Matrix Diagram Matrix Diagram Matrix Diagram Wi Wi Prioritization (Wi) PW PWi HOW 1 HOW 1 PWi HOW 2 H OW 1 HOW 2 H OW 2 HOW 3 HOW 3 H OW 3 …. …. …. HOW n HOW n H OW n Level of Performance (LPi) Level of Performance (LPi) HHn1 HHn2 Matrix Diagram Wi H OW 1 H OW 2 H OW 3 …. H OW n HH31 Prioritization (Hj) H1 H2 H3 …. Hn HH32 HHnn HH21 Quality Performance Measurement Tool For Design/Build Construction Using Quality Function Deployment Prioritization (Hj) Prioritization (Hj) H1 H1 H2 H2 H3 H3 …. …. Hn Hn Performance Status (PHj) PH1 PH2 PH3 …. PHn Performance Status (PHj) Performance Status (PHj) 4 5 5 5 5 4 …. …. 5 4 Prioritization (Hj) H1 H2 H3 …. Hn WHAT 1 W1 PW1 R11 R12 R13 …. R1n WHAT 1 W1 5 R11(5:4) R12(5:5) R13(5:4) …. R13(5:4) LP1 WHAT 1 W1 5 R11(5:5) R12(5:5) R13(5:5) …. R1n(5:5) max LP1 WHAT 1 W1 I11 I12 I13 …. I1n WHAT 2 W2 PW2 R21 R22 R23 …. R2n WHAT 2 W2 4 R21(4:4) R22(4:5) R23(4:4) …. R23(4:4) LP2 WHAT 2 W2 5 R21(5:5) R22(5:5) R23(5:5) …. R2n(5:5) max LP2 By Dong -Eun, Lee., M.S. Advisor: Dr. David Arditi Fall 2000 WHAT 2 W2 I21 I22 I23 …. I2n WHAT 3 W3 5 R31(5:4) R32(5:5) R33(5:4) …. R33(5:4) LP3 WHAT 3 W3 5 R31(5:5) R32(5:5) R33(5:5) …. R3n(5:5) max LP3 WHAT 3 W3 PW3 R31 R32 R33 …. R3n WHAT 3 W3 I31 I32 I33 …. I3n …. …. WWm2 WHAT m Wm 5 Rm1(5:5) Rm2(5:5) Rm3(5:5) …. Rmn(5:4) LPm …. WWm1 WHAT m Wm 5 Rm1(5:5) Rm2(5:5) Rm3(5:5) …. Rmn(5:5) max LPm WHAT m Wm PWm Rm1 Rm2 Rm3 …. Rmn WW32 Step 6: Calculate the overall level of quality performance • Publications: • Arditi, D. and Lee, D. -E. (2003). Assessing the Corporate Service Quality Performance of Design/Build Contractors using Quality Function Deployment. Construction Managementand Economics, 21(2). 175-185 • Arditi, D. and Lee, D. -E. (2004). “Service Quality Performance of Design/Build Contractors using Quality Function Deployment.”, Construction Management and Economics, 22(1). 123-127 • 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. Level of Performance (LPj) LP1 LP2 LP3 …. LPn LP WHAT m Wm Im1 Im2 I33 …. Imn Level of Performance (LPj) max LP1 max LP2 max LP3 ….. maxLPn maxLP WW31 WW21 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: The Elements and Process of the QFD (Summarized From Augus Hill: 1994) STEP 1: Identify the elements and collect the data. The Research Objective & the Necessity of Research in D/B Construction • Where, • LP = the overall level of quality performance • LPcorp = the relative service quality performance at corporate level obtained at the Corporate HoQ • LPproj = the relative service quality performance at the project level obtained at the Project HoQ • LPprod = the relative product quality performance at the product level obtained at the Product HoQ • Wcorp = The relative importance weight of service quality performance at the Corporate level on over all quality performance • Wproj = The relative importance weight of service quality performance at the Project level on over all quality performance • Wprod = The relative importance weight of product quality performance on over all quality performance • 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. Service Quality Product Quality (i) • The customer requirements (The WHATS) and their importance weights (Wi) • Technical characteristics (The HOWS) and their importance weights (Hj) • The relationships matrix between the WHATs and the HOWs (Iij) • The correlation matrix between the WHATs and the WHATs (between Wi) • The correlation matrix between the HOWs and the HOWs (between Hj) Corporate Service HoQ Project Service HoQ Product HoQ (ⅵ) (ⅲ) (ⅶ) Corporate Quality Management System Components Project Quality Management System Components Building Performance Factors (ⅸ) STEP 5. Ranking firms according to their relative performance (v) ⓑ • Quality Performance Measurement Model • 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. Ⓑ Product Quality Factors ⓒ Service Quality Factors ⓐ Ⓐ Transfer Ⓔ Ⓒ ● ● ● Ⓓ Figure 2 The HoQ obtained by data collection and normalization * W1 * W2 * W3 A B C Quality Performance Measurement Information System STEP 2: Conduct data processing of HoQ (ⅱ) Level of Quality Performance (LP) of D/B firms (ⅳ) • The performance status (PWi and PHj): • 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 (Rij) 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 (Iij) obtained in Step 1 (Figure 2). The values in the roofs of the HoQ and also the importance ratings add up to 1. (ⅵ’) (ⅶ’) (ⅷ) • ………… (Eq.1) • ………………. (Eq.2) • ……………………........ (Eq.3) • ………………………..... (Eq.4) • Where, - Rij: The points score for each intersection between WHATs and HOWs.- PWi: The performance status of each WHAT.- PHj : The performance status of each HOW.- Wi: The normalized weight of importance of each WHAT. - Hj: The normalized weight of importance of each HOW.- Iij: The strength of the relationships between WHATs and HOWs.- HHij: The strength of the relationships between HOWs and HOWs. • Figure 1: Quality Performance Measurement Model Figure 2: The Level of Service Quality Performance at the Corporate Level 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 measurementcomponentsare 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 factorsaffecting 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. • Theparticipantsinvolved 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 Conclusion Figure 3 HoQ chart produced by data processing • 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. STEP 3: Calculate the maximum level of quality performance Step 4: Calculate the level of quality performance 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. Figure 4 HoQ when PWi and PHj are all 5. Figure 5 HoQ when PWi and PHj arenot all 5 The maximum level of performance (max LPi) for each WHATi, the maximum level of performance (max LPj) for each HOWj, and the maximum level of performance (max LP) for a D/B firm are calculated as follows: max LPi= for 1im ………… . (Eq.5) max LPj= (1jn) ……………… (Eq.6) max LP= ………… (Eq.7) The max LP constitutes a level of performance of 100%, if PWi and PHj areall 5. This becomes the maximum status of the D/B firm’s performance. • 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 isless than 100 %. • The level of performance (LPi) for each WHATj,the level of performance (LPj) for each HOWj, and the level of performance (LP) for a D/B firm are calculated according to those Eq.5, Eq.6 and Eq.7, respectively. SinceLP (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) Methodology • TheDefinition 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).