vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TITLE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
1
2
PAGE
xiiiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xvi
LIST OF APPPENDICES
xvii
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Overview
1
1.2
Background of Research
3
1.3
Problem Statement
5
1.4
Research Questions
7
1.5
Aim and Objectives
9
1.6
Research Scope
9
1.7
Research Significance
11
1.8
Thesis Outline
12
LITERATURE REVIEW
14
2.1
Introduction
14
2.2
Introduction to Demolition Industry
16
2.2.1 Demolition Definition
16
2.2.2 Overview of Demolition Industry
17
viii
2.2.3 The Demolition Planning
18
2.2.4 The Demolition Process
20
2.2.4.1 Bidding Phase
21
2.2.4.2 Pre-Demolition Phase
22
2.2.4.3 Demolition Phase
22
2.2.4.4 Post-Demolition Stage
24
2.2.5 Problems in Demolition Industry
27
2.3
The Need for Quality in the Demolition Industry
29
2.4
Need for Quality Assessment Framework
31
2.5
Quality in Construction and Demolition Industry
32
2.5.1 Quality of Performance
34
2.5.2 Dimensions of Quality Performance
35
2.5.3 Contractor Quality Performance Indicator
38
2.6
2.5.3.1 Key Contributors to Project
Performance
40
2.5.3.2 Key Contributors to Quality
Performance
40
2.5.3.3 Key Contributors to Environmental
Performance
41
2.5.3.4 Key Contributors to Organisational
Performance
41
2.5.3.5 Key Contributors to Project
Complexity
42
2.5.3.6 Key Contributors to Waste
Performance
43
Customer in Demolition Industry
44
2.6.1 Customer Satisfaction
44
2.6.2 Identifying Customer
46
2.6.3 Client Requirements
47
2.6.3.1 Capturing the VoC through the Delphi
method
48
2.6.3.2 Reasons to Select the Delphi
Technique
49
2.6.3.3 Voice of Customer Questions
53
2.6.4 Client’s Requirements in Demolition Industry
54
2.6.4.1 Cost of Demolition
54
2.6.4.2 Demolition Time
56
2.6.4.3 Health and Safety
57
ix
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
2.6.4.4 Environmental Performance
58
2.6.4.5 Quality of Demolition Project
60
2.6.4.6 Customer expectation and satisfaction
60
Introduction to Quality Function Deployment
61
2.7.1 Benefits of QFD
61
2.7.2 QFD in Construction and Demolition
62
2.7.3 The QFD Process
64
2.7.4 Limitations and Constraints of QFD
67
2.7.5 QFD Prioritization Techniques
69
2.7.6 Rating Systems Used In QFD
71
2.7.6.1 Importance Rating
71
2.7.6.2 Relationship Matrix Ratings
72
2.7.6.3 Correlation Matrix Ratings
73
Integrating MCDM with QFD
73
2.8.1 AHP’s Shortcoming Used with QFD
74
2.8.2 Modifying the AHP-QFD Model by Integrating
of ANP
75
2.8.3 A Cybernetic Model for Analytic Network
Process
79
Conclusion
81
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
82
3.1
Introduction
82
3.2
Summary of Research Methodology
83
3.3
ANP-QFD Methodology
86
3.4
Integrating Cybernetic-ANP into QFD
86
3.5
Performance Measurement Framework Development
88
3.5.1 Conducting the Delphi Method
89
3.5.2 Number of Delphi Rounds
90
3.5.3 Expertise Selection and Requirements for
Delphi
91
3.5.4 Number of Experts
92
3.5.5 The Delphi Process Structure
92
3.5.6 Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM)
93
Knowledge Acquisition
95
3.6.1 Pair-Wiser Approach
97
3.6
x
4
3.7
Case studies
99
3.8
Summary
99
DEVELOPMENT OF THE HYBRID MODEL
100
4.1
Introduction
100
4.2
The Proposed Hybrid Model
102
4.3
ANP Network Model
103
4.4
Steps to Implement the Hybrid CANP and QFD Model
105
4.5
Decomposition of the Model
106
4.6
Building ANP-QFD Model in Super Decisions
Software
108
4.6.1 Super Decision Components
109
4.6.2 Steps to Model the ANP in Super Decision
109
Summary
116
4.7
5
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HYBRID MODEL
117
5.1
Introduction
117
5.2
Stage I: Framework Development Using Delphi
Methodology
119
5.2.1 Expertise Selection and Requirements
121
5.2.2 Delphi round one: identifying the criteria
122
5.2.3 Round One Results and Analysis
122
5.2.4 Delphi round two: Criteria amendment
124
5.2.5 Round Two Results and Analysis
125
5.2.6 Delphi Round Three: Rating of Criteria
126
5.2.7 Round Three Results and Analysis
126
5.2.8 Delphi Round Four: Reassessing the Criteria
129
5.2.9 Round Four Results and Analysis
129
5.2.10 Define Performance Effective Contributors
131
5.2.11 Contextual Relationship Matrix
137
5.3
Stage II: Model Implementation
139
5.4
