Burati, J L; Farrington, J J and Ledbetter, W B (1992) Causes of quality deviations in design and construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(1), pp. 34-49. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Quality deviation data are collected from nine fast-track industrial construction projects. The data are collected after the construction phase of the projects and identify the direct costs associated with rework (including redesign), repair, and replacement. Analyses of the data indicate that deviations on the projects accounted for an average of 12.4% of the total project costs. Furthermore, design deviations average 78% of the total number of deviations, 79% of the total deviation costs, and 9.5% of the total project cost. Construction deviations average 16% of the total number of deviations, 17% of the total deviation costs, and 2.5% of the total project cost. These values are conservative because they consider only direct costs, but they are indications of the areas that cause the greatest impact on total project costs. By applying the procedures presented in this paper to its historical records, a company can identify not only its deviation costs, but also the most likely areas on which to focus to reduce these costs on future projects.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | redesign, direct cost, industrial construction, project cost, quality deviation, repair, rework, deviation, design and construction, replacement, construction phase |
| Subjects: | design methods, financial and cost management, contractual arrangements, materials science, operations management, building construction, economics, project delivery, maintenance engineering, quality assurance |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Design Practice, Procurement, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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