Fox, S; Marsh, L and Cockerham, G (2003) Assessing the capability of construction processes to realize building designs. Construction Management and Economics, 21(1), pp. 7-10. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The capability of processes should be assessed during their development. If assessment reveals that a process is not capable of meeting design requirements, that process should be improved until reassessment indicates that it is capable. This proactive approach can radically reduce non-conformances. Existing methods of assessment depend upon the sampling of process data. Such methods are well-established and well-documented. They provide the foundation for statistical process control (SPC) and can be applied to most processes including those used in the construction of buildings. However, there are several reasons why sampling data to assess construction process capability can be extremely difficult. In this paper, the limitations of existing assessment methods are outlined. Then, a new assessment method is introduced and results from a preliminary field study are reported. Next, the key features of the new method are discussed. In conclusion, guidelines for its successful introduction are provided.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building design requirements; construction process capability |
| Index terms: | field study, construction process, process control, building design, sampling |
| Subjects: | architectural design, control systems, data collection methods, building construction, research methods |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Site Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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