.3 Example of annual quality objectives in a construction company (adapted from
Dale [18]):
Annual Objectives Target

Quality Reduce incident of internal quality audit non-compliance -50%
Reduce customer complaints -50%
Conformance to customer specifications 99%
Increase customer satisfaction levels 50%
Quality awareness among staff within the company 80%
Cost Reduce inspection cost -20%
Reduce extra-labour cost -20%
Reduce extra-material cost -20%
Delivery Schedule adherence 95%
People Validation of skills levels 40%
Personal development review 1 year
- 209 -
Appendices
B.4 Example of quality policy in a construction company (Adapted from Seaver
[109]):
Construction Company XYZ is committed to:

• Producing quality products that satisfy, and if possible exceed, customer expectations
• Providing staff with all information and training in relation to quality
• Facilitating staff to develop their quality knowledge to the benefit of both staff and the company
• Complying with regulation requirements
• Establishing measurable quality objectives
• Striving to improve quality performance
Activities for building quality into construction projects
B.5 Project definition checklist
• Name of the project
• Customer details
• Mission of the project e.g. the customer wants to build a facility to purpose of
the facility.
• Location of the project
• Construction time
• Life time of the project
• Budget
• Land area
• Procurement approach e.g. design-bid-build, design-build
• Project manager details (who could be the design team leader)
• Others
B.6 Design team checklist
• Customer (including users, client and owner. See identifying customers below)
• Architect
- 210 -
Appendices
• Civil engineer
• Mechanical engineer
• Electrical engineer
• Hydraulic engineer
• Specifications writer
• Others
B.7 Construction team checklist
• Contractor(s)
• Suppliers
• Authorities
• Neighbours
• Service providers (power, water, telephone, gas, others)
• Others
Note: The implementation team may be formed by an external consultant and the
internal quality manager.
B.8 Customers’ checklist (note: only building projects are exemplified)
Project type House School Hospital Office building

