Abstract
Quality assurance in construction has proved to have unpredictable outcomes after the implementation of different quality assurances by different firms. Measures are therefore being put in place to find ways of formulating implementation models that will ensure that more positive outcomes, which are also predictable, are reached so that quality assurances can be effective. Good personnel training coupled with an audit is just but a few of the aspects that are being integrated with construction to ensure that quality assurances are efficient and effective in bringing positive results.
Introduction
Unlike several years ago, corporate responsibility is assuming a more central part in the day-to-day activities of large business organizations. With evidenced cases of scandals and catastrophes in the building industry, public scrutiny has assumed a new level forcing the companies to increase their measures to ensure quality and hence competitiveness. Consequently, the competitive spearhead of each organization is purely dependent on the quality of the products and services offered by the organization. Therefore, what are the main endeavors assumed by these companies to ensure quality and hence sharpen their competitive edge? This report highlights the main techniques used by civil and structural engineers to ensure quality assurance during building and construction projects. This objective will be achieved through the examination of modern techniques, steps and procedures implemented to ensure quality.
Cornick (1988) defines quality as a “conformance to requirements, which is attained through management for improvement by all project participants, and this should result in assurance by demonstration” (p.211). Johnson (2003) posits that quality assurance and quality control are very important aspects of building projects. However, one might wonder what should be done to ensure quality assurance in a given project. In his analysis, Cornick further outlines four fundamentals that define quality. To begin with, the definition must put into consideration the expectations and needs of the client. However, these needs have to be realistic and measurable.
Results
There is a wide field of activities that are covered by quality assurance, which includes planning and development to just mention a few. Quality assurance implementation was introduced in Australia in the early years of 1990. The expected outcomes of the implementation of these quality assurance programs in construction are not clear due to the fact that different companies have been successful in implementing these strategies but others have had failures in doing the same. This leaves a question as to the effectiveness of the assurance program and its reliability since the success of all the firms engaging in quality assurance is not guaranteed (Karim, Marosszeky & Kumaraswamy, 2005, p. 798). Furthermore, research carried out shows that these variations are brought about by the fact that different construction firms have different construction ideas despite the fact that the constructions might be similar, the fact remains that each construction is unique.
Different outcomes have been achieved in the implementation of quality assurance especially that of ISO 9000. Due to this variability, there are assumptions that have been created to come up with reasons why these quality assurances do not result in positive outcomes when they are implemented by different companies. One of the assumptions that have been reached is that the methodologies for the implementation of these quality assurance strategies are different for the different companies so that one company achieves the desired effect while another uses its own methodologies which causes it to fail in the implementation. Due to this, research is ongoing to determine the basis of the successes of different companies and the failure of others. Once this is achieved, then an implementing method can be reached so that it can provide a guide that will ensure all the quality assurance programs are effective rather than hanging on the possibilities of whether the program will be effective and provide desired positive outcomes (Karim, Marosszeky & Kumaraswamy, 2005, p. 784). Preferred firms were picked out to do this investigation and this included the comparison between the probable causes and the effect connection that exists between the different results and the procedures that are undertaken during the implementation process in addition to corporate culture together with other factors that might have a direct cause to the failure of some quality assurances.
After a considerable survey was carried out, it was agreed that the possible results of a quality assurance strategy are not always assured to keep on going consistently, rather the results may differ from one firm to another. Consequently, only a few firms are actually able to have desired positive outcomes consistently without the failures that are encountered by the majority of firms, which fall in this section of failed outcomes. Other firms are recorded to have never received any positive outcomes with the use of quality assurance. Irrespective of this, the majority of firms usually have results that are not predictable and this means that they usually have unpredictable results. Due to this unpredictability of the outcomes, another approach has been taken, that is, instead of studying the outcomes of the entire organization as a whole, better results would be achieved if the outcome were scrutinized individually so that the basic concepts behind the procedures carried out to reach this outcome could be grasped. With such a study, a possible implementation model could be reached since it is clear that the outcome reached is directly related to the implementation process that was followed.
Another factor that can be considered is the fact that audits have been incorporated with the responsibility of measuring the efficiency of the quality assurance strategy or system (Eduardo & SchindeI-Bidinelli, 1996, p. 35). The background objective behind these quality audits is to determine the quality of the measuring equipment that is intended to be used during the construction together with the judgment of establishing the quality of the products that are going to be used during the construction. A process audit is also carried out which has the main function of conducting a comprehensive assessment regarding the effectiveness of quality assurance. This is done by conducting a detailed examination of the sequence of the process to be carried out during the construction process. This includes the equipment that is to be utilized, the documentation of the whole procedure and how it will be conducted, the drawings of the construction that is yet to be made, an examination of the working papers that are being used in the processes that are underway and finally critical observations of the conducts of the persons who are in charge of the whole process (Eduardo & SchindeI-Bidinelli, 1996, p. 36). The main function of the quality assurance system is to ensure that the standards of the end product of construction are of high quality and to achieve these adhesive agents have been in use to ensure that constructions carried out have the result of being of high quality and reliable.
