Quality Performance Measurement Tool For Design/Build Construction Using Quality Function Deployment By Dong -Eun, Lee., M.S. Advisor: Dr. David Arditi Fall 2000 Publications: Arditi, D. and Lee, D. -E. (2003). Assessing the Corporate Service Quality Performance of Design/Build Contractors using Quality Function Deployment. Construction Management and Economics, 21(2) Arditi, D. and Lee, D. -E. (2004). “Service Quality Performance of Design/Build Contractors using Quality Function Deployment.”, Construction Management and Economics, 22(1) Lee, D. -E. and Arditi, D. (under review 2004). “Total Quality Performance of Design/Build Firms using Quality Function Deployment.” Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, ASCE. The Research Objective & the Necessity of Research in D/B Construction Is to develop an operational quality performance measurement tool for D/B construction, which can measure, store, and predict the level of quality performance of D/B firms so as to measure the overall quality performance of them in terms of corporate and project service quality and product quality. The D/B construction needs a quality performance measurement tool, because the construction owner is not able to check the quality of the project as efficiently as it does in traditional delivery methods. Quality in D/B projects may suffer because designing and building is done by the same firm. Corporate Service HoQ Project Service HoQ Product HoQ Corporate Quality Management System Components Building Performance Factors Project Quality Management System Components Transfer Product Quality Factors * W 1 * W 2 * W 3 Level of Quality Performance (LP) of D/B firms ● Service Quality Factors              ⓒ ⓐ Ⓑ ⓑ Ⓒ Ⓐ Ⓓ Ⓔ  A B C ●● Service QualityProduct Quality Quality Performance Measurement Model Research Preparation The quality performance measurement modules, components, and factors are identified and integrated in one system by modeling the quality performance measurement system. The three modules of the quality performance measurement tool are identified and the quality performance measurement of D/B firms is conducted by performing quality function deployment (QFD) on the data that measure the three modules: –The Corporate Service HoQ Module – measures the service quality of the D/B firm at the corporate level. –The Project Service HoQ Module – measures the service quality of the D/B firm at the project level. –The Product HoQ Module – measures the product quality obtained from the post occupancy evaluation (POE) of a building’s performance. The following quality performance measurement components are identified and integrated in the corresponding modules using following research and criteria. –The Malcolm Baldrige Awards criteria: are used for the quality management system components at the corporate level. –PMI standards: are used for the quality management system components at the project level. –David A. Garvin’s product quality dimensions: are used for building product quality factors at the product level. –Parasuraman. et al.’s service quality dimensions: are used for the service quality factors at the corporate and project level. –Post-Occupancy Evaluation factors: are used for building performance factors at the product level. The factors affecting each component are identified. The quality system requirements and the implemented quality management system in D/B firms have been obtained through surveys and integrated into this system. The participants involved in quality performance measurement are identified as four groups based on their role, responsibilities, needs, and expectations relevant to the quality performance measurement as follows; –Construction owners, Senior managers of D/B firms, Quality system assessors and/or consultants, and Building users The Design of Survey Questionnaires The survey questionnaires administered to the participants were designed to collect the following data corresponding to the quality components –The demographics of participants –The strength of the relationships between quality factors –The relative importance of quality factors –The relative importance of quality performance at different levels – namely Service quality at corporate level Service