Users -Husband -Administrative -Administrative -Administrative
-Wife personnel personnel personnel
-Sons -Academic staff -Operative staff -Workers
-Daughters -Students (Doctors, Nurses, etc) -Visitors
-Family’s friends -Students’ friends -Patients -Visitors’ friends
-Family’s relatives -Students’ -Patients’ friends -Visitors’ relatives
-House servant relatives -Patients’ -Cleaning staff
-Others -Cleaning staff relatives -Others
-Others -Cleaning staff
-Others
- 211 -
Appendices
B. 9 Identifying Customers
Kärkkäinen et al [141] mentioned that new product development projects (a
construction project may be considered as such) founded on cautiously defined
customer needs are more expected to be successful than those founded on new
technological opportunities. However, before the determination of customer needs, it is
crucial to identify who the customers are. According to Juran [66], customers are all
those affected by the products/services and processes used to accomplish the quality
goals. Some managers take for granted that they know who the customers are [66],
however this supposition assumes that customers are the clients or those who consume
the products/services offered. They are probably the most relevant category, but
represent a small proportion of the people affected. Apart from the products/services
that are sold externally, there are others which are unsold and may be used either
externally e.g. letters, quotations, orders and invoices, or internally e.g. information,
data, components, commands, advice and requests.
Not all the customers will be treated in the same way, because some of them are
more valuable than others. Therefore, it is crucial to know who the customers are, in
order to assign priorities and resources to those who are more influenced [66].
Budhwani [142] stated that not all customers are important. Some of them could even
damage the business because they consume company’s time, energy and resources
without producing enough income to justify the effort.
Three main customer categories have been recognised: the first is based on who
is part of the company (external and internal customers), the second is based on
importance (vital few and useful many), and the third is based on use (processors,
merchants, ultimate users and the public).
- 212 -
Appendices
External and Internal Customers
Juran [66] defined external customers as people who are not part of the
organisation but are affected by its activities, whereas internal customers are part of the
organisation and are also affected by its activities. For example, in a construction
company, there could be following external customers: suppliers, clients, government
and Internal Revenue Services. On the other hand, there could be the following internal
customers: professional staff, employees and Management. Recognising external and
internal customers enhances decision-making whilst decreasing the risk of disagreeable
surprises [66].
Lewis [143] has suggested the following two categories: consumers and
customers. This difference is important internally and externally. Once this distinction
has been recognised, managers become more effective because they realise that internal
customers are not consumers, but the people who add value to their projects.
Brooks et al [144] mentioned NOAC (next operation as a customer), an
approach centred on the idea that each function in the company must consider the
receiver of its output as an internal customer and make every effort to supply quality
outputs for them. As a result of the application of this approach, quality is built into the
product/service presented to the external customer.
According to Pfau et al [145] only a small proportion of all employees face
external customers but almost all employees provide products and services to their
colleagues i.e. their internal customers. A business’ capacity to satisfy its external
customer needs relies on its ability to satisfy its internal customer needs. Therefore, a
company must be aware of its internal customers and some critical steps are: the
recognition of each and every internal customer, the understanding of their needs and
expectations and the extent to which each need is satisfied.
- 213 -
Appendices
Since all of the customers are impacted differently, it is important to assign
priorities and resources, founded on the relative impact on customers. Based on the
Pareto principle it becomes evident that there are a vital few and a useful many [66].
Vital Few and Useful Many
The Pareto principle is the name given to the phenomenon that in one
population, which is part of a common cause, a relative few of the followers, account
for the bulk of the effect [146]. For example, marketing teams have realised that 80 %
of the sales derives from 20 % of the consumers, which are known as key customers
[66]. Juran [66] gave some examples to demonstrate the wide application of the Pareto