Comments and analysis
Quality assurance is becoming such an important aspect in the construction industry and as a result, it should be put into serious consideration during the building process. A good quality assurance program has its own benefits such as it ensures that there is safety and time in addition to the materials that are used during the construction ate saved, the product that is produced is also of high quality and this ensures customer satisfaction, which is always the main focus of every producer. Keeping in mind that there are various outcomes that result from the implementation of a quality assurance system, and then there should be a close observation that should be made on the projects that have had positive outcomes so that implementation models can be created from these strategies (Delgado-Hernandez & Aspinwall, 2008, p. 1014). This will ensure that the unpredictability of the possible outcomes of the various is dealt with and the outcomes can be manipulated so that an implementation model is achieved that will ensure that all the outcomes produce positive outcomes.
Considering that each construction venture has its own unique qualities, the manipulation needs to be elaborate unlike in the case of manufacturing a product where the production of a certain product is done with the same degree of preparation. Manufacturing also differs from construction since the manufacturer is the client and so the objectives of the manufacturer are similar to those of the client since they are one and the same. This differs from construction because the designs created from the construction are made by a firm that differs from the construction firm that is going to engage in the actual construction. The quality assurance for the manufacturing firm, therefore, differs from that of a construction firm. In addition to those two aspects mentioned, another aspect that greatly differs is the economic situation of a construction firm (Delgado-Hernandez & Aspinwall, 2008, p.1024). The economics applied in construction are far more volatile as compared to those of a manufacturing firm and therefore the quality assessment proves to be more complex. These factors have to be put in mind when formulating a quality assessment strategy for a construction firm.
The audits can also prove to be helpful in ensuring that the quality assurance programs are effective and that they give the desired positive outcomes that are needed by construction firms (Eduardo M. & SchindeI-Bidinelli, 1996, p. 35). Some things that are evaluated by the auditors can lead to the achievement of positive outcomes by the implementation of these quality assurance systems. Some of the things that are observed by the auditors include a detailed observation of the specification of the manufacturing process of the adhesive bonding to be used during the construction. The auditors also obtain information concerning the process being applied and its connection with the quality that is desired by the constructor, also it confirms that the person conducting the construction is adequately trained and whether the description process documented is being observed by the personnel. The requirements that are made by the auditors make it easier for the achievement of positive outcomes during and after the implementation of the quality assurance systems (Cornick, 1988, p. 225).
Conclusions
Current constructions require that there are positive outcomes that come out of the quality assurance systems. There is one factor that is clear for the achievement of efficient quality assurance and that entirely depends on the training of the personnel involved in the construction. If personnel are trained appropriately then there are chances that the quality assurance strategy is effective. In addition to this, the development of a quality assurance model will reduce and help to eliminate the chances of the unpredictability of the outcomes of the various quality assurances used by different firms (Sroufe & Curkovic, 2008, p. 511). This coupled with the role played by audits will help to enhance the effectiveness of the various quality assurance systems since the audit reports prepared by the auditors usually show the weak points of the construction process by showing the negative aspects of the construction. With these weak points shown, then there are preventive measures that can be taken to prevent negative outcomes.
Summary
A quality assurance system will be best arrived at with the close examination of procedures that have resulted in positive outcomes. This examination will help to determine whether an implementation model can be arrived at so that the quality assurance system used by different firms could be more predictable as compared to the current state where most firms cannot predict whether the quality assurance systems will yield positive results. The audit is also another aspect that will reduce the failure of these quality assurance systems since it points out the weak points that can be focused on as a preventive measure.
List of References
Cornick, T.C., 1988. Quality management model for building projects. Project management, 6 (4), pp.221-227.
Delgado-Hernandez, D. J. & Aspinwall, E., 2008. A framework for building quality into construction projects – Part I. Total Quality Management, 19 (10), pp.1013–1028.
Eduardo M. & SchindeI-Bidinelli, 1996. Quality assurance – adhesive bonding audits: New approaches to quality assurance and to QA monitoring Audits. Int. J. Adhesion and Adhesives, 16, pp. 33-37.
Karim, K., Marosszeky, M. & Kumaraswamy, M., 2005. Organizational Effectiveness Model for Quality Management Systems in the Australian Construction Industry. Total Quality Management, 16 (6), pp.793–806.
Sroufe, R. & Curkovic, S., 2008. An examination of ISO 9000:2000 and supply chain quality assurance. Journal of Operations Management, 26, pp. 503–520.