The rationalization of quality in the construction industry: Some empirical findings

Pheng, L S (1993) The rationalization of quality in the construction industry: Some empirical findings. Construction Management and Economics, 11(4), pp. 247-259. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

The industry’s attempt to rationalize construction quality is examined. Two schools of thought are identified. While the determinist school of thought envisages a belief that every construction element can be quantified and accounted for in writing, the indeterminist school, on the other hand, suggests otherwise. The socio-political effects on quality as well as the technical safeguards taken by both the contractor and the employer are investigated. Emphasis is then directed towards workmanship and the relevance of Quality Assurance as a management process for achieving quality standards in the construction industry. The empirical results of a field study from six building sites in the West Midlands, England are presented to highlight the salient factors which influence respondents' perceptions and attitudes towards construction quality. The findings from this study tend to mirror the existence of both the rational and irrational approaches to quality in the construction industry. The industry needs to recognize this phenomenon in its attempt to institutionalize any procedure to both achieve and maintain quality construction.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: irrationality; quality; quality assurance; rationality; workmanship
Index terms: field study, rationality, building site, quality assurance, workmanship, construction quality, safeguards, England, quality standard, irrationality, construction industry
Subjects: Geography, contractual condition, site and location studies, research methods, decision-making and reasoning, industry analysis, quality assurance, occupational health and safety management
Topics: Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Contract Administration, Quality Management
Descriptive scope: 3 PCT

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