principle: few of the suppliers are responsible for most of the quality problems and
delays, few of the workers cause most of the accidents, few of the criminals commit
most of the crimes and few authors produce most of the books.
The Pareto analysis is usually conducted as follows: prepare a list of the
customers, arrange them from the most to the least important, recognise the vital few
(those for whom planning will be done individually) and the useful many (those for
whom planning will be done collectively). The vital few customers are crucial to the
company, hence they must be treated on an individual basis [66]. Their needs should be
identified carefully by means of one or more of the methods under the heading
“gathering customer needs”, shown in Table 3.1. But regardless of the method used, the
contact with them must be planned.
On the other hand, the useful many customers can be classified as: consumers,
workforce, middle managers and professionals [66]. Consumers are the small portion of
customers that buy the product for personal use. Virtually any person in the population
could be consumer. They eventually become experts in using it and are able to make
- 214 -
Appendices
future decisions on what to buy or not, they also share with others their experience with
the product and give new ideas that help to enhance it.
According to Juran [66], non-supervisory employees in non-professional work
groups comprise the workforce. Workers on the factory floor (construction site), clerical
and administrative staff are part of this group. They are aware of the quality needs
because they spend most of their time processing the product and know it very well.
This category of internal customers should be considered as experts who can provide
useful input regarding quality needs.
Finally, the middle managers and professionals play a key role in quality
matters. Despite the fact that they are too many to be classified within the vital few,
their jobs are critical. Their tasks take time and may delay the whole process if they are
not performed on schedule, affecting subsequent internal customers. As a result, it is
important to meet their needs [66].
Another classification of customers is based on use. Depending on what they do
with the product, they can be separated as: processors, merchants, ultimate users and the
public.
Classification based on use
As mentioned earlier, the product could be used by many customers. The
processors are those who use it as a raw material [66]. They add value to the product
and sell it in turn to their own customers. For example, a company that produces bricks
could sell its products to a construction company, which will transform the bricks into a
house and sell it later.
The merchants are those who buy the product for resale. If the same construction
company supplies different estate agents, these are considered merchants. For instance,
- 215 -
Appendices
the estate agents could decorate the houses in order to sell them to their own customers
[66]. Ultimate users are those who actually use the product. Some of them are
consumers who pay for the product in order to use it personally. Others are employees
e.g. the housekeeper that cleans a house. These customers are the most important and
require special attention when identifying their needs and listening to their voice.
Last but not least are the general public. They must be taken into account even if
they do not buy the product. Aspects such as product safety or damage to the
environment could impact them. For example, the neighbours of a new building could
be considered as members of the public in a construction project. Moreover, they are
interested in the company performance and can help or hinder a company’s operations.
Therefore, their needs must not be ignored [66].
To sum up, there are three main groups of customers: external and internal, vital
few and useful many, and processors, merchants, ultimate users and the public. When
developing new products, their voice should be taken into account to decrease the risk
of unpleasant surprises [66].
- 216 -
Appendices
B.10 Survey for gathering customer needs
THE UNIVERSITY
OF BIRMINGHAM
SURVEY FOR GATHERING CUSTOMER NEEDS (FAMILY HOUSE)
Objective
In order to ensure that quality is built into your construction project various questions will be asked regarding your
expectations of the building at the end of the construction process.
Instructions
Please tick the relevant boxes and fill the spaces provided when asked. Before completing the questionnaire think of
the “ideal” building that you would like to have at the end of the construction process (this does not mean that you
should rate as “very important” all the aspects covered in the questionnaire).
Section 1 – Background Information
1.1 – Date:
1.2 – Tick the options that better reflect your role in the construction project?
The owner A designer

