Challenges of quality assessment system (QLASSIC) in construction industry in Malaysia

advertisement
CHALLENGES OF QUALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (QLASSIC) IN
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN MALAYSIA
FARRAH RINA BINTI MOHD ROSHDI
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
2013
CHALLENGES OF QUALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (QLASSIC) IN
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN MALAYSIA
FARRAH RINA MOHD ROSHDI
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of Master of
Science (Construction Management)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
JANUARY 2013
Dedicated specially
To my beloved husband Muhammad Nasir Abu Bakar
and my daughter
Nur Nayli Fatini
\\\\
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to acknowledge my supervisor Prof Madya Ir Dr Rosli Bin
Mohamad Zin who has given me support and guidance throughout the period of this
study. His patience and perseverance toward the outcome of the study subject is on
the highest standard. Without him, this project report will not become reality.
I would like to acknowledge to all my family members who has contributed
their moral support toward the completion of this project report.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge all the expert panels and respondents to
the questionnaire for participants in this study exercise and without them this study
will be meaningless.
ABSTRACT
The Construction Industry Standard (CIS 7:2006) on Quality Assessment
System (QLASSIC) was developed in November 2006 to evaluate and improve the
quality of the building construction work among the Developers and Contractors.
QLASSIC sets out the standard for the quality of workmanship for various
construction elements of building and also infrastructure works. QLASSIC is not
fully implemented and applied by all Developers and Contractors in Malaysia as this
element is not a compulsory requirement in getting projects. Moreover, there are
only small numbers of Developers and Contractors who are aware on the benefits of
the application of QLASSIC in their construction projects. Besides, there are some
barriers that cause those parties to avoid using QLASSIC. The aim of this study is to
study on the challenges of QLASSIC assessment and its acceptance by Developers
and Contractors that register under the CIDB, Malaysia for the construction projects
in order to achieve the standard of quality in construction in terms of workmanship.
Data was collected from the literature study and from Construction Industry and
Development Board (CIDB) by means of interviews and questionnaires. Based on
the analysis, most of the Developers and Contractors are still not familiar with
QLASSIC. The barriers that contributed to Developers and Contractor refusal to
comply with QLASSIC are unfamiliar with QLASSIC system, less of technical
personnel during the QLASSIC assessment, less of QLASSIC’s assessors and low
reputation if QLASSIC score less than CIDB’s requirement. Most of the respondents
in the Developers companies agree with the barrier in which the main reason that
stops them from applying QLASSIC is that they are not really familiar with the
QLASSIC system.
ABSTRAK
Sistem penilaian kualiti (QLASSIC) dilaksanakan pada tahun 2006 adalah
untuk menilai dan meningkatkan tahap kualiti di dalam kerja-kerja bangunan di
kalangan para pemaju dan kontraktor. QLASSIC mengetengahkan satu tahap di
mana kualiti terhadap kerja-kerja pemasangan dan pembinaan fokus kepada cara
kerja untuk setiap elemen bangunan dan infrastruktur. Walaubagaimanapun,,
QLASSIC masih kurang diaplikasi oleh sebilangan besar pihak pemaju dan
kontraktor di Malaysia atas alasan sistem kualiti ini tidak termaktub sebagai kriteria
wajib untuk mendapatkan projek. Sehubungan dengan itu, ada di kalangan para
pemaju dan kontraktor mengaplikasikan sistem kualiti ini kerana kesedaran terhadap
kebaikan-kebaikan pengaplikasian QLASSIC di dalam projek mereka. Selain itu,
terdapat juga halangan-halangan yang menghalang sesetengah pihak dari
menggunakan sistem ini. Laporan projek tertumpu pada cabaran QLASSIC dan
penerimaannya oleh para pemaju dan kontraktor yang berdaftar di bawah CIDB di
dalam mencapai tahap kualiti di dalam cara kerja. Dengan itu, semua data dikumpul
melalui bacaan, data dikeluarkan oleh pihak CIDB dan borang kaji selidik.
Berdasarkan analisis, kebanyakan pemaju dan kontraktor masih tidak memahami
sepenuhnya QLASSIC. Antara halangan-halangan yang menjadi penyebab kepada
keengganan pihak pemaju dan kontraktor untuk mengaplikasi sistem ini adalah tidak
memahami tentang QLASSIC, kekurangan tenaga professional semasa proses
penilaian kualiti, kekurangan penilai QLASSIC, dan kemerosotan latar belakang
pihak kontraktor jika skor QLASSIC rendah dari kehendak CIDB. Majoriti pihak
responden di dalam syarikat pemaju bersetuju dengan mengatakan bahawa halangan
utama menghalang mereka dari menggunakan sistem QLASSIC ini adalah mereka
masih tidak memahami secara terperinci tentang sistem kualiti ini.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTARCT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
xvii
LIST OF APPENDICES
xviii
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Background of the Study
1
1.2
Statements of Problem
3
1.3
Objectives of the Study
4
1.4
Scope of the Study
5
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
6
2.1
Quality Definition
6
2.1.1
7
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Principles of Total Quality
9
2.2.1
Customer Focus
9
2.2.2
Process orientation
10
2.2.3
Continuous improvement and learning
10
2.2.4
Empowerment and Teamwork
11
2.2.5
Management by fact
11
2.2.6
Leadership and strategic Planning
13
TQ and Traditional Management Practices
13
2.3.1
Strategic Planning and Management
13
2.3.2
Changing Relationship with Customers
and Suppliers
14
2.3.3
Organizational Structure
14
2.3.4
Organizational Change
15
2.3.5
Teamwork
15
2.3.6
Motivation and Job Design
15
2.3.7
Management and Leadership
16
Quality Management System
16
2.4.1
Aids to Promoting Quality Management
16
2.4.2
Barriers to Quality
17
2.4.3
Top Management’s Reluctance to Commit 18
Theory by Philip B.Crosby’s Definition of Quality 18
2.5.1
Five Absolutes of Quality Management
18
2.5.2
Crosby’s Perspective on Quality
19
2.5.3
Philips Crosby’s Fourteen-Step Quality
2.5.4
2.6
The Concept of Quality
Programme
20
Successes and Failures
21
QLASSIC Introduction
22
2.6.1
QLASSIC Definition
23
2.6.2
Objective of QLASSIC
24
2.6.3
Scope of QLASSIC
24
2.6.4
QLASSIC Assessors
2.6.5
Assessment Approach and Sampling
Process
2.6.6
25
25
Construction Industry Standard
(CIS 7:2006) on Quality Assessment
System for Building Construction Work
26
2.6.7
QLASSIC Assessment Process Flow
30
2.6.8
Importance and Advantages on
application for QLASSIC assessment
2.6.9
Basic Tools and Equipment used in
Assessment
3
32
RESEARCH METHODLOGY
34
3.1
Introduction
34
3.1.1
Defining the Research Objectives
35
3.1.2
Defining the Target Population
35
3.1.3
Defining the Mode of Administration
35
3.1.4
Developing Questionnaire
36
3.1.5
Designing the Sampling Approach
37
3.2
3.3
4
32
Data Analysis
37
3.2.1
Collecting and Processing the Data
38
3.2.2
Estimation and Data Analysis
39
Schematic of Research Methodology
40
DATA ANALYSIS
42
4.1
Introduction
42
4.2
Questionnaire Sample Distribution
42
4.3
Questionnaire Design
44
4.3.1
44
Section A : Respondent’s Profile and
Background
4.3.2
Section B : Advantages in Application
of QLASSIC System
4.3.3
Section C : Barriers in Application of
45
QLASSIC System
4.3.4
Section D : Strategy for Barrier
Breaker and Its Improvement
4.4
Data Analysis
4.4.1
46
47
47
Section A : Analysis on Respondent’s
Profile and Background using Frequency Analysis
4.4.1.1
Questionnaire Feedback
4.4.1.2
Experience in Construction
Industry
52
4.4.1.3
Contractor Grade
53
4.4.1.4
Public and Private Projects
54
4.4.1.5
Knowledge on QLASSIC
56
4.4.1.6
Application in QLASSIC
57
4.4.1.7
Building Category
59
4.4.1.8
Involvement of Technical
4.4.1.9
4.4.2
50
Personnel In QLASSIC
61
Project Location
62
Section B : Analysis on Advantages in
Application of QLASSIC System
using Average Index Analysis
4.4.2.1
Analysis in Developers
Companies
4.4.2.2
63
Analysis in Contractors
Companies
4.4.3
63
66
Section C : Analysis on Barriers in
Application of QLASSIC System using
Average Index Analysis
4.4.3.1
Analysis in Developers
Companies
4.4.3.2
69
Analysis in Contractors
69
Companies
4.4.4
72
Section D : Analysis on Strategy for
Barrier Breaker and Improvement in
Application of QLASSIC System using
Average Index Analysis
4.4.4.1
Analysis in Developers
Companies
4.4.4.2
Analysis in Contractors
