Evaluating quality in construction

The importance of clients - obtaining buildings which are built to budget, on time and to the required quality has been recognised by the recent proliferation of procurement systems and by the increasing use of Project Managers to oversee the design, construction and cost control processes. Whilst cost and time are quantifiable, the assessment and measurement of quality remain essentially subjective. This paper explores the meaning of the word 'quality' as understood by architects, and the difficulties they experience in trying to deliver it in a society driven by economics. Nine senior architects in Northern Ireland were interviewed (using semi-structured interviews) and their views recorded on tape. An analysis of the tape recordings was carried out to identify themes and categories from the answers obtained. These categories were then used to formulate a questionnaire designed to test the attitude of a group of 30 local Public and Private Sector clients to what the architects had identified as areas of concern. The results of these two surveys were compared on a simple statistical basis. Some interesting differences of opinion between architects and clients were revealed along with a large measure of ambiguity. This simple analysis did not, however, capture the essence of the architects' voice. The subtext was missing - its content, particularly what it had to say about quality, was not revealed through statistical analysis. This subtext is explored in the paper from one particular philosophical interpretation of the word 'quality' - an interpretation that the researchers believe is close to architects' understanding of the word in the context of architecture. The conclusions and recommendations are an amalgam of content of both surveys, together with the subjective views of the authors.