A user A constructor
An authority (Please specify) A supplier of materials
Administrative personal Cleaning staff
A visitor A worker
A neighbour A service provider
A financial supporter Other (please specify)
Section 2 – Product Quality

2.1 – Please rate both your perception of the following features in the building that you are currently using and the
importance that each will have in the new building when it is finished. Use 0 if you are not sure how to respond or the
feature is not relevant to you.
1=Very low, 2=low, 3=moderate, 4=high, 5=very high
Current building New building

0 1 2 3 4 5 0
1 2 3 4 5
Performance
Features
Reliability
Conformance
Durability
Serviceability
Aesthetics
Perceived quality
- 217 -
Appendices
2.2. - Which of the following would you consider the most important elements in your overall perception of product
quality? Please rank their importance from 1 to 8 (1 = THE MOST IMPORTANT, 8 = THE LEAST IMPORTANT).
Product quality
Rank Attribute
Performance
Features
Reliability
Conformance
Durability
Serviceability
Aesthetics
Perceived quality
Section 3 – Service Quality

3.1 – Please rate both the extent to which the following features were fulfilled in your last experience with a
construction company and the importance that each of them has in your overall perception of service quality. Use 0 if
you are not sure on how to respond or the feature is not relevant to you.
Previous performance Current expectation
0 1 2 3 4 5 Feature 0 1 2 3 4 5
Access: It is easy to contact company’s personnel

Communication: The customer is informed in plain language
about the service that will be provided
Competence: The company ensures that the right people, i.e. those
with relevant skills and knowledge, are involved in the project
Courtesy: The company’s personnel is polite
Credibility: The company performs the project in accordance with
the initial contract (or agreement)
Reliability: Design (construction) is carried out correctly
Responsiveness: The company’s personnel responds to the
customer needs in a timely manner
Security: The company keeps customer information confidential
Tangibles: The appearance of the company’s personnel and
facilities are adequate
Understanding the customer: Relevant personnel within the
company are willing to understand customer needs
3.2 - Which of the following would you consider the most important elements in your overall perception of service
quality? Please rank their importance from 1 to 10 (1 = THE MOST IMPORTANT, 10 = THE LEAST
IMPORTANT).
- 218 -
Appendices
Service quality
Rank Attribute
Access
Communication
Competence
Courtesy
Credibility
Reliability
Responsiveness
Security
Tangibles
Understanding the customer
Section 4 – Final comments

4.1 – Add any other comments that may be useful when designing (constructing) the building:
Thank you for participating in this study. All responses will be treated with the utmost confidence and no
single set of responses will be readily identifiable.
- 219 -
Appendices
B.11 Customer Satisfaction Survey
THE UNIVERSITY
OF BIRMINGHAM
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY (FAMILY HOUSE)
Objective
In order to ensure that you are satisfied with the finished product and service provided by the construction company,
various questions will be asked regarding your perceptions of the building at the end of the construction process.
Instructions
Please tick the relevant boxes or answer the questions in the space provided.
1.3 – Date:
1.4 – Tick the options that better reflect your role in the construction project?
The owner A designer

A user A constructor
An authority (Please specify) A supplier of materials
Administrative personal Cleaning staff
A visitor A worker
A neighbour A service provider
A financial supporter Other (please specify)
Section 2 – Product Quality

2.1 – Please rate your perception of the following features in the new building. Use 0 if you are not sure how to
respond or the feature is not relevant to you.
Product Quality Dimensions Perception

0
1 2 3 4 5
Performance
Features
Reliability
Conformance
Durability
Serviceability
Aesthetics
Perceived quality
- 220 -
Appendices
Section 3 – Service Quality
3.1 – Please rate your perception of the following service features with regard to the construction company. Use 0 if
you are not sure how to respond or the feature is not relevant to you.
Perception
Feature 0 1 2 3 4 5
Access: It is easy to contact company’s personnel

