Olayinka, R; Suresh, S and Chinyio, E (2015) Impact of knowledge management on the cost of poor quality. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 168(4), pp. 177-188. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Knowledge management (KM) implementation strategies on construction projects can reap benefits such as improved performance and continuous improvement, yet many projects are plagued with inefficiencies, repetition of mistakes and lack of lessons learnt. Poor skills, design changes, errors and omissions contribute to the internal failure cost element of cost of poor quality (COPQ) while the resultant effect of client dissatisfaction contributes to the external failure cost. COPQ is prevalent regardless of project type and has been found to be over 10% of total project cost in certain cases. While the need to reduce COPQ is definite, it is uncertain what impact KM has in its reduction. This study investigated the impact of KM in reducing COPQ. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 industry experts involved in formulating and implementing KM strategies for large construction organisations across the UK. It was found from thematic analysis of the data that KM has a positive impact but has not been optimised to reduce COPQ due to barriers such as the lack of performance metrics, time and budget constraints. Optimisation, therefore, entails overcoming the barriers. The findings presented in this paper will benefit construction organisations in the areas of KM optimisation and COPQ reduction strategies.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | knowledge management; project management; quality control |
| Index terms: | thematic analysis, construction project, knowledge management, performance metric, interview, project cost, design change, strategy, project management, implementation, quality control, large construction organization, construction organization, budget constraint, continuous improvement |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, project delivery, financial and cost management, economics, performance measurement, management, project management theory and practice, professional development, methods and analysis, organization, economic analysis, contractual arrangements, production management |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management, Procurement, Project Management, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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