Models for predicting quality of building projects

Yean Yng Ling, F (2005) Models for predicting quality of building projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(1), pp. 6-20. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose – The objectives of this paper are to: find out whether designbidbuild (DBB) or designbuild (DB) procurement method gives better quality building; identify variables that significantly affect quality scores of DBB and DB projects; and construct models to predict quality scores of DB and DBB projects. Design/methodology/approach – The research design was based on a structured questionnaire and data on quality performance and factors that may affect quality of a building project were collected by postal survey and facetoface interviews. Findings – There was no significant difference between the quality scores of DB and DBB projects. To ensure that buildings procured through DBB have high quality, owners should adopt the following practices: engage experienced consultants; shortlist bidders and select contractors based on a combination of price and ability. To obtain high quality DB buildings, owners should engage architects to prepare the scheme design and not to set the budget too early. For both types of projects, owners should allow contractors to propose changes to the contract with a view to improving its quality. Research limitations/implications – As there is no significant difference in quality of DBB and DB projects, the argument that DB projects produce lower quality buildings is demolished. Practical implications – The practical implication is that owners play an important part in ensuring that they obtain buildings of high quality. Originality/value – Building owners and consultants can use the two models to predict quality scores of DBB and DB projects and take specific actions to improve the quality of their projects if necessary.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: building services; buildings; design; quality management; Singapore
Index terms: architect, bidder, quality performance, quality management, Singapore, procurement method, building service, research design, owner, questionnaire, methodology, interview, survey, face
Subjects: research methods, Geography, sociology, quality assurance, research design and methodology, data collection methods, profession, engineering systems, psychology, project delivery, bidding, contractual arrangements
Topics: Organizational Design, Quality Management, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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