Communication: The customer is informed in plain language
about the service that will be provided
Competence: The company ensures that the right people, i.e. those
with relevant skills and knowledge, are involved in the project
Courtesy: The company’s personnel is polite
Credibility: The company performs the project in accordance with
the initial contract (or agreement)
Reliability: Design (construction) is carried out correctly
Responsiveness: The company’s personnel responds to the
customer needs in a timely manner
Security: The company keeps customer information confidential
Tangibles: The appearance of the company’s personnel and
facilities are adequate
Understanding the customer: Relevant personnel within the
company are willing to understand customer needs
Thank you for participating in this study. All responses will be treated with the utmost confidence and no
single set of responses will be readily identifiable.
- 221 -
Appendices
Appendix C
Case Studies-
Letters and Protocol
- 222 -
Appendices
C.1 Case Study Letter
4/Dec/2004

«Company_name»
«Address»
«Zip_code»
«Region»
Subject: Case study on Building Quality into Construction Projects
Earlier this year I sent you a questionnaire investigating the breadth of use of different
improvement methods within the construction industry. You very kindly completed and
returned it to me. (A report of the results has already been submitted to an international
journal for publication and you will be sent a copy as soon as the review process has
been successfully completed). In that questionnaire you expressed an interest in
participating in the next stage of the research, which entails a case study. I am now at
this phase of my research and therefore, I am seeking your help. The main objectives of
the study are: to investigate how your company is ensuring that quality is built into new
projects and to evaluate a framework that I have formulated during my research for its
suitability within the construction industry.
I appreciate that you have a busy schedule and so the case study has been made short
and simple. Only one visit to your company, preferably at the beginning of next year, is
necessary, lasting about 2-3 hours. I have drawn up a protocol for conducting the study,
of which I would be happy to send you a copy prior to my visit.
Your assistance is very important for the success of my research and it is hoped that the
framework that I have developed will be of use not only to your company but also to
others in the construction industry. The information that I receive will be treated with
the utmost confidence and will be used only for research purposes.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely,
Mr David J Delgado
Room G47M
The University of Birmingham c.c. Mrs Elaine Aspinwall
Edgbaston Head of Quality Research Group
Birmingham B15 2TT Tel: 0121-414 4249
Tel: 0121–414 4158 Fax: 0121-414 4152
E-mail: djd242@bham.ac.uk E-mail: e.aspinwall@bham.ac.uk
- 223 -
Appendices
C.2 Case Study Protocol
RESEARCH INTO BUILDING QUALITY

INTO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Objectives
The project concerns the development of a methodology to ensure that quality is built
into construction projects. This will entail investigating how your company achieves
this and evaluating a methodology, a result of our research to date, for its suitability
within the construction industry.
1.1- Date case study performed:

1.2- Name of company:
1.3– Address:
1.4– Name and Position of respondent:
1.5– Tel/fax/e-mail:
1.6- Approximate number of employees:
1.7- Type of construction projects in which the company is involved:
1.8– Main activity of the company in relation to the construction process:
1.9– What is the organisational structure of the company? (e.g. President, engineering
department, architectural department, construction department, etc.)
Section 2 – Open Ended Questions on Quality Initiatives
Quality Initiatives
2.1 – Which, if any, quality initiatives has the company implemented and when? (e.g.
setting up a quality department, development of a quality assurance system, employee
involvement to improve quality, cultural change programme, customer satisfaction
initiatives, developing strategies for quality management, business processes
improvement, supplier involvement programme, etc.)
2.2 – What were the main motivations for implementing them? (e.g. increase customer
satisfaction, improve profits, better control, improve communication, reduction in
quality costs, etc.)
2.3 – Has the company ever hired a quality consultant? If yes, what was his role? (e.g.
helping to develop a quality system, measuring customer satisfaction, etc.)
2.4 – Having applied various initiatives, what results have been achieved so far in terms
of quality improvement?
Certifications
2.5 – Does your company have a quality system?
2.6 – If so, which one?
2.7 - What does it contain? (e.g. quality manual, standard practices, best practices, etc.)
2.8 – Is your company certified to ISO 9001: 2000?
2.9 – If so, please state when the certificate was attained?
2.10 – Do you have a formal system for carrying out improvement activities (IA)?
- 224 -
Appendices
2.11 – If so, how does it work -procedure? (e.g. teamwork, external consultant, team
leader, quality manual, etc.)
2.12 – Does the company have a special improvement team or committee?
2.13 – If yes, who are its members and what are their activities?
2.14 – Which departments if any are involved in continuous IA?
2.15 – Does the company have a quality policy? (Copy)
2.16 – If yes, how are the policy, objectives and plans deployed? (e.g. using a formal
approach such as Hoshin Kanri, setting departmental objectives, etc.)
2.17 – Does the company measure quality performance?
2.18 – If yes, what indicators are employed?
2.19 – Does the company recognise the efforts of individuals or teams?
2.20 – If yes, what type of incentives or recognition are given?
Company processes
2.21 – What are the project delivery methods used by the company (e.g. Design-Bid-
Build, Design-Build, Construction management at risk, etc.)
2.22 - What steps or activities are included in the design/construction process? (e.g.
planning, calculating, drawing, reviewing, etc.)
2.23 –Which key activities could be improved with regard to quality? (e.g. identifying
customer needs, designing, constructing, commissioning, etc.)
2.24 – How does the company recognise customer needs to ensure that internal
processes meet their expectations? (e.g. customer one-to-one interviews, focus groups,
receiving a set of specifications from customer, etc.)
2.25 – How does the company translate customer needs into internal technical
language? (e.g. using a formal method such as Quality Function Deployment, applying
an internal database of customer requirements, modifying previous projects, using
templates with standard specifications, etc.)
2.26 – How does the company control the quality of its processes? (e.g. supervision,
inspection, etc.)
2.27 – Does the company have a methodology for building quality into projects?
2.28 – If yes, please graphically represent the main activities and their interrelationship
in the form of a flow diagram or similar chart?
Section 3 – Improvement Methods Utilisation
Improvement methods
Table 1 shows various improvement methods.
Gathering Customer Needs

Customer Surveys
Customer One-to-one interview
Customer telephone interview
Brainstorming
Focus groups
Organising Customer Needs
Affinity Diagram
Tree Diagram
Matrix Diagram
Formal Methods
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
- 225 -
Appendices
Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ)

Concurrent Engineering (CE)
Planning Tools
Mission Statement
Gantt Chart
Critical Path Method (CPM)
PERT
Team & Teamwork
Departmental Purpose Analysis
Quality control
Laws and regulations
Checklists
Housekeeping (5Ss)
Inspection
Sampling
Quality audits
Contractor Partnerships
Performance Measures
Customer satisfaction survey
Customer complaints
Litigation
Technology
Planning software (e.g. ms project)
Design software (e.g. autoCAD)
FEA Software (e.g. SAP 2000)
Computer network (e.g. e-mail)
Table 1. Suitable Improvement Methods

For the Construction Industry
3.1 – What criteria were used to choose these methods? (e.g. cost, comprehensiveness
of the method, available literature, etc.)
3.2 – Who are the users of the methods?
Section 4 – Evaluation of the Proposed Framework
Framework for building quality into construction projects

The model comprises three main elements: (i) the quality policy (the origin of all
quality initiatives within a company, defined by top management) (ii) the construction
process and (iii) a set of methods to support the improvement activities during the
construction process. Note that people are the foundation of the pyramid.
With regard to the quality policy, a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats) analysis is used to determine the five-year vision of the company along with
one-year objectives in terms of quality.
- 226 -
Appendices
Environmental Health &

Policy Safety
Policy
Quality
Policy
Product Service
Input:
Customer Needs
Schematic
Design
Detailed
Design
Construction
Documentation
Design
Bidding
Construction
Output:
Facility
Build
Maintenance
Gathering Quality
Formal Control
Customer Methods Planning
Needs Tools
Organising Performance
Customer Measures
Needs Improvement
Technology Methods
People (Culture)-Stakeholders (Management, Employees, Suppliers, Others)
Figure 1. Framework for Building Quality into Construction Projects
The kernel of the framework is the process shown in the middle of Figure 1, which has
six stages. Stage 1-Schematic design is focused on eliciting and prioritising customer
needs. Stage 2-Detailed design is centred on different analyses that help to define the
geometric features and materials of the facility. Stage 3-Construction documentation
generates all the documents that will be required to build the facility. Stage 4-Bidding is
intended to prepare a detailed programme with all the activities and processes that will
be followed to construct the facility. Stage 5-Construction as the name suggests, has the
main purpose of constructing the facility, which is then verified by the users to ensure
that it satisfies their needs and that it complies with design requirements. Finally, stage
6-Maintainance ensures that the facility remains usable along its life cycle. Each stage
may be supported by the use of different improvement methods and technology. (More
details will be given during the visit)
- 227 -
Appendices
4.1 – Please evaluate the framework with regard to the following requirements:
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Requirements disagree (2) (3) (4) agree (5)
(1)
Simple
Easy to understand
Systematic
Well structured
Comprehensive
Practical approach
4.2 – Comments (to improve the proposed framework).

