Evaluating document quality in construction projects: subcontractors' perspective

Philips-Ryder, M; Zuo, J and Jin, X H (2013) Evaluating document quality in construction projects: subcontractors' perspective. International Journal of Construction Management, 13(3), pp. 77-94. ISSN 1562-3599

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that errors and omissions in project documentation are an underlying cause of inefficiency in the construction industry. This study played focus on subcontractors that were largely overlooked in document quality related studies. Questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews were undertaken with subcontractors in order to identify the attributes that underpin quality in documentation, and how document quality could be measured. Results of the study reveal that document quality still presents one of critical issues despite extensive studies and associated recommendations in last two decades. It is also found that subcontractors value completeness, accuracy and conformity as the most important attributes of project documentation. The quantum of Requests for Information submitted, variations and revisions to design and shop drawings are suggested as both symptoms and consequences of poor quality documentation. Factors that appear to influence the quality of documentation on projects, according to subcontractors, include a lack of coordination between design disciplines, reliance upon generic specifications and the provision of voluminous, and irrelevant documentation. More efforts are required to breakdown these barriers such as adopting web-based document management systems.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: document quality; evaluation; subcontractor
Index terms: drawing, survey, accuracy, documentation, interview, management system, specification, subcontractor, variation, construction project, project documentation, questionnaire, critical issue, construction industry, coordination
Subjects: project planning, technical documentation, practitioner, risk assessment, data collection methods, industry analysis, professional development, contractual condition, production management, management
Topics: Risk Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Information Management, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here