quality at project level Building quality at product level –The strength of the relationships between quality management system components and quality factors at each level. Methodology –The Definition of Quality Function Deployment: An approach for translating the “voice of the customer” through the various stages of product planning, parts planning, process planning, and production planning into a final product. In implementing QFD, design engineers, marketing, and manufacturing personnel work together to create a product design that most closely meets customer requirements (Cortada: 1995). –A technique to deploy customer requirements into design characteristics and deploy them into subsystems, components, materials and production processes (Hoyle: 1994). The Elements and Process of the QFD (Summarized From Augus Hill: 1994)  WW 32 WW m2  WW 21 WW 31 WW m1  HH 21 HH 31 HH 32 HH n1 HH n2 HH nn Matrix Diagram WiWi H OW 1 H OW 2 H OW 3 ….H OW n Prioritizatio n (H j ) H1H1 H2H2 H3H3 …. Hn Hn WHAT 1 W1W1 I 11 I 12 I 13 …. I 1n WHAT 2 W2W2 I 21 I 22 I 23 …. I 2n WHAT 3 W3 W3 I 31 I 32 I 33 …. I 3n …. WHAT m WmWm I m1 I m2 I 33 …. I mn STEP 1: Identify the elements and collect the data.  The customer requirements (The WHATS) and their importance weights (W i )  Technical characteristics (The HOWS) and their importance weights (H j ) The relationships matrix between the WHATs and the HOWs (I ij )  The correlation matrix between the WHATs and the WHATs (between W i ) The correlation matrix between the HOWs and the HOWs (between H j ) Figure 2 The HoQ obtained by data collection and normalization Figure 1: Quality Performance Measurement Model STEP 2: Conduct data processing of HoQ Matrix Diagram Prioriti zation (W i ) PW i H OW 1 H OW 2 H OW 3 …. H OW n Prioritization (H j ) H1H1 H2H2 H3H3 ….HnHn Performance Status (PH j ) PH 1 PH 2 PH 3 …. PH n WHAT 1 W1W1 PW 1 R 11 R 12 R 13 ….R 1n WHAT 2 W2W2 PW 2 R 21 R 22 R 23 ….R 2n WHAT 3 W3W3 PW 3 R 31 R 32 R 33 ….R 3n …. WHAT m WmWm PW m R m1 R m2 R m3 ….R mn Figure 3 HoQ chart produced by data processing The performance status (PW i and PH j ): –Ranges from 1 to 5, where 1 is “poor”, 5 “excellent”. –Are evaluated and specified by an independent quality management system assessor. –The highlighted column and row are input devices that make it possible to put the performance status data into this HoQ. The boxed-in point scores (R ij ) for each intersection between WHATs and HOWs are calculated by multiplying the mean of the relative importance of a HOW and that of a WHAT by the strength of its relationships (I ij ) obtained in Step 1 (Figure 2). The values in the roofs of the HoQ and also the importance ratings add up to 1. ………… (Eq.1) ………………. (Eq.2) …………………… (Eq.3) ………………………..... (Eq.4) Where, - R ij : The points score for each intersection between WHATs and HOWs. - PW i : The performance status of each WHAT. - PH j : The performance status of each HOW. - W i : The normalized weight of importance of each WHAT. - H j : The normalized weight of importance of each HOW. - I ij : The strength of the relationships between WHATs and HOWs. - HH ij : The strength of the relationships between HOWs and HOWs. STEP 3: Calculate the maximum level of quality performance Matrix Diagram WiWi PW HOW 1 HOW 2 HOW 3 ….HOW n Level of Performan ce (LP i ) Prioritization (H j ) H1H1 H2H2 H3H3 ….HnHn Performance Status (PH j ) …. 5 WHAT 1 W1W1 5 R 11 (5:5)R 12 (5:5)R 13 (5:5)….R 1n (5:5) max LP 1 WHAT 2 W2W2 5 R 21 (5:5)R 22 (5:5)R 23 (5:5)….R 2n (5:5) max LP 2 WHAT 3 W3W3 5 R 31 (5:5)R 32 (5:5)R 33 (5:5)….R 3n (5:5) max LP 3 WHAT m WmWm 5 R m1 (5:5)R m2 (5:5)R m3 (5:5)….R mn (5:5) max LP m Level of Performance (LP j ) max LP 1max LP 2max LP 3….. maxLP n maxLP Figure 4 HoQ when PW i and PH j are all 5. The maximum level of performance (max LP i ) for each WHAT i, the maximum level of performance (max LP j ) for each HOW j, and the maximum level of performance (max LP) for a D/B firm are calculated as follows: max LP i = for 1  i  m …………. (Eq.5) max LP j = (1  j  n) ……………… (Eq.6) max LP= ………… (Eq.7) The max LP constitutes a level of performance of 100%, if PW i and PH j are all 5. This becomes the maximum status of the D/B firm’s performance. Step 4: Calculate the level of quality performance Matrix Diagram WiWi PW i HOW 1 HOW 2 HOW 3 ….HOW n Level of Performa nce (LP i ) Prioritization (H j ) H 1 H 2 H 3 …. H n Performance Status (PH j ) 4 54 …. 