Meiling, J H; Sandberg, M and Johnsson, H (2014) A study of a plan-do-check-act method used in less industrialized activities: Two cases from industrialized housebuilding. Construction Management and Economics, 32(1-2), pp. 109-125. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
In construction projects, a large number of deviations are usually found during inspections and adjusted in a reactive manner. For projects to become proactive, root causes need to be identified and eliminated as a part of a process of continuous improvement (CI). Plan-do-check-act (PDCA) methods are part of CI and have been used with success within the manufacturing industry for decades. Research studies of PDCA in construction are less common, which could be explained by the past dominance of the project-based nature of construction compared to the process-based nature of manufacture. Industrialized construction, however, has changed this picture somewhat, and it is of interest to find out how well it works for less industrialized activities in construction. A PDCA method was tested in two cases selected from one medium-sized Swedish industrialized housebuilder, which uses a building system based on offsite manufactured modules. Empirical results are based on systematic data gathered through interviews and participant observations. Results from the two cases show that the PDCA method worked even when processes were divided into industrialized parts within a factory and non-industrial parts at the construction site although this might lead to temporary corrective actions rather than permanent process actions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | a3 visualization; continuous improvement; industrialized housebuilding; plan-do-check-act cycle |
| Index terms: | building system, module, housebuilding, continuous improvement, deviation, housebuilder, inspection, construction project, visualization, industrialized construction, observation, interview, manufacturing industry, construction site |
| Subjects: | financial and cost management, work location, engineering systems, practitioner, data collection methods, construction type, industry analysis, quality assurance, production management, architectural elements, design practice, performance measurement, construction integration |
| Topics: | Site Management, Quality Management, Design Practice, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| 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