Case Study Findings and Discussions
145
5.5
Summary
148
xi
6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
149
6.1
Conclusions of the Research
149
6.2
Contribution to the Body of Knowledge in Demolition
Industry
153
6.3
Recommendations for Future Research
156
6.4
Research Limitations
159
REFERENCES
160
Appendices A-G
177-188
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
1.1
Research questions and methodologies
8
2.1
Proposed contractor quality dimensions
37
2.2
Generated performance category
39
2.3
The Delphi method versus the traditional surveys
50
2.4
Original Japanese QFD symbols
71
2.5
Fundamental scale used to developing matrix for AHP
72
2.6
WHATs vs. HOWs correlation scale
72
2.7
AHP and ANP comparison
76
2.8
Advantages and disadvantages of QFD and ANP
78
2.9
Pair-wiser rules
80
3.1
Dominance comparison scales
96
3.2
Data transforming process to pair-wise judgments
98
5.1
Selected case studies
118
5.2
Steps done to implement the Delphi method
120
5.3
Results generated by the panel of experts in round one
Delphi
123
5.4
Complexity factors recommended by experts in round one
124
5.5
Delphi round two results frequency distribution and
percentage
125
5.6
Complexity factors recommended by experts in round two
126
5.7
Result of Round 3 of the Delphi questionnaire
128
5.8
Comparisons of rounds 3 and 4 of the Delphi questionnaire
130
5.9
Demolition performance indicators and measurements
132
5.10
List of performance indicators and defined ratings
134
5.11
The transitive reachable matrix for performance categories
137
5.12
The transitive reachable matrix for performance indicators
138
5.13
Pair-wiser scoring
142
xiii
5.14
Transformation of Pair-wiser to group pairwise comparison
142
5.15
Weight vectors
143
5.16
Final assessment results
144
6.1
QLASSIC and QLASSID comparison
158
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
1.1
Problem statement
7
1.2
Research scope
10
2.1
Literature map
15
2.2
The demolition process
21
2.3
Structural demolition types
24
2.4
Demolition process flowchart
26
2.5
Schematic process of customer requirement
47
2.6
QFD process flowchart
66
2.7
House of Quality (HOQ)
66
2.8
QFD Limitations
69
3.1
Research methodology steps
85
3.2
A cybernetic model of ANP applications
88
3.3
Suggested Delphi procedure
93
4.1
The functional architecture of the hybrid model
101
4.2
Schematic ANP integration with HOQ in QFD
102
4.3
The proposed ANP framework for QFD
104
4.4
Framework of CANP–QFD
106
4.5
Stages of QFD model and its representative ANP network
108
4.6
Proposed hybrid model in Super Decisions Software
111
4.7
Sub-criteria comparison in Super Decisions Software
112
4.8
Weighted supermatrixe in Super Decisions Software
113
4.9
Limited supermatrixe in Super Decisions Software
113
4.10
Final synthesized results from Super Decisions Software
114
4.11
Inconsistency report by Super Decisions Software
115
5.1
Interactions in the criteria level
139
5.2
Interactions in the sub-criteria level
139
xv
5.3
ANP decision network of project manager selection
140
6.1
Executive summary of the research
153
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AHP
-
Analytic Hierarchy Process
ANP
-
Analytic Network Process
ASEAN -
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BS
-
British Standard
CANP
-
Cybernetic Analytic Network Process
CDN
-
Contractor disputes numbers
CFR
-
Cost of field rework
CIDB
-
Construction Industry Development Board
CIS
-
Construction Industry Standard
CQP
-
Contractor Quality Performance
CR
-
Customer’s Requirements
CSC
-
Client satisfaction on cost
CSQ
-
Client satisfaction on quality
CST
-
Client satisfaction on time
EIA
-
Environmental Impact Assessment
EOT
-
Extension of Time
HOQ
-
House of Quality
HSE
-
Health and Safety Executive
xvii
LIST OF APPPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
A
Questionnaire Sample for quality dimensions definition
172
B
Round One Delphi Survey: Questionnaire
173
C
Round Two Delphi Survey: Round One Amendment
174
D
Round Three Delphi Survey: Rating of Criteria
176
E
Round Four Delphi Survey: Reassessing of the Weighted
Criteria
178
Overall Synthesized Priorities for the Alternatives by Super
Decisions Software
179
G
Ratings Priorities Matrix
180
H
Sample of questionnaire for collecting case studies
information
181
F