4 WHAT 1 W1W1 5 R 11 (5:4)R 12 (5:5)R 13 (5:4) …. R 13 (5:4)LP 1 WHAT 2 W2W2 4 R 21 (4:4)R 22 (4:5)R 23 (4:4) …. R 23 (4:4)LP 2 WHAT 3 W3W3 5 R 31 (5:4)R 32 (5:5)R 33 (5:4) …. R 33 (5:4)LP 3 …. WHAT m WmWm 5 R m1 (5:5)R m2 (5:5)R m3 (5:5) …. R mn (5:4)LP m Level of Performance (LP j )LP 1 LP 2 LP 3 …. LP n LP Figure 5 HoQ when PW i and PH j are not all 5 If the performance status in any of the factors is less then the maximum of 5, such as in the following example given in Figure 5, then, the level of performance is less than 100 %. The level of performance (LP i ) for each WHAT j,the level of performance (LP j ) for each HOW j, and the level of performance (LP) for a D/B firm are calculated according to those Eq.5, Eq.6 and Eq.7, respectively. Since LP (calculated in Figure 5)  max LP (calculated in Figure 4), the level of performance is less than 100%. The relative performance can be obtained from the following equation: –The relative performance = …… (Eq.8) STEP 5. Ranking firms according to their relative performance Finally, firms are ranked according to the order of their relative performance. This can be called a “benchmarking” exercise. Also, if one wants to see how a company’s corporate quality performance will be impacted by changes in its performance status, one can perform what-if analysis. Step 6: Calculate the overall level of quality performance Where, LP = the overall level of quality performance LP corp = the relative service quality performance at corporate level obtained at the Corporate HoQ LP proj = the relative service quality performance at the project level obtained at the Project HoQ LP prod = the relative product quality performance at the product level obtained at the Product HoQ W corp = The relative importance weight of service quality performance at the Corporate level on over all quality performance W proj = The relative importance weight of service quality performance at the Project level on over all quality performance W prod = The relative importance weight of product quality performance on over all quality performance All the steps described in the previous section to calculate the Corporate Service HoQ are repeated for the Project Service HoQ and Product HoQ. The result that would incorporate similar information to the previous sections are then used to calculate the overall level of quality performance of the firm by using the following weighted average: Quality Performance Measurement Information System (ⅸ)(ⅸ) (i) (ⅱ)(ⅱ) (ⅲ)(ⅲ) (ⅳ)(ⅳ) (ⅵ)(ⅵ) (ⅶ)(ⅶ) (ⅷ)(ⅷ) (v) ( ⅵ ’) ( ⅶ ’) Figure 2: The Level of Service Quality Performance at the Corporate Level Conclusion This quality performance measurement tool (QPMT) makes it possible to measure the quality performance of D/B construction at three different levels, namely service quality at the corporate level, service quality at the project level, and product quality. This quality performance measurement tool measures the quality performance of the service provided by a D/B firm as well as the quality performance of the product of D/B construction. The service quality is measured at the corporate as well as at the project level. It is possible to plot the relative performance of quality of a D/B firm by ranking according to their relative importance service quality factors at the corporate and project levels, the quality management system components at the corporate and project levels, building quality factors, and the building performance factors. This quality performance measurement tool can be used as a qualification system to rank D/B firms in terms of their quality performance. The usability of quality audits and assessments conducted by D/B firms, the owner, and third parties such as ISO 9000 quality management system auditing and consulting firms will be augmented, which in turn will lead to higher efficiency levels of quality management in D/B construction. Furthermore, because post occupancy evaluation criteria are integrated in this measurement tool, the quality performance information of D/B firms is much more reliable.