Winch, G; Usmani, A and Edkins, A (1998) Towards total project quality: A gap analysis approach. Construction Management and Economics, 16(2), pp. 193-207. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This paper presents a critique of existing approaches to the management of projects and the definition of project success, arguing that these are both fragmented and fail to place the client at the centre of the process. In this critique, the paper focuses on quality management, and places the minimization of client surprise at the heart of the assessment of project success. As an alternative, a gap analysis approach, derived from the service quality management literature, is developed which, it is argued, provides a better way of understanding the challenge of managing projects. The model is then applied empirically to the Glaxo project, the largest building project in the UK in recent years. The Glaxo project was remarkably successful, and the lessons can be learned well through the perspective of the gap analysis model. In conclusion the paper concludes that quality on construction projects is a negotiated order, and that design reviews are the principal means by which this order is negotiated.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | client satisfaction; gap analysis; glaxo; project management; quality management |
| Index terms: | construction project, service quality, minimization, quality management, heart, project management, client satisfaction, critique, gap analysis, project success |
| Subjects: | production management, project management theory and practice, performance measurement, medical science and clinical practice, algorithms, quality assurance, evaluation and assessment methods, client relations |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Project Management, Health and Safety, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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