Companies
5
75
78
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
82
5.1
Introduction
82
5.2
Achievement of the Study
82
5.2.1
Objective 1 : To identify the
driving factors to the application
of QLASSIC
5.2.2
Objective 2 : To identify the barriers
in comply with QLASSIC
5.2.3
82
84
Objective 3 : To establish the improvement
and strategy of barrier breaker towards
QLASSIC application
85
5.3
Conclusion
86
5.4
Recommendation
88
References
89
Appendices
91
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
2.1
TITLE
PAGE
Allocation of Weightage according to Component and
Building category
29
4.1
Likert Scale for Section B
45
4.2
Likert Scale for Section C
46
4.3
Likert Scale for Section D
47
4.4
Average Index rating scale
48
4.5
Average Index rating scale
49
4.6
Average Index rating scale
50
4.7
Respondent’s Feedback
51
4.8
Advantages in Application of QLASSIC System for
Developers Companies
4.9
Advantages in Application of QLASSIC System for
Contractors Companies
4.10
72-73
Strategy for Barrier Breaker and its improvement for
Developers Companies
4.13
69-70
Barriers in Application of QLASSIC System for
Contractors Companies
4.12
66-67
Barriers in Application of QLASSIC System for
Developers Companies
4.11
63-64
75-77
Strategy for Barrier Breaker and its improvement for
Contractors Companies
78-80
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
2.1
The Quality Concept
8
2.2
Philip Crosby’s triangle of interactions
21
2.3
Assessments Process flow
31
2.4
Spirit Level (1.2m length)
33
2.5
Tapping Rod
33
2.6
L-Square (24’’x12’’)
33
3.1
Schematic of Research Methodology
40
4.1
Number of Respondents
51
4.2
Respondents feedback
52
4.3
The Numbers of Year in Construction Industry
53
4.4
Contractor Grade
54
4.5
Types and No. of Projects Involved
55
4.6
Knowledge on QLASSIC
56
4.7
No. of Years Applied QLASSIC
58
4.8
No. of Project That Assess by QLASSIC
59
4.9
Categories of Project Involved
60
4.10
Technical Personnel Involved in QLASSIC
61
4.11
Project Location that Involved QLASSIC
62
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
TC
-
Technical Committee
CIS
-
Construction Industry Standard
CIDB
-
Construction Industry Development Board
PWD
-
Public Works Department
JPN
-
Jabatan Perumahan Negara
REDHA
-
Real Estate and Housing Developers Association Malaysia
PAM
-
Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia
MBAM
-
Master Builiders Association Malaysia
HBA
-
National House Buyers Association
QLASSIC
-
Quality Assessment System
TQ
-
Total Quality
CONQUAS
-
Construction Quality Assessment System
QA/QC
-
Quality Assurance/Quality Check
CIMP
-
Construction Industry Malaysia Plan
DPM
-
Deputy Prime Minister
ST
-
Seven Strategic Thrust
M&E
-
Mechanical and Electrical
CPC
-
Certificate of Practical Completion
GFA
-
Gross Floor Area
ACMV
-
Air-conditioning and Mechanical Ventilation
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Σ
-
Sum
α
-
Alpha
≤
-
Less or similar
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
I
TITLE
Questionnaire Survey
PAGE
91
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of the Study
The Construction Industry Standard ( CIS 7:2006) on Quality Assessment
System was developed on November 2006 to evaluate and improve the quality of
the building construction works. The Standard that established by the CIDB’s
Technical Committee
( TC ) that with support by representatives from Public
Works Department (PWD) , Jabatan Perumahan Negara (JPN) , Real Estate and
Housing Developers Association ( REDHA), Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia ( PAM) ,
Master Builders Association Malaysia (MBAM), National House Buyers
Association (HBA) and others relevant organizations and authorities take part on
this assessment towards quality aspects.
Construction Development Industry Board (CIDB) is the main body that
responsible in establishing the quality assessment against projects. CIDB’s objective
is to develop the capacity and capability of the construction industry through the
enhancement
of
quality
and
productivity
by
placing
great
emphasis
on professionalism, innovation and knowledge in the endeavor to improve the
quality of life. In addition, relevant with their policy that focus on encouraging the
2
award of construction contracts based on "value for money" rather than cost
efficiency, ensuring that Construction products, especially those that are locally
manufactured, confirm to the standing Industry Standards, ensuring that skilled
labour confirm to the standing National Skills Standards and ensuring that
Construction Firms are encouraged to enhance their quality to eventually achieve
competitive advantage in the global market. With consumer sophistication as a key
driving force for quality in construction, CIDB has spearheaded a number of farreaching initiatives that are designed to enhance quality.
Quality is defined as a fundamentally relational. The ongoing process that
comprises sustaining the relationships by doing assess, anticipate, fulfill stated and
implied needs can achieve the quality. Even though the quality process is implicit
process while it involves many relationships and character, the principles ‘’Do the
Right Things in Every Time, On Time and First Time ‘’will remain the quality. The
definition of quality in terms of building construction should be within the building
standard and specification. Furthermore, analyzing the quality of the building should
be developed by the assessment by time to time from the beginning until the end
stages of the construction work. The assessment on the construction classified on the
building category. For example Landed Housing, Stratified Housing or Public
Building.
The Technical Committee (TC) team set up the Quality Assessment System
in Construction (QLASSIC) to give a level of standard that can award to the
Developers or Contractors as successful parties in construction industry.
This
system or method is to measure the quality of a workmanship of a construction work
based on the relevant approved standard. QLASSIC set out the standard on quality
of workmanship for various construction elements of building and also
infrastructure works upon completion of the projects. The elements in assessments
include Structural Works, Architectural Works, and Mechanical and Electrical
Works (M&E). QLASSIC enables the quality of workmanship in construction
projects to be objectively highlighted through a scoring system. The marks are
summed up to calculate the QLASSIC Score (%) for a construction projects. The
3
results are derived from the site inspection that carried out on the first time
inspection within the elements of the building from upon completion of the projects.
For the works that are rectified after assessment will not be summed up into the
score.
Nowadays, knowledgeable customers are very particular on the quality
aspects of the building. They desire for a value for money building, zero defects,
zero risk and sustainable development for their selection of living especially for
residential area wherever for short term or long term. Furthermore, the QLASSIC
approach was still new in the construction industry development. The
encouragement in application of QLASSIC for every project should be highly
suggested by the Construction Development Industry Development (CIDB)
Malaysia.
1.2
Statements of Problem
QLASSIC was developed by CIDB on 2006, however, the application of this
system are actively applied by the Major Private Client such as Sime Darby
Property Sdn Bhd,TTDI Harta Sdn Bhd, PJD Eastern Land Sdn Bhd , Perumahan
Kinrara Bhd,Sime Pilmoor Development Sdn Bhd, I&P Sieramas Sdn Bhd and other
developers which is only the well-known client. For government project, there are a
small number of projects and rarely applied this assessment system. In other words,
QLASSIC was a minor application in construction industry as far as QLASSIC is
not a compulsory requirement for the Developers and Contractors to bid to the
projects. The score of the construction works was first published on 2007. From the
publications, it shows that the QLASSIC was still a new establishment that focuses
on the quality of a workmanship in construction industry. The scoring system is to
benchmark the quality of workmanship of the construction projects. While the
constructions of works complied with the standard of quality, the objectives of the
4
quality development were achieved. QLASSIC also introduce the performance of
the Developers and Contractors based on their workmanship after the completion of
the projects. QLASSIC score drastically will enhance the Developer’s and
Contractor’s good background and performance during the construction and
completion of the construction project.
