Love, P E D; Teo, P and Morrison, J (2018) Revisiting quality failure costs in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(2): 05017020, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Quality failure costs have been reported to range from less than 1 to over 20% of a project's original contract's value (OCV). Inconsistencies in their definition and determination have rendered such costs often being cited inappropriately to support a case for addressing poor quality in construction. Quality failure costs, which are expressed in the form of nonconformances (NCRs) costs, are derived and analyzed for 218 projects delivered by a contractor between 2006 and 2015. A total of 7,082 NCRs are categorized and quantified in accordance to their cost, and the differences among project type, procurement, and contract size are statistically examined. The analysis revealed that (1) mean NCR costs were 0.18% of OCV; (2) structural steel and concrete subcontracted works had the highest levels of NCRs; and (3) differences were found in the cost of NCRs among different procurement methods and contract sizes. The research provides the international construction community with invaluable insight into the real costs of quality failure that have been borne by a contractor. Thus, the paper makes a call to reinvigorate the need to engage with performance benchmarking so as to engender process improvement throughout the international construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benchmarking; contracting; nonconformances; quality failures; quality performance; rework |
| Index terms: | quality performance, international construction industry, benchmarking, international construction, rework, construction quality, procurement method, process improvement |
| Subjects: | project delivery, management, contractual arrangements, performance measurement, operations management, quality assurance, strategic management |
| Topics: | Procurement, Quality Management, Business Strategy, Project Management, International Construction |
| 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