Lundkvist, R; Meiling, J H and Sandberg, M (2014) A proactive plan-do-check-act approach to defect management based on a Swedish construction project. Construction Management and Economics, 32(11), pp. 1051-1065. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
In order to continuously improve quality and avoid reoccurrence of defects, defect management (DM) in construction needs to take a more proactive approach. The classification of construction information is important for the efficient exchange and integration of data between the many roles and phases of construction and facility management, but it also provides a framework for standardization, which in turn is paramount for improvement. In order to better understand how defects can be managed proactively we conducted a case study on inspection practices at a large construction project in Sweden, using observation and analysis of inspection reports. We identified opportunities and obstacles in the classification of defect data. The project’s defect descriptions were often ambiguous and the records lacked important contextual information. We believe that this was because current practice is not designed with proactivity in mind, and there are only regulatory requirements on the data, making classification difficult. In addition, by viewing the project’s practices through the lenses of continuous improvement and plan-do-check-act theory to identify missing or inadequate steps, we propose a framework for a proactive version of the current defect management process that could potentially help to prioritize improvement work and reduce the incidence of defects.,
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building defects; classification; continuous improvement; inspection; quality management |
| Index terms: | quality management, building defect, defect management, large construction project, continuous improvement, Sweden, standardization, construction project, integration, case study, inspection |
| Subjects: | organizational theory, Geography, production management, professional practice, performance measurement, quality assurance, data collection methods, organizational analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Design Practice, Organizational Design |
| 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