Hence, QLASSIC was a very familiar system among the several Developers
and Contractors. Furthermore, the parties that comply with the QLASSIC are more
advance in the development of the construction projects. There are more aware on
the quality of a workmanship and more successful in delivering the construction
projects by following the standards of quality. Therefore, an exposure to work
within the standard of quality is already in their organizations strategy. QLASSIC
was not fully implemented and applied by all Developers or Contractors in Malaysia
as there is not a compulsory requirement. Moreover, there are a small number of
Developers and Contractors that aware on the benefits of application QLASSIC in
their construction projects. In addition, it shows that there are some barriers that
make those parties not comply with QLASSIC. The barriers give the tough
challenges to CIDB in order to ensure QLASSIC is totally applied by all Developers
and Contractors in construction industry.
1.3
Objectives of the Study
The aims of this study is to study on challenges of QLASSIC and its
acceptance by Developers and Contractors that register under the CIDB, Malaysia
for the construction projects as to achieve the standard of quality in construction in
terms of workmanship.
5
In order to achieve the aim of the study, the following objectives have been
identified:
a) To identify the driving factors to the application of QLASSIC
b) To identify the barriers in complying a QLASSIC
c) To establish the improvement and strategy of barrier breaker towards
QLASSIC application
1.4
Scope of the Study
In order to achieve the objectives for this study, the scope of the study will
be focusing on the challenges of QLASSIC within Developers and Contractors in
construction industry in Malaysia.
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Quality Definition
Quality is defined as a fundamentally relational. The ongoing process that
comprises sustaining the relationships by doing assess, anticipate, fulfill stated and
implied needs can achieve the quality. Even though the quality process is implicit
process while it involves many relationships and character, the principles ‘’Do the
Right Things in Every Time, On Time and First Time ‘’will remain the quality. The
definition of quality in terms of building construction should be within the building
standard and specification. Furthermore, analyzing the quality of the building should
be developed by the assessment by time to time from the beginning until the end
stages of the construction work.
7
Quality is not only right, it is free. And it is not only free; it is the most
profitable product we have.
Harold S.Geneen ( cited by Crosby, 1979)
As illustrated by Dr W.Edwards Deming, Quality is ‘’a predictable degree
of uniformly and dependability, at lower cost and suited to the market.
2.1.1
The Concept of Quality
Quality is defined by the customers or occupants of the buildings. Customers
are economic assets. The customers decide and predict on their requirements then
the production is exactly within customers needs for the agreed timeframe at a lower
cost. The concepts of quality are illustrated as Figure 2.1
People define quality in some many ways. Some people think quality as
superiority or excellence, others view it as a lack of manufacturing or service
defects, still others think of quality as related to product features or price.
Furthermore, a quality can be defined in different responses including perfection,
consistency, eliminating waste, speed of delivery, good in workmanship,
compliance with policies and procedures, providing a good and usable product. Do
it right at the first time, delighting, pleasing customers, total customer service and
satisfaction also the definition of quality From the definition of quality , many of
people agree that pursue quality is to satisfy customers. (Beckford, 1998)
8
The benefits
Reduced costs
Increased sales
Increased profit
and
competitiveness
Fourth generation
Third generation
Second generation
First generation
Foundation
Improve choice of features to produce
customized products
Do the right things right. Cut out
effort wasted on unnecessary
activities
Do it right first time. Cut out wasted
effort making non-conforming output.
Invest in prevention
Producing output in conformance
with customer requirements
MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT
Figure 2.1 : The Quality Concept
9
2.2 Principles of Total Quality
As illustrated by Evans and Dean (2003), Total Quality (TQ) is people-aimed
management systems that target at continual improvement in customer satisfaction
at continually lower real cost. TQ is a total system approach and high-level strategy.
It works horizontally across functions and departments, involves all employees, top
to bottom which are multitasking activities and extends backward and forward to
include the supply chain and the customer chain. TQ highlight learning and adaption
to continual change as keys to organization success. TQ is highlight in values that
stress the dignity of the individual and the power of community action.
According to Evans and Dean (2003), there are as many different approaches to
TQ as there is business. However, most share some basic elements which include:
1. Customers focus
2. Process orientation
3. Continuous improvement and learning
4. Empowerment and teamwork
5. Management by fact
6. Leadership and strategic planning
2.2.1
Customer Focus
The customer or occupant is the judge of quality. Customer’s need both
current and future and keeping pace with changing markets requires effective
strategies for listening and learning from customers, measuring their satisfaction
relative to competitors, and building relationships. Customer needs particularly
differences among key customer groups that is must be linked closely to an
10
organization’s strategic planning, product design, process improvement, and
workforce training activities. Creating satisfied customers includes prompt and
effective response and solutions to their needs and desires as well as building and
maintaining good relationships. A business can achieve success by understanding
and fulfilling the needs of customers. From a total quality perspective, all strategic
decisions are ‘’customer driven’’. In other words, the company shows constant
sensitively to emerge customer and market requirements. This needs an awareness
of developments in technology ,rapid and flexible response to customer and market
needs.
2.2.2
Process orientation
The traditional way of viewing an organization is by surveying the vertical
dimension which is keeping an eye on an organization flow chart. However work
gets done or fails to get done horizontally or cross functionally, not hierarchically. A
process is a sequence of activities that is intended to achieve some result.
2.2.3
Continuous improvement and learning
Continuous improvement is part of the management of all systems and
processes. Achieving the highest levels of performance requires a well-defined and
well-executed approach to continuous improvement and learning. Continuous
improvement refers to both incremental and breakthrough improvement.
Improvement and learning need to be embedded in the way an organization
operates. This means they should be a regular part of daily work, seek to eliminate
problems at their source, and be driven by opportunities to do better as well as by
problems that need to be corrected. Improvement may be of several types:
11
1. Enhancing value to the customer through new and improved products
and services
2. Improving productivity and operational performance through better work
processes and reductions in errors, defects, and waste
3. Improving flexibility , responsiveness, and cycle time performance
2.2.4
Empowerment and teamwork
A company’s success depends increasingly on the knowledge, skills, and
motivation of its workforce. Employee success depends increasingly on having
opportunities to learn and to practice new skills. This can be fostered by
empowerment and teamwork. Empowerment simply means giving people authority
to make decisions based on what they feel is right, have control over their work,
take risks and learn from mistakes, and promote change. For example, employees
can make decisions that satisfy customers without a lot of bureaucratic hassles, and
barriers between levels are removed. Teamwork can be viewed in three ways :
1. Vertical – teamwork between top management and lower-level
employees
2. Horizontal- teamwork within work groups and across functional lines
(cross-functional teams)
3. Interorganizational- partnership with suppliers and customers
12
2.2.5
Management by fact
Organizations need performance measures for three reasons:
1. To lead the entire organization in a particular direction that is in driving
the strategies and organizational change
2. To manage the resources needed to travel in this direction by evaluating
the effectiveness of action plans
3. To operate the processes that make the organization work and
continuously improve
A company should select performance measures and indicators that best represent
the factors that lead to improved customer, operational, and financial performance.
These typically include :
1. Customer satisfaction
2. Product and service performance
3. Market assessments
4. Competitive comparisons
5. Supplier performance
6. Employee performance
7. Cost and financial performance
A comprehensive set of measures and indicators tied to customer and
company performance requirements provides a clear basis for aligning all activities
of the company with its goals.
