Davis, K; Ledbetter, W B and Burati, J L (1989) Measuring design and construction quality costs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 115(3), pp. 385-400. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Several troublesome challenges face the U.S. construction industry: productivity is down, litigation is up, delays are common and expensive, foreign firms are taking a greater share of the market. The reasons are complex, but one important common factor is quality—or rather, the lack of it. In view of these facts, a quality performance tracking system (QPTS) has been developed to provide for the quantitative analysis of certain quality-related aspects of projects, by systematically collecting and classifying costs of quality. By defining quality as “conformance to requirements,” the cost of quality becomes measurable. It consists of two main parts, the cost of quality management efforts and the cost of correcting deviations. A total of 15 categories identify the main quality management efforts. When coupled with 24 deviation categories (plus six “repeat” quality management categories), most of the important quality costs can be identified for tracking and analysis. These categories can be easily changed and adapted to meet individual company requirements for design, construction, and start-up.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | litigation, deviation, productivity, design and construction, quality performance, quality management, construction industry, face, foreign firm, quantitative analysis |
| Subjects: | quality assurance, industry analysis, management, psychology, financial and cost management, project delivery, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, strategic management, dispute resolution |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, International Construction, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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