Seymour, D; Shammas-Toma, M and Clark, L (1997) Limitations of the use of tolerances for communicating design requirements to site. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 4(1), pp. 3-22. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
The paper reports an empirical study designed to establish the extent to which adequate concrete cover to reinforcement in a sample of structures was achieved. It was found that the standards fell significantly short of those specified. Two kinds of explanation are considered to account for these findings. The first accepts as given the existing divisions of responsibility and conventions for specifying quality and looks to identify the reasons for non-compliance. The second proposes that the present arrangements and conventions are inappropriate to the conditions of variability and uncertainty standardly met with in construction. On the basis of this second set of assumptions, an alternative approach, using the concept of continuous quality improvement, is described and discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; continuous improvement; co-ordination; lean construction; professionalism; quality; reinforced concrete |
| Index terms: | lean construction, compliance, reinforced concrete, professionalism, quality improvement, continuous improvement, empirical study, reinforcement, variability |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, building construction, health safety and environment, professional development, performance measurement, research methods, project delivery, building materials |
| Topics: | Construction Materials, Information Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Quality Management, Site 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