13
2.2.6
Leadership and strategic planning
Leadership for quality is the responsibility of top management. Senior
leadership must set directions in creating a customer orientation , clear quality
values and high expectations that address the needs of all stakeholders and build
them into the way the company operates. Senior leaders need to commit to the
development of the entire workforce and should encourage participation, learning,
innovation, and creativity throughout the organization.
2.3 TQ and Traditional Management Practices
TQ is quite different from traditional management practices, requiring
significant changes in organizational processes, beliefs and attitudes, and behaviors.
Traditional Management means the way things are usually done in most
organizations in the absence of a TQ focus. Many traditional organizations have
been applying TQ principles all along, so not all of these comments pertain to every
organization. The nature of TQ differs from common management practices in many
respects (Evans and Dean,2003).
2.3.1
Strategic Planning and Management
In traditional management, financial and marketing issues such as
profitability, return on investment, and market share drive to a strategic planning.
Quality planning activities are delegated to the quality control department. Longterm quality initiatives are viewed as being costly and not contributing to the
ultimate performance measure which is profit. Quality planning and strategic
business planning are indistinguishable in TQ. Quality goals are the cornerstone of
the business plan. Measures such as customer satisfaction, defects rates, process
14
cycle times receive as much attention in the strategic plan as financial and marketing
objectives.
2.3.2
Changing Relationship with Customers and Suppliers
In traditional management, quality is defined as adherence to internal
specifications and standards. Quality is measured only by the absence of defects.
Inspection of people’s work by others is necessary to control defects. In TQ, quality
is defined as products and services beyond present needs and expectations of
customers. Innovations are required to meet and exceed customer’s need.
Traditional management places customers outside of the enterprise and
within the domain of marketing and sales. TQ views everyone inside the enterprise
as a customer of an internal or external supplier, and a supplier of an external or
internal customer. Marketing concepts and tools can be used to assess internal
customer needs and to communicate internal supplier capabilities. In traditional
management, suppliers are pitted against each other to get the lowest price. The
more competing suppliers there are, the better it is for the customer company.
2.3.3
Organizational Structure
Traditional management views an enterprise as a collection of separate,
highly specialized individual performers and units, loosely linked by a functional
hierarchy. Lateral connections are made by intermediaries close to the top of the
organization. TQ views the enterprise as a system of interdependent processes,
linked laterally over time through a network of collaborating suppliers and
customers.
15
2.3.4
Organizational Change
Once a traditional management has found a formula to success, it keeps
following it. Management’s job is to prevent change and to maintain the status. In
TQ the environment in which the enterprise interacts is changing constantly.
Therefore, the management’s job is to provide the leadership for continual
improvement and innovation in processes and systems, products, and services.
External change is inevitable, but a favorable future can be shaped.
2.3.5
Teamwork
In traditional management, individuals and departments work for
themselves. Individuals are driven by short-term performance measures, have
narrowly defined jobs, and rarely see how they fit into the whole process or system.
Little communication and cooperation exists between design and manufacturing,
manufacturing and marketing, sales and manufacturing, manufacturing and
marketing and sales and design. In TQ, individuals cooperate in team structure such
as quality circles, steering committee, and self-directed work teams.
2.3.6
Motivation and Job Design
Motivation in traditional management is often taking to McGregor’s Theory
X model of motivations which are workers dislike work and require close
supervision and control. TQ organization supports the premise of Theory Y which is
workers are self-motivated, seek responsibility, and exhibit a high degree of
imagination and creativity at work.
16
2.3.7
Management and Leadership
Traditional management views people as interchangeable commodities,
developed to meet the perceived needs of the enterprise. People are passive
contributors with little autonomy in doing what they are told and nothing more. TQ
views people as the enterprise’s true competitive edge. Therefore, control is
achieved by shared values and beliefs in the organizations, knowledge of mission,
purpose, and customer requirements.
2.4 Quality Management System
Quality Management is a never ending journey. However, all journeys begin
with one step. The moment the leadership of an organization takes that first step, the
organization has started Quality Management. The time required to complete the
process described in this model depends on the resources allocated to the process.
The action to change and apply quality management should be start without
specific time. (Gitlow, 1999)
2.4.1
Aids to Promoting Quality Management
According to Howard S.Gitlow , there are some different needs and
situations stimulate an organization to pursue Quality Management. 16 points of
aids that promote the transformation of an organization to Quality Management
include the desire to:
1. Exceed customer requirement
2. Improve the organization’s image
3. Increase market price
4. Improve employee morale
17
5. Create a common mission
6. Improve communication
7. Standardize processes
8. Create best practices
9. Improve the physical environment
10. Resolve problems before they become crises
11. Bridge responsibility gaps
12. Improve the documentation of processes, products, and services
13. Improve the design of processes, products, and services
14. Improve manufacturing and delivery of service
15. Produce uniform products, at low cost and suited to the market
16. Increase profits
2.4.2
Barriers to Quality
Howard S Gitlow founds 14 criteria that give a bad impact to apply Quality
Management. Some examples that hinder the transformation of management of an
organization include:
1. Inability to change the mind set of top management
2. Inability to maintain momentum for the transformation
3. Lack of uniform management style
4. Lack of long-term cooperate direction
5. Inability to change the culture of the organization
6. Lack of effective communication
7. Lack of discipline required to transform
8. Fear of scrutiny by supervisor
9. Fear of process standardization
10. Fear of loss of individualism
11. Fear of rigidity
18
12. Lack of financial and human resources
13. Lack of training and education
14. Lack of management commitment
2.4.3
Top Management’s Reluctance to Commit
Lack of management commitment will stop a Quality Management effort
before it begins. The transformations promises improvements in all areas of the
organization but the management still refuse to use it. The reason may be that many
managers are unwilling to acknowledge company-wide success stories based on
Quality Management theory. They are also not a pro-Quality Management because
it is not their own creation. On the other hand, they may be fear failure to meet
short-term goals to manage effectively. Leaders are reluctant to change because they
have been personally successful. The organization under them may be falling apart,
but as long as they continue to get raises and positive performance appraisals, they
can deny the rampant problems.
2.5 Theory by Philip B. Crosby’s Definition of Quality
2.5.1
According to Philip B.Crosby, five Absolutes of Quality Management
1. Quality is defined as conformance to requirements, not as ‘goodness’ or’
elegance’
The requirement must be defined, in advance, and that measures must be taken
continually to determine conformance. The requirements may include quantitative
and qualitative aspects.
19
2. There is no such thing as a quality problem
The poor management creates the quality problems which they do not create
themselves or exist as matters separate from the management process.
3. It is always cheaper to do it right first time
Inspection is a cost and that taken as a belief in the potential to achieve quality. By
developing a quality process and product it can prevent from the outset with no
expectation of failure. Prevention of error is better than rectification.
4. The only measurement or performance is the cost of quality
The cost of quality is a measureable item, for example, the cost of rework, warranty
costs, rejects and that is the only basis on which to measure performance.
5. The only performance standard is zero defects
Perfection is the standard to aim for, through sound initial process and product
design , continuous improvement, and underpinning that “Zero Defetcs’’ is an
achievable and measureable objective.
2.5.2
Crosby’s Perspective on Quality
1. A belief in quantification
2. Leadership by management
3. Prevention rather than cure
20
2.5.3
Philips Crosby’s derived fourteen-Step Quality Programme as
followings:
1.
Establish management commitment – it is a vital that the whole
management team participate in the programme ; a half-hearted effort
will fail
2.
Form
quality
improvement
teams-
the
emphasis
here
is
on
multidisciplinary team effort. An initiative from the quality department
will not be successful. It is an essential to build team working across
arbitrary, and often artificial, organizational boundaries.
3.
Establish quality measurements- these must apply to every activity
throughout the company. A way must be found to capture every aspect,
design, manufacturing, delivery, and so on. These measurements provide
a platform for the next step.
4.
Evaluate the cost of quality – this evaluation must highlight, using the
measures established in the previous step, where quality improvement
will be profitable.
5.
Raise quality awareness – this is normally undertaken through the
training of managers and supervisors, through communications such as
videos and books, and by displays or posters.
6.
