Abdel-Razek, R H (1998) Quality improvement in Egypt: Methodology and implementation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(5), pp. 354-360. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This paper describes a method of obtaining construction managers' consensus opinion on factors to improve quality on their projects. It also explains the details and results of the application that was carried out in one of the largest contracting companies in the Middle East. A consensus of opinion of 90 construction project managers was obtained on 16 factors required to improve quality on their projects, together with the relative importance of each factor. For example, improvement of employees' financial standard contributed more than 13% of all the factors. A Pareto analysis shows that the first eight factors contribute 78% of the weight of all the factors. The factors that have the same source of problems were also combined and categorized into four areas. Improvement of employees' satisfaction, for example, is one area and contributed more than 33% of all the factors. Making improvements in these factors should make it possible for contracting companies to achieve progressively better quality.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | satisfaction, pareto analysis, quality improvement, implementation, Egypt, Middle East, manager, relative importance, construction manager, methodology, construction project |
| Subjects: | Geography, production management, research methods, physical geography and landforms, project delivery, contractual arrangements, quality control, practitioner, profession, risk assessment |
| Topics: | Project Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Procurement, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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