Prioritizing actions to mitigate causes of material waste in construction using quality function deployment

Huynh, N. M.; Bui, P. T.; Le-Hoai, L. and Tang, M. N. (2026) Prioritizing actions to mitigate causes of material waste in construction using quality function deployment. Construction Economics and Building, 26(2), ISSN 2204-9029

Abstract

Material waste in construction projects remains a significant issue, leading to increased costs, environmental impacts, and inefficiencies. This study addressed this challenge by developing a structured decision-support approach to prioritize actions to mitigate material waste aligned with the unique conditions of each construction site. Causes and mitigation actions were initially identified through a literature review, expert interviews, and a survey analysis. Next, principal component analysis simplified the dataset's complexity by grouping related causes and mitigation actions into distinct categories. These categories served as the structured inputs for the quality function deployment (QFD) model. Mitigation actions were then prioritized using this model, with the results validated by experts to assess the method's appropriateness for material wastage. The study effectively introduced a process to prioritize the mitigation actions, aligning with identified causes and other actions. Additionally, a set of causes and actions was identified in this study. Major causes included fire and explosion incidents, defective materials, and material theft. Key actions were efficient project planning, accurate material management, and the implementation of comprehensive storage and handling procedures. Construction process supervision emerged as the highest priority, while reuse and recycling promotion, although ranked the lowest, remained significant. This study introduced a systematic approach to prioritize actions that address root causes and assess the impact of each action on others, providing practical, cascading solutions to site-specific challenges. In addition, by conducting the research within the context of Vietnam, this study further demonstrated the applicability of this methodological framework in developing economies with similar construction environments.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction efficiency; construction material waste; quality function deployment; waste mitigation strategies
Index terms: environmental impact, supervision, construction project, recycling, construction site, interview, literature review, efficiency, theft, key action, mitigation, prioritizing, dataset, construction material, construction process, complexity, strategy, implementation, quality function deployment, promotion, developing economy, survey, principal component analysis, project planning, Vietnam
Subjects: contractual arrangements, management, systems engineering, waste management, statistical analysis, production management, financial risk, economic development, control systems, environmental impact, work location, data analysis and analytics, data management, Geography, criminal law, quality assurance, data collection methods, performance management, building construction, building materials, decision analysis
Topics: Cost Management, Geographical Context, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Project Management, Site Management, Procurement, Research Practice, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, International Construction, Sustainability
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