Take action to correct problems – this involves encouraging staff to
identify and rectify defects, or pass them on to higher supervisory levels
where they can be addressed.
7.
Undertake zero defects planning. This is done by establishing a
committee or working group to develop ways to initiate and implement a
Zero Defects programme.
8.
Train supervisors and managers. This step is focus on achieving
understanding by all managers and supervisors of the steps in the quality
improvement programme in order that they can explain it in turn.
9.
Hold a ‘Zero Defects’ day to establish the attitude and expectation within
the company. Crosby sees this as being achieved in a celebratory
atmosphere accompanied by badges, buttons and balloons.
21
10.
Encourage the setting of goals for improvement. Goals are of course of
no value unless they are related to appropriate timescales for their
achievement.
11.
Encourage obstacles reporting, whereby employees advise management
of the factors which prevent them achieving error-free work. Such
factors might include defective or inadequate equipment, poor quality
components, etc.
12.
Provide recognition for contributors. Crosby considers that those who
contribute to the programme should be rewarded through a formal,
although non-monetary, reward scheme.
13.
Establish quality councils. These are essentially forums composed of
quality professionals and team leaders allowing them to communicate
and determine action plans for further quality improvement.
14.
Do it all over again. Achievement of quality is an ongoing process.
However far have got, there is always further to go.
2.5.4
Successes and Failures
A successful quality programme will be advertised in order to attract
customers, whereas a failure will be swept under the carpet, with executives
pretending that it never happened. It thus becomes impossible to find reported
empirical evidence of failure. Success, on the other hand, is shared.
The success or failures are based on three principal ingredients:
Integrity
Communication
Operations
Figure 2.2 : Philip Crosby’s triangle of interactions
22
Overall, the foundation of Crosby’s approach can be seen in two elements.
First, his extensive professional background in quality will have provided the
quantitative. Second, his reportedly charismatic personality will have provided the
qualitative aspects. Therefore, Crosby’s approach has to be marked with some
cautions about its general applicability across a range of industries and cultures.
2.6 QLASSIC Introduction
QLASSIC was adopted from CONQUAS (Construction Quality Assessment
System) in Singapore. CONQUAS was introduced by Building Construction
Authority (BCA) Singapore since 1986. QLASSIC was introduced in 2007. This
system is only intended to complement project’s contract documents either from
specifications or drawings and project’s existing Quality Assurance/Quality
Compliance (QA/QC) measures by inspections, testing or checking.
Construction Industry Malaysia Plan (CIMP), 2006-2015, was launched by our
honorable Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) in 10th December 2007. Seven strategic
thrust (ST) are identified to nurture, transform and sustain the construction industry.
QLASSIC falls under ST 3.i.e. Strive for the highest standard of quality.
Malaysia through CIDB started to embark in exploring the suitability of a
quality assessment system somewhere in 1996 which leads to the instruction of
QLASSIC Guideline. Technical Committee ( TC ) was form to upgrade the
guideline to industry standard, which comprised of Public Works Department
(PWD) , Jabatan Perumahan Negara (JPN) , Real Estate and Housing Developers
Association ( REDHA), Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia ( PAM) , Master Builders
Association Malaysia (MBAM), National House Buyers Association (HBA) and
others relevant organizations and authorities which gives rise to Construction
Industry Standard (CIS 7:2006). It was launched on 30 November 2006. CIS 7:2006
23
specifies acceptable standard for workmanship quality and the assessment
procedures for building construction work. The requirement and tolerance in CIS
7:2006 not to be used as a work specification.
2.6.1
QLASSIC Definition
The Technical Committee (TC) team set up the Quality Assessment System
in Construction (QLASSIC) to give a level of standard that can award to the
Contractors as successful builders. This system or method is to measure the quality
of a workmanship of a construction work based on the relevant approved standard.
QLASSIC set out the standard on quality of workmanship for various construction
elements of building and also infrastructure works. The elements are Structural
Works, Architectural Works, and Mechanical and Electrical Works (M&E) .From
this system, QLASSIC enables the quality of workmanship between construction
projects to be objectively compared through a scoring system. The marks are
summed up to calculate the QLASSIC Score (%) for a construction projects. The
results are derived from the site inspection that carried out on the first time
inspection within the elements of the building from time to time. For the works that
are rectified after assessment will not be summed up into the score.
Quality Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC) is a system or
method to measure and evaluate the quality of workmanship of a construction work
based on the relevant approved standard in Malaysia. QLASSIC enables the quality
of workmanship between construction projects to be objectively compared through a
scoring system.
24
2.6.2
Objective of QLASSIC
•
To benchmark the quality of workmanship of the construction industry.
•
To establish a standard quality assessment system on quality of
workmanship of construction work.
•
To assess the quality of workmanship of a construction project based on the
relevant approved standard.
•
To be used as a criterion to evaluate the performance of contractors based on
quality of workmanship.
•
To compile data for statistical analysis.
•
To impart the basic knowledge on requirements of CIS 7:2006.
•
To provide the guidance in interpreting the quality standards for building
components and elements in CIS 7:2006.
•
To assist in understanding the QLASSIC Score
•
To share good practices in preparation for QLASSIC assessment
•
To provides the industry with a standard, independent and objective method
to assess and measure the workmanship quality of building projects
•
To give an opportunity among stakeholders benchmarking their performance
on workmanship quality against the industry standards
2.6.3
Scope of QLASSIC
QLASSIC sets out the standard on quality of workmanship for various
construction elements of building and infrastructure construction work. The quality
of workmanship of a construction work is assessed according to the requirement of
the relevant standard, and marks are awarded if the workmanship complies with the
standard. These marks are then summed up to calculate the QLASSIC Score (%) for
a construction project.
25
QLASSIC assessments are carried out through site inspection and use the
principles of first time inspection. QLASSIC also carried out after the completion of
the projects upon issuance of Certificate of Practical Completion (CPC).
Construction works that are rectified after an assessment will not be re-assessed.
The objective of this principle is to encourage the contractor to "Do Things Right
the First Time and Every Time".
2.6.4
QLASSIC Assessors
QLASSIC assessment on a construction project shall be carried out by
assessors that have no interest and any relationship with that project.
All assessors shall fulfill requirements and undergo training set by CIDB.
Only assessors that pass the training will be registered with CIDB as qualified
QLASSIC assessors. The assessors must be a knowledgeable and competent person
in construction industry. An independent assessor is to avoid any conflict of interest.
2.6.5
Assessment Approach and Sampling Process
Prior to carrying out the assessment, construction elements that need to be
assessed are determined through a sampling and statistical approach. These samples
shall be distributed evenly throughout the project or various construction stages.
Assessment samples are selected from drawings and plans of the relevant
26
construction project. All locations in the construction project shall be made available
for the assessment. This is to ensure that the selected samples adequately represent
the entire construction project. Mechanical and Electrical works assessment also
take place during construction. Statistical sampling might be impractical to conduct
a full assessment. Generally, the number of samples that need to be assessed is
calculated based on the floor area of the project. For the first time check, there is no
re-scoring of works that are rectified or repaired after the assessment. The reason is
to encourage the contractors to do the right thing the first time, every time and on
time.
2.6.6
Construction Industry Standard (CIS 7:2006) on Quality Assessment
System for Building Construction Work
This CIS 7 was developed in November 2006 by CIDB's Technical
Committee (TC) that comprises of representatives from Public Works Department
(PWD), Jabatan Perumahan Negara (JPN), Real Estate and Housing Developers
Association (REHDA), Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM), Master Builders
Association Malaysia (MBAM), National House Buyers Association (HBA) and
other relevant organizations. This standard specifies requirements on quality of
workmanship and assessment procedures for building construction work. The
requirements in this standard are divided into four main building components:
a) Structural Works
Assessment is carried out throughout the various construction stages. The
numbers of samples are determined based on the gross floor area (GFA) of the
building, with a minimum and maximum number of samples.
27
Structural work assessment comprises of the following building elements:
•
Reinforced concrete structure (formwork, pre-cast specific requirements,
finished concrete, structure quality and Non Destructive Test).
