Glagola, C R (1993) A model of current quality performance measurements for industrial construction. PhD thesis, Clemson University, USA.
Abstract
Quality has become the focus for improvement efforts in U. S. industry. These improvement efforts are centered on industry attempts to regain a once dominant position in world markets. The industrial construction industry has recently taken strides toward improving its competitiveness through the implementation of quality improvement programs such as total quality management (TQM). A major thrust of this improvement effort is in identifying, controlling, and improving processes. Measurements associated with a systematic and corporate effort for process improvement are regarded as quality measurements. The primary objective of this research was to develop a model of current quality measurement practices in the industrial construction industry for use by companies in their quality improvement efforts. A comprehensive literature search into quality, measurements, and improvement was conducted throughout the research. Questionnaires were sent to 56 owner and construction companies involved in industrial construction. Thirty-four usable responses to the advance questionnaire were returned. Following the questionnaire phase, interviews were conducted with companies based on their involvement in quality improvement and their willingness to continue their participation in the research. Examples of quality measurements and measurement processes in current use in industrial construction were acquired during the interview visits. Analysis of the data revealed a set of defining questions for quality measurements and a set of common measurement attributes that explain the quality measurement process. The investigation revealed that measurements can only become quality measurements through a corporate effort at all levels of management. The model of the quality measurement process was developed from these findings. An application format of the model was created to test the usability and acceptance by the industrial construction industry and to obtain data from which recommendations for further development of the model could be made. A supplemental questionnaire was sent to participating companies for their evaluation of the usability of the model as a general tool for quality improvement. Twenty-three responses were received from the supplemental questionnaire. These responses revealed acceptance of the model as a usable tool for defining the quality measurement process for improvement in industrial construction.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Burati, J L |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | competitiveness; interview; markets; measurement; owner; participation; quality management; total quality management |
| Index terms: | owner, quality improvement, markets, implementation, industrial construction, quality management, quality performance measurement, investigation, competitiveness, usability, construction company, interview, total quality management, process improvement, program, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | economic analysis, contractual arrangements, organization, quality assurance, building construction, market analysis, evaluation methods, project delivery, user-centered design, data collection methods, sociology, software systems, management |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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