4.3 – Is there any information that should be considered as confidential?
Thank you for participating in this study. All responses will be treated with the utmost
confidence and no single set of responses will be readily identifiable.
Mr David J Delgado,
Room G47M
Edgbaston
Birmingham B15 2TT
Tel: 0121 – 414 4158
E-mail: djd242@bham.ac.uk

Tel: 0121-414 4249/Fax: 0121-414 4152
- 228 -
Appendices
Appendix D
Children Nursery Requirements
- 229 -
Appendices
D.1 Children Nursery Requirements
Accommodation Elements Requirements

The site Arrangement Outdoor play areas are an extension of the building
Play area immediately outside the play room(s)
Play area next to a grass area
Grass area well drained
Supervision Teaching staff should be able to supervise children at all times from anywhere
Orientation Play rooms with daylight (facing south or south-east)
Covered outdoor play area with daylight (facing south or south-east)
Siting Maximise the garden play area (facing south)
Provide shelter for wind (with screen fences, walls, mounds, hedges and shrubs)
Site area Sufficient for building, outside play areas and car parking (1500 m2)
Play areas Outdoor play area of 250 m2 (100 m2 for hard play area) –per play room
Covered play area of 25 m2 with translucent roof
Smooth surfaced area and grass area well drained
Sand pit of 12 m2 and 300 mm high (with rounded edges and corners)
Grass area with trees and shrubs to form play areas
Landscape Grassed and planted areas well drained and easily maintained
Outdoor equipment Keep in an external lockable store
Access/safety Separate access for pedestrians and vehicles
Parking area and delivery points fenced off from play areas
Lockable gateway for the access of grounds maintenance equipment (near car park)
No steps in the main entrance
Access wide enough to allow to prams to pass
Car parking One bay per member of staff
At least Two bays for visitors
At least one bay 3.2 m wide for disabled people
Security (play Play area securely fenced (fence 1.25 m high)
areas)
Site security Perimeter fencing to protect the site and building
The building Concept Domestic character (rather than institutional)
Attractive and interesting to young children
Freedom of movement between indoor and outdoor areas
Without sharp edges and projections
Considers the needs of handicapped children
Visual links between areas to facilitate supervision
Ceiling Ceiling height of 2.7m
Windows Bottom glass line in windows of 800 mm
Doors Holding hooks for doors to facilitate free movement
Floor level No change of floor level
Mechanical serv Heating system capable of immediate temperature control
Sources of heat located at high level
Electrical services Electrical control points out of the reach of children
Socket outlets above the reach of children
Fire fighting Fire fighting appliances throughout
Entrance/cloakroom Size Adequate size for circulation and storage facilities
area Location Access to playroom(s), staff/parents room and staff/visitors toilet
Layout Draught lobby
External covered pram shelter
Floor finish Durable, easily washable floor finish
Wall finish Smooth, plastered and cleanable wall finish
Ceiling finish Acoustically absorbent ceiling finish
Doors Entrance and play room(s) doors that incorporate glazing
Fittings Coat hooks at 1 m above the floor with 150 mm of separation between them (1
hook per child)
Below each hook, a cage to contain unfolded boots
Bench seating 325 mm high
Display boarding at adult’s and children’s heights
Temperature Temperature 18oC
Ventilation Natural ventilation
Daylight Daylight
Acoustics Acoustically absorbent surface desirable
Electrical services Spotlight over display area desirable
At least one double socket outlet
Playroom(s) Size Each playroom should cater for 25 children
Area at least 62.5 m2 (including quiet room of 8 m2)
Location Direct access to entrance/cloakroom, outdoor and children’s toilet areas
- 230 -
Appendices
Layout Enclosed quiet are with corners and alcoves for children to play
No direct access to kitchen, staff toilet, utility room, cleaner’s store and electrical
switch room
When there is more than 1 playroom, they should be combined by means of folding
screens
Floor finish Carpet in quiet rooms
Water and stainless floor finish, which does not become slippery with wet or dry
sand
Wall finish Smooth, plastered and cleanable wall finish, capable of accepting fixing for shelves
Ceiling finish Acoustically absorbent ceiling with light tone
Windows Observation windows in toilets, quiet room and staff/parents room for supervision
Windows with dim-out curtains in play and quiet rooms
Doors No more than 5 doors leading into the playroom, which should not be located in
corners
Double doors to gain access to outdoor covered area (roofed by translucent
sheeting)
Fittings Fittings for curtains in play and quiet rooms
A small whiteboard at children’s height
Provision of display boarding at low level (not excessive)
Temperature Temperature 18oC
Ventilation Cross ventilation without undesirable draughts
Daylight Daylight
Acoustics Acoustically absorbent surface in playrooms
Sound insulation between play, quiet, staff/parents’ and entrance/cloak rooms
(solid walls)
Mechanical serv Hot and cold water supply
A double-drainer sink (at adult height) with hot and cold water, with cupboards
storage (not in corners)
Sink area integral with the floor finish
Tiled sink unit
Electrical services Lighting intensity of 350 lux
At least two double socket outlets for playroom and one for quiet room
Storage Size Approximately 8 m2 per playroom
Location Direct access from playroom(s)
Fittings Adjustable shelving for storing card and drawing paper
Space under shelves for trolleys and large play equipment
Doors An external store of 10 m2 (adjacent to outdoor covered area) with lockable double
doors
Children’s toilets Size Ample circulation space
Area of 12-15 m2
Location One toilet per playroom, located on an external wall
Boys and girls provided together
Layout At least 3 WCs and 5 WHBs per playroom (1WC and 1 WHB accessible by a
small wheelchair)
Access to utility room and cleaner’s store
Floor finish Durable and easily cleaned floor finish
Wall finish Easily cleaned wall finish, tiled behind WHBs
Ceiling finish Light in tone ceiling finish
Windows Vents at high level (out of the reach of children)
Observation window to playroom
Doors Door that incorporates glazing at appropriate adults and children’s height
Fittings WC pedestals between 250-320 mm high
Wash basins between 550-600 mm high (no press-down taps)
No urinals
No drinking fountains
WC cubicles between 900 mm- 1m High (for supervision)
No locks in cubicles’ doors
No door hinges that allow fingers to be trapped
Hooks separated 225 mm for towels (one per child)
Mirror at children’s height (one per each wash basin)
Space for disposal bins
Storage for paper towels at high level
One large sink
Temperature Temperature 18o C
Ventilation Ventilation through windows
Mechanical serv Mixing valve for controlling water temperature (to wash basins)
Electrical services Hot and cold water supply
Normal lighting requirements
Cleaner’s store Size Capable of storing bulky materials and all cleaning equipment
Location Direct access from children’s toilet
Fittings With shelving
Large sink
Brush rack
Suspended mop-drying rack
- 231 -
Appendices
Utility room Size Area of 8 m2