•
Structural steel work.
•
Pre-stressed concrete.
b) Architectural works
Assessment is carried out upon project completion with Certificate of
Practical Completion (CPC) and prior to handing over. The numbers of samples are
determined based on the gross floor area (GFA) of the building, with a minimum
and maximum number of samples. Architectural work deals mainly with the
finishes. This is the part where the quality and standards of workmanship are most
visible.
Architectural work assessment comprises of the following building elements:
•
Ceiling
•
Floor
•
Internal wall
•
External wall
•
Roof
•
Perimeter drain and apron
•
Door and window
•
Internal and external fixture
28
c) Mechanical and Electrical (M & E) works
The numbers of samples are determined based on the gross floor area (GFA)
of the building, with a minimum and maximum number of samples.
Assessment is carried out throughout the various construction stages or upon
project completion with Certificate of Practical Completion (CPC) and prior to
handing over.
M & E work assessment comprises of the following building elements:
•
Electrical work
•
Air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation work (ACMV)
•
Fire protection work
•
Sanitary and plumbing work
•
Basic M & E fitting.
d) External works
Assessment is carried out upon project completion with Certificate of
Practical Completion (CPC) and prior to handing over. The numbers of samples are
determined based on 10m length section or per location, with a minimum number of
samples.
29
External work assessment comprises of the following building elements:
•
External drain
•
Road work and car park
•
Link-way or shelter
•
Footpath and turfing
•
Playground
•
Court
•
Fence and gate
•
Swimming pool
•
Electrical substation
CIS 7 also specifies the sampling guideline and the weightage allocated according to
component and building category.
Table 2.1 : Allocation of weightage according to component and building category
Category A Category B Category C Category
Component
D
Landed
Stratified
Public
Special
Housing
Housing
Building
Public Building
Structural work (%)
25
30
30
30
Architectural work (%)
60
50
45
35
M&E work (%)
5
10
15
25
External work (%)
10
10
10
10
Total score (%)
100
100
100
100
The weightage of this system is aimed at making the score quantitative in
representing the quality of workmanship of a building. It has taken into
consideration the distribution between the cost proportions of the four components
in the various buildings and their aesthetic consideration.
30
Each building category comprise as follows:
1. Category A (Landed Housing) Detached, Semi-Detached, Terrace and
Cluster House.
2. Category B (Stratified Housing) Flat, Apartment, Condominium, Service
Apartment and Town House.
3. Category C (Public Building) Office Building, School and other related
facilities/ buildings intended for public use.
4. Category D (Special Public Building) Hospital and Airport only.
2.6.7
QLASSIC Assessment Process flow
As illustrated in Figure 2.3 below, there are the assessment process flow that are
conducted by the CIDB. The assessment flow can be apply by the Developers and
Contractors.
31
Figure 2.3 : Assessments Process Flow
32
2.6.8
Importance and Advantages on Application for QLASSIC Assessment
The importances of application of QLASSIC are as followings:
•
Enables the Contractors to benchmark the quality of workmanship for
construction project.
•
Provides the standard quality assessment system on quality of workmanship
of construction works.
•
Enhances quality control in construction works.
•
Specified as a quality criterion for contractors performance scorecard.
•
Inspecting falls in wet areas and hollowness for floor
•
Zero defects
•
Zero risks
•
Minor defects
•
Return on investment
2.6.9
Basic Tools and Equipment used in Assessment
During assessment, there are several tools and equipments have been used. The tools
and equipment used are depends on the area to be assess. As per Figure 2.4, the
spirit level is use to check the leveling of the floor. The workmanship of the floor
finishes can be detected by using spirit level. As per Figure 2.5, tapping rod is use to
check the hollowness of the floor. The quality of workmanship for door is assess by
using L-square to check the angle of the door frame as per Figure 2.6.
33
Figure 2.4 :Spirit Level (1.2m length )
Checking the fall on floor at correct direction using spirit level.
Figure 2.5 -Tapping Rod
Checking the hollowness on the floor and wall finishes.
Figure 2.6 :L-Square (24’’x12’’)
Checking the angle of the door frame.
34
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
Survey is often used to describe a method of gathering information from a
sample of units, a fraction of the persons, households and agencies for the
population that is to be chosen.
3.1.1
Defining the Research Objectives
Determining the research objectives is the first steps in survey and gathers
information. The primary information is to produce from the survey results or the
key data analyses that are to be conducted using the survey. A well-specified set of
research objectives is a critical component of the survey process and will facilitate
many of the decision involved in survey design. Defining the research objectives is
35
often accomplished best by identifying a small set of key research question to be
answered by the survey. Primary information and secondary information were
collected to achieve the objectives of the project report.
The secondary information was literature review that can obtain the research
topic and challenges faced by the construction industry. It can be obtain by books,
journals, internet, and newspaper and also from the published research works. From
the literature review, the clearer information gather are categorized as Secondary
Information.
3.1.2
Defining the Target Population
Defining the target population for the survey would be the next steps for
survey. The target population is the group of persons or other units for whom the
study result will apply and about which inferences will be made from the survey
results. For QLASSIC assessment study, the target population would be the
developer company and the contractor company who engaged in construction
industry.
3.1.3
Defining the Mode of Administration
The mode of administration will be determined for the survey. The mode of
survey can be whether to use questionnaires, telephone, or face-to-face interviewing
or some mode of the collecting data. These decisions will be made before designing
the questionnaires. The mode of administration will also constrain the sampling
design choices that can be used for the survey. Face-to-face interviewing will
36
usually require a sample that is highly clustered. This is done to reduce interviewer
travel costs. Telephone and mail surveys samples are usually dispersed
geographically or unclustered since interviewer travels costs are not incurred for
these modes.
In deciding on the mode of administration, one of the first constraints one
encounters is costs. Interviewers can affects the responses to questions on sensitive
topics, so if this is concern, a more private mode of administration such as mail selfadministrated questionnaire may be preferable. In my survey, I chose to use face-toface interview with person in charges, questionnaire and by telephone in getting
information and data analysis.
3.1.4
Developing Questionnaire
A questionnaire survey was designed to gather information from the selected
representatives of the developer’s company and contractor’s company on the
knowledge and understanding of the QLASSIC. From the questionnaire, the
information can be obtained on the respondent experience on the driving factors in
using QLASSIC and also the barriers on application of QLASSIC among them.
Therefore, the challenges of acceptance of QLASSIC among developers and
contractors will be obtained. Explanation on the aim of the study and the guidelines
to answer the questionnaires is given to the respondent. The feedback data from the
questionnaire will be the resources for the data analysis.
37
3.1.5
Designing the Sampling Approach
After designing the questionnaire, defining the target population,
determining the research objectives and chose the mode of administration, the
survey process can be begin, that is specifying the sampling design. The sampling
design specification describes the sampling frame which is the list of population
members to be used for the survey, the methods used for randomly selecting the
sample from the frame, and the samples sizes that are required. The sampling frame
basically the list of target population members from which the sample will be
drawn. The frame chosen from sampling depends to a large extent on the mode of
administration for the survey. Finally, after considering the required precision in the
estimates for the most important population characteristics to be measured in the
study, the sample size are determined.
For this survey, the questionnaires will be distributed 50 set to developer’s
representatives and 50 set to contractor’s representative. The distribution of the
questionnaire is direct by mail to the person’s in charge in QLASSIC or technical
personnel in the organizations.
It also can be called a private mode of
administration such as mail self-administrated questionnaire. The list of developer
and contractors are gathered from CIDB.. From the analysis, the challenges of
QLASSIC assessment to survive within the construction parties are obtained.
