Shakoorian, A (2006) Performance assessment of building commissioning process as a quality assurance system. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA.
Abstract
The aim of this thesis was to develop a methodology to systematically investigate the effect of different procurement options on the outcome of a construction project. This methodology combined the qualitative analysis based on experts' performance assessment of each procurement option with quantitative analyses of generic process models for each option, in order to perform a comprehensive analysis of different procurement alternatives. This methodology was further applied to the specific problem of this research which was to assess the performance of Commissioning Delivery Systems (CDS). The goal was to use the findings from the study to provide a comparison between CDS, and assist Construction Owners in identifying the appropriate commissioning delivery option for their project. The process of each CDS was modeled, and systematic differences between different options were analyzed. Five major internal performance aspects of the commissioning process were identified based on literature: PAi1: Communication; PAi2: Validation; PAi3: Collaboration; PAN: Integration; and PAi5: Integrity. These performance aspects were used as a basis for a Delphi study to obtain commissioning experts' assessment of each CDS. Fourteen experts, representing different disciplines in the construction industry, participated in three phases of the Delphi study. A statistical measure was used to validate the expert performance assessments by measuring their level of consensus. Experts did not show any agreement on two performance aspects of Communication and Integration. These aspects were further investigated through quantitative analyses of process models. The developed methodology proved to be a valuable technique in analyzing the effect of procurement options on the outcome of a construction project. Based on the findings of the study, Owner-led Commissioning presented a higher performance rating than Designer-led Commissioning in four out of five performance aspects. Hence, Owner-led Commissioning is identified as a better alternative for procuring commissioning services on construction projects. Designer-led Commissioning presented a higher Communication performance than Owner-led Commissioning. At the same time, the Communication performance of both delivery options was very poor, which further indicates communication difficulties in current commissioning practices. Therefore, this study suggests a more-thorough investigation of the Communication aspect of commissioning process as a follow-up investigation.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Sadri, S L |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; communication; integration; quality assurance; qualitative analysis; validation; construction project; owner |
| Index terms: | designer, owner, integrity, Delphi method, option, performance assessment, construction industry, communication performance, investigation, quality assurance, quantitative analysis, commissioning, qualitative analysis, validation, integration, methodology, collaboration, construction project |
| Subjects: | production management, health safety and environment, professional development, management, communication studies, research methods, industry analysis, quality assurance, completion, organizational analysis, assessment methods, decision analysis, sociology, data collection methods, profession, research design and methodology, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Project Management, Health and Safety, Quality Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Information Management, Organizational Design, Human Resources |
| 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