Moatazed-Keivani, R; Ghanbari-Parsa, A R and Kagaya, S (1999) ISO 9000 standards: Perceptions and experiences in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 17(1), pp. 107-119. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
With the adoption by construction firms of BS EN ISO 9000 there has been much debate concerning its effectiveness and value as a quality management system. In spite of the reported benefits of ISO 9000 certification, however, concerns regarding its overall benefit to construction firms due to unnecessary bureaucracy and paperwork, increased costs, stifling of innovation, etc. still persist in the industry. This paper reports on the results of a research carried out on the implementation of BS EN ISO 9000 as a continuation of BS5750 in the UK construction industry from the view point of the experiences and perceptions of quality assurance managers of selected construction firms.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | certification; construction firms; iso 9000 standard; quality assurance; quality management systems |
| Index terms: | certification, ISO, manager, construction firm, quality assurance, effectiveness, quality management system, implementation, construction industry |
| Subjects: | project delivery, contractual arrangements, standards development, practitioner, organization, quality assurance, industry analysis, administrative processes, performance management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Business Strategy, Procurement, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Contract Administration |
| 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