3.2
Data Analysis
All data collected from the respondents will be converting to computerreadable format or graphs. The data should be collected the information by face-toface interviewing, telephone follow up operation and keying or scanning data from
paper questionnaires. Plans are also developed for editing the survey data which are
38
correcting stray or inappropriate marks on the questionnaire returns, errors that
occur during keying or scanning the paper questionnaires, inconsistent responses,
and other problems with the data. The structure of the final data files should also be
determined so that data analysis would be facilitated. In QLASSIC survey, the
concern must be focus on driving factors on application of QLASSIC and the
barriers that make the developer and contractor refuse to used QLASSIC assessment
should clearly complete and responses in adequate and efficiently by the
knowledgeable persons in QLASSIC. To address these questions and others, the
initial design should be tested in a pretest of the survey procedures and
questionnaire.
The pretest can indicate whether certain aspects of the design do not function
well so those aspects of the design can be modified for the main study. As an
example, there are may be problems in the design of the questionnaire or in the
methods used for determining the telephone numbers of the mail non-respondents
for the telephone follow up operation.
3.2.1
Collecting and Processing the Data
Even in a well-planned survey, unforeseen problems can develop which
require deviations from the plans. An important aspect of data collection plan is a
process for routine monitoring of data collection and obtaining feedback. The
procedures is to checking the data returns and conducting quality control operations
to ensure of these result conducted as planned. Once the data are computer-readable
form in the form of graphs and so on, the data can be edited, cleaned, and prepared
for estimation and analysis. Editing the data involves correcting out-of-range or
inconsistent responses, possibly recontacting respondents to obtain additional
information, and generally, cleaning the data of many discernible errors.
Information obtained from an open-ended question which is a question that elicits an
39
unstructured response is often converted into numbers that can summarize the verbal
information provided by the respondents.
3.2.2 Estimation and Data Analysis
Finally, the data are weighted to compensate for unequal probabilities of
selection, missing data, and frame problems, and the estimates are computed
following the plan previously developed for estimation and analysis. Weighting the
data essentially involves determining an appropriate multiplier for each observation
so that the sample estimates better reflect the true population parameter. The
estimation and analysis plan lists the major research questions that should be
addressed in the analysis, the estimates that will computed and the statistical
analyses that will be performed. The latter includes detailed specifications for
weighting the data and compensating for nonresponsive in the final estimates.
Survey design is guided more by past experience, theories, and good advice
on the advantages and disadvantages of alternative design choices so that it can
make intelligent decisions for each situation that are encountered. As will become
apparent, the emphasis will be on the general theory of good design rather than on
good design is to use practical and reliable processes whose outcomes are
reasonably predictable. Thus, guiding philosophy is that it is more useful to learn a
few basic techniques for dealing with the underlying causes of survey error and the
general theories leading to their development rather than to learn numerous ad hoc
methods that essentially treat the same causes of survey error but under a variety of
special circumstances.
40
3.3
Schematic of Research Methodology
The following flow chart, Figure 3.1,has been adopted in order to achieve the
objectives
Determine objectives, problem statement and scope of study
Phase 1
Literature Review
Preliminary Interview
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Conduct Survey
Secondary Interview
P
Design Questionnaire
Phase 2
Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Data Analysis
Discussion and Recommendation
Conclusion
Figure 3.1 : Schematic of Research Methodology
Phase 3
41
Phase 1
From determining the research objectives of the study, the problem
statements and scope of works, the preliminary interview with person in charge on
QLASSIC at CIDB Malaysia was held. From the interview, the collecting of
preliminary data such as brochures on QLASSIC and some introduction of
QLASSIC will be compiles as part of literature reviews. Literature review will be
determined by reading from the journals, books that related to quality and CIDB’s
website.
Phase 2
Based on the scope of study, the secondary interview will be conduct to
collect data on the target population which is related to the group of persons or
company that about QLASSIC. The details of the developer’s name and contractor’s
name are suggested and obtained by the CIDB. After that, the mode of
administration is determined. The most suitable mode in collecting data is
questionnaire. The questionnaire will be design and distribute to the selected parties
to be answer in a sampling approach that been targeted. Then, the data will be
collected and checked before analysis on research objectives which are to collect
data on the driving factors on QLASSIC application and the barriers in QLASSIC
application towards developers and contractors.
Phase 3
The data will be developed basically by graphs. Therefore, the data must be
checked to prevent error or unforeseen problems and to ensure the selected
company’s representatives answered all the questions before analyzed. From the
data collections, estimation and data analysis will be structured clearly to produce
the research activity similar with the research objectives. Lastly, strategy on the
improvement of the application will be highlighted and suggested in order to
achieve the research objectives.
42
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
4.1
Introduction
This chapter discuss on the data collection and analysis for the survey which
includes the data sampling, questionnaire and data analysis. The data that are
collected are organized, presented and analysed to achieve the objective of the study
with the aim to study on challenges of QLASSIC assessment and its acceptance by
Developers and Contractors that register under the CIDB, Malaysia for the
construction projects as to achieve the standard of quality in construction in terms of
workmanship.
4.2
Questionnaire Sample Distribution
In this study, there are two distribution methods the questionnaire being utilised.
The first one is by meeting the respondent personally. Another one is sending by email to the respondents or companies. Although there are two methods of
43
distribution of questionnaire, these two methods are commonly used to conduct the
data collection adequately as well as to meet the objectives of the study. Due to time
constraints, only two methods are considered that is e-mail sending and by hand
delivery are the preferred methods.
A total of fifty (50) questionnaires distributed to Developer’s company and fifty
(50) questionnaires to Contractor’s company. The respondents are focus towards
Developers and Contractors in Malaysia. All the questionnaires are distributed
through email and by hand. There are several contractor companies that responded
to the questionnaires are :
1. Dekon Sdn Bhd
2. Kitacon Sdn Bhd
3. Protab Construction Sdn Bhd
4. TRC Sdn Bhd
5. Sunway Construction Sdn Bhd
6. Pembinaan Jaya Zira Sdn Bhd
7. Total Teamwork Sdn Bhd
8. NCT Building and Civil Engineering Sdn Bhd
9. Pembinaan Muhibbah Sdn Bhd ; etc
There are several developer companies that responded to the questionnaires are :
1. Sime Darby Property Sdn Bhd
2. Sunway Sdn Bhd
3. Global Globe Sdn Bhd
4. City Development Limited
5. Sunrise Berhad
6. Hicom Gamuda Develoopment Sdn Bhd
7. TTDI Harta Sdn Bhd
44
8. I&P Development ; etc
All these companies are registered under CIDB for development in Malaysia.
Therefore, the result of QLASSIC is answered in the questionnaires and will be
analysed.
4.3
Questionnaire Design
A questionnaire is the most common method of measuring customer
satisfaction ( Harris, 1996). It is a more formal way of survey and give in- depth,
accurate feedback on customer perception of the service or product (Bly,1993).
Moreover, questionnaires were used in this research as it is a best method in
measuring customer satisfaction.
The questionnaires are design in four (4) sections; Section A for
respondent’s company background, Section B for the advantages in application of
QLASSIC Assessment System, Section C for respondent to answer on the barriers
in application of QLASSIC Assessment System and Section D for strategy for
barriers breaker and its improvement towards QLASSIC Assessment System. The
sections are design based on the objectives of the study.
4.3.1
Section A : Respondent’s Profile and Project Description
The first part covered the background of the respondents which includes all
details of the respondents focus on their organization in construction industry. This
45
section was designed to gather the basic information of the respondents which are
important for preliminary analysis of the research. The basic information consists of
respondent’s types of organization in construction industry, respondent’s types of
projects involved, QLASSIC application in a projects and project location that
involved with QLASSIC and so on.
All the information gathered in the Section A will give the basic information
of a developers and contractors in their application of the QLASSIC in construction
industry. The questions are designed in different categories and easily to understand.
The respondents can answer easily whereas the answers are prepared. The
respondents shall choose the most agreeable answer within their company’s profile
and project description.
4.3.2
Section B : Advantages in Application of QLASSIC System
The second part or section B was designed to identify the driving factors to
the application of QLASSIC within developers and contractors. Therefore, from this
section, the advantages in application of QLASSIC also can be collected to achieve
the objectives. The section are designed in Likert Scales and the respondents were
asked to give their agreeable level in certain scales such as follows :
Table 4.1 : Likert Scales for Section B
1 – Strongly Disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neutral
4 – Agree
5 – Strongly Agree
46
The satisfaction level for these five elements is very important in identify the
best and most agreeable advantages that give the impact to the developers and
contractors in the application of QLASSIC. Moreover, from this section, the driving
factors to the application of QLASSIC can be identified.