Location Direct access from children’s toilet (or circulation area)
Floor finish Durable, easily cleaned floor finish
Doors Unglazed door
Fittings Large sink at adult level (for washing clothes)
Store cupboard
Cupboard for towels and dry clothes
High level cupboard for cleaning agents
Suspended mop-drying rack
Space for washing machine and drier
Ventilation Ventilation essential
Electrical services Normal lighting requirements
Extract fan
Staff/parents room Size Area of 12-15 m2
Location Direct access to main entrance and from one playroom
Convenient access to staff toilet and cloakroom
Floor finish Carpet in room
Wall capable of accepting fixings for fittings
Tiled sink unit
Window External window
Observation window to playroom
Doors Unglazed door to entrance/cloakroom area
Fittings First aid cabinet (high level)
Limited display boarding
Curtain fittings
Mirror
Ventilation Normal ventilation
Daylight Daylight
Electrical services Lighting intensity of 350 lux
Telephone At least one telephone point
Staff/visitors toilet Location Direct access from entrance/cloakroom area
No direct access to staff/parents room, playroom or kitchen
Fittings One WC and one WHB (suitable for disabled people)
Vanity unit
Mirror
Shelf
Cloaks provision
Table D.1 Requirements of a Nursery (Source: [134])
- 232 -
Appendices
Appendix E
List of Publications
- 233 -
Appendices
E.1 List of Publications
Delgado, D. and Aspinwall, E., (2003), QFD vs TRIZ as Manufacturing Design Tools-
A Review, Proceedings of the 20th International Manufacturing Conference, Cork
Ireland, Sep 3-5, pp. 133-140
Delgado, D. and Aspinwall, E., (2005), Improvement Methods in the UK and Mexican
Construction Industries-A Comparison, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Quality and Reliability, Beijing, China, Beijing Institute of Technology,
Aug 9-11, pp. 929-941
Delgado, D., Liu, J. and Aspinwall, E., (2005), A comparison of surveys of TQM
critical success factors in manufacturing and construction UK industries, Proceedings of
the fourth international conference on quality and reliability, Beijing, China, Beijing
Institute of Technology, Aug 9-11, pp. 135-145
Delgado, D. and Aspinwall, E., (2005), Improvement Tools in the UK Construction
Industry, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No.9, pp. 965-977
Delgado, D., Benites, A. and Aspinwall, E., (accepted, 2006), New Product
Development-Empirical Studies in the UK, International Journal of Product
Development.
Delgado, D. and Aspinwall, E., (submitted, 2006), Quality Planning Improvement
Methods in the UK and Mexican Construction Industries-A Comparison, Quality and
Reliability Engineering International
- 234 -

3 PhDThesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

3 PhDThesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

3 PhDThesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

DELGADO-HERNÁNDEZ DAVID JOAQUÍN

A FRAMEWORK FOR BUILDING QUALITY

DAVID JOAQUÍN DELGADO-HERNÁNDEZ

A thesis submitted to the

associated research in the construction sector has received little attention by

This project concerns the development of a new framework to ensure that

developed in this work addressed these as well as incorporating manufacturing

systematic, well structured, practical and applicable to the construction sector.

communication with customers, a better understanding of customer needs and a list of

also go to CONACYT (The National Council on Science and Technology of Mexico),

Jordy, who have always supported me.

companies. My special thanks to Mr Alistair McIntyre, Mr Neville J Clements, Mr

David Kershaw, Mr Chris Stevens, Mr David Higgins, Mr David Montgomery, Mr Roy

List of Tables vii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ix

1.1 Background to the Research 1

1.2 The need for Quality in the Construction Industry 3

1.3 Research Objectives 6

1.4 Relevance and Originality of the Work 7

1.5 Research Methodology 8

1.6 Structure of the Thesis 9

CHAPTER 2. CONSTRUCTION, QUALITY AND QUALITY IN

2.2 The Construction Process 12

2.2.1 Participants in the Construction Process 15

2.2.2 Characteristics of the Construction Process 18

2.2.3 Problems in the Construction Industry 19

2.3 The Quality Evolution 21

2.5 Analysis of Construction Improvement Initiatives 36

CHAPTER 3. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT METHODS IN UK AND

MEXICAN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES-A COMPARISON

3.2 Quality Improvement Methods 40

3.3 Empirical Survey 44

3.3.1 Questionnaire Development 45

3.4 Survey Results 48

3.4.1 Respondent’s Profile 50

3.4.2 Quality Initiatives 51

3.4.3 Use of Methods 53

3.4.4 Perceived Importance of Methods 56

3.4.5 Significance Tests on Differences of Means 57

3.5 Quality Issues 61

CHAPTER 4. FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT

4.2 Main Requirements 64

4.3 Stages in the Framework Construction 66

4.4 Framework Representation 73

4.5.1 Quality Policy 76

4.5.2 Activities for Building Quality into Projects 78

4.5.3 Guide for Implementing the Framework’s Methods 81

4.6 Comparison with Other Approaches 89

4.7 Expected Outputs 90

CHAPTER 5. CASE STUDIES

5.2 Research Methodology 93

5.3 Data Collection 95

5.4 Case Study Results 96

5.4.2 Company B 101

5.4.3 Company C 106

5.4.4 Company D 110

5.4.5 Company E 115

5.4.6 Company F 119

5.4.7 Company G 123

5.5 Evaluation of the Framework 128

5.5.1 Pilots 129

5.5.2 Evaluation Exercise 133