4.3.3
Section C : Barriers in Application of QLASSIC System
This formed the most important part in the questionnaire where respondents
were asked to indicate the relevant answer for the barriers in application of
QLASSIC. The respondents should response to the lists of barriers that listed in the
section C using Likert Scales. From this section, the barriers in application of
QLASSIC can be identified among the developers and contractors. The lists of
barriers are derived from the interview with person at CIDB. The respondents shall
give the satisfaction level in certain scales such as follows :
Table 4.2 : Likert Scales for Section C
1 – Not Satisfied
2 – Less Satisfied
3 – Neutral
4 – Satisfied
5 – Highly Satisfied
The barriers can be rate to the most satisfied and unsatisfied answer which
experienced by the respondents organizations.
47
4.3.4
Section D : Strategy for Barriers Breaker and Its Improvement
This part was formed to establish the strategy for barriers breaker to the
application of QLASSIC and the relevant improvement of QLASSIC in construction
industry. The respondents are encouraged to suggest the other strategy that can
improve the QLASSIC. The respondents are given a list of strategy that are
necessary and unnecessary in improving the use of QLASSIC in the industry. The
respondent shall answer using Likert Scales as followings:
Table 4.3 : Likert Scales for Section D
1 – Not Necessary
2 – Quite Necessary
3 – Neutral
4 – Necessary
5 – Highly Necessary
The respondents shall establish the strategy that can be a barrier breaker to
the application of QLASSIC by answering this section. Moreover, the respondents
may also state the suggestion to the improvement of the system as an additional
strategy.
4.4
Data Analysis
The collected data from the questionnaires were to be analysed in two
methods. There are Frequency Analysis Methods and Average Index Method.
Frequency Analysis is the method that illustrates the frequency and percentages.
Frequency Analysis will be applied for Section A. Generally, the frequency analysis
shows the percentages of the questions or indication referring to the objectives of
the study.
48
For Section B, C and D will analysed using Average Index Analysis. The
researcher will use the Microsoft Excel in order to generate the result. Average
index was calculated to reflect the effectiveness of aforementioned criteria. As soon
as the average index of each data is to be determined, the criteria of each data will
be evaluated through rating scale. The index will be calculated as follows ( Majid &
Mccaffer, 1997 ).
Average Index Formula is as belows :
Average Index : ΣαiXi
ΣXi
Where , αi = weighting given to each factor by frequency of the respondents
Xi= number of respondents
There were five (5) categories of skill rating which represent the feedback of
the respondents and the application rating scales of Average Index in questionnaires.
As in Section B, there are twenty (20) lists of advantages in application of
QLASSIC System that should be analysed using average index method and the
result will represent by the rating scale as in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 : Average Index Rating Scale
Rating Scale
1
Average Index
1.00
Category
≤Average
Index≤
Strongly Disagree
≤Average
Index<
Disagree
≤Average
Index<
Neutral
≤Average
Index<
Agree
≤Average
Index
≤
Strongly Agree
1.50
2
1.50
2.50
3
2.50
3.50
4
3.50
4.50
5
4.50
5.00
49
As in Section C, the rating scale for this section will identify the level of
satisfaction for barriers in application of QLASSIC System. There are twenty (20)
lists of barriers in application of QLASSIC to be analysed using average index
method as in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 : Average Index Rating Scale
Rating Scale
1
Average Index
1.00
≤Average
Index≤
Category
Strongly Disagree
1.50
2
1.50 ≤Average Index<2.50
3
2.50
Disagree
≤Average
Index<
Neutral
≤Average
Index<
Agree
≤Average
Index≤
Strongly Agree
3.50
4
3.50
4.50
5
4.50
5.00
As in Section D, the strategy of barrier breaker will be analyse and establish
by using Average Index Analysis. From the questionnaire, the developers and
contractors company shall rate the most necessary strategy that should be conduct to
ensure the application of QLASSIC are increase among developers and contractors
in construction industry. The collected data on the strategy on barrier breaker and
improvement of QLASSIC are analyse using average index method as Table 4.6.
50
Table 4.6 : Average Index Rating Scale
Rating Scale
1
Average Index
1.00
Category
≤Average
Index≤
Not Necessary
≤Average
Index
≤
Less Necessary
≤Average
Index
≤
Neutral
≤Average
Index
≤
Necessary
≤Average
Index
≤
Highly Necessary
1.50
2
1.50
2.50
3
2.50
3.50
4
3.50
4.50
5
4.50
5.00
4.4.1
Section A : Analysis on Respondents Profile and Background using
Frequency Analysis
4.4.1.1
Questionnaire Feedback
Analyses are performed on the data from the questionnaires which are
distributed to developers and contractors. Each company is distributing with one (1)
set of questionnaire. In addition, there are fifty (50) sets of questionnaire are
distribute among developers and fifty (50) sets among contractors. Only thirty (30)
companies from developer companies give a feedback and forty (40) feedbacks are
from the contractor companies. The data will organized and presented in a more
simplified and easier way to understand them, such as chart form and graphs. It can
be show in table and bar chart as followings:
51
Table 4.7 : Respondent’s Feedback
Distribution of
No. of Respondents
No. of Respondents
Questionnaires
(Developer )
( Contractor )
Response
30
40
Not Response
20
10
Total
50
50
From Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, it shows the number of respondents that
give feedback. From the return questionnaire and data collected, the sample data that
was collected shows 40% respondents from the developer companies and 60% are
respondents from contractor companies. It shows as follows:
60
50
40
Not Response
30
Response
20
10
0
Developer
Contractor
Figure 4.1 : Number of Respondents
52
Feedback
Developer
40%
Contractor
60%
Figure 4.2 : Respondents Feedback
4.4.1.2
Experience in Construction Industry
From the data collected, there are found that the highest numbers of year in
construction industry for developer companies are 11 to 15 years which is 53%. The
second highest was 6 to 10 years which are about 33%. Only 14% are experienced
over than 15 years. Moreover, there was 0% of developer that is experienced below
than 5 years in the construction industry. Most of the developers are around 11 to 15
years in the construction industry. It was about 10 years and above in the
construction industry and mostly a strong, competitive, sustainable and experienced
company which involved with a construction. The analysis can be shown as per
Figure 4.3 below.
53
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
over 15 years
20
16
10
10
8
4
2
0
Developer
Contractor
Figure 4.3 : The Numbers of Year in Construction Industry
From the data collected for the contractor companies, the highest number of
years in construction industry is 6 to 10 years which is 50%. The second highest is
11 to 15 years which is 25%. The third number of years is 0 to 5 years and only 5%
is over than 15 years that experienced in construction industry. It can be conclude
that half of the respondents are almost 10 years in the construction industry.
Majority of them are still new in construction industry. There is only 5% of the
contractor are engaged more than 15 years in construction industry. The contractor
that can sustain their organization more than 10 years shows a good reputation in the
construction industry.
4.4.1.3
Contractor Grade
The majority of contractors, as illustrated in Figure 4.4,
are registered by
CIDB Malaysia under the grade 7 (G7) categories which is no limitation on the
54
projects value. The large contractor grade G7 constitute 43% of the participating
companies. Therefore, for grade G3,G4,G5 and G6 it resulted same percentage
which is 13%. It can be concluded that most of the contractors that have participated
in the assessment are of the higher registration grades which has a project value
limit of RM5 millions to RM10 millions. However, due to the feedback from the
questionnaire, registration grade of 8% of the contractors are not known which is
others. Due to the facts that the most of the participating projects are more than
millions, it is more likely for the main contractors to possess registration of G5 or
higher.
No. of projects
17
5
5
5
5
3
0
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
OTHERS
Figure 4.4 : Contractor Grade
4.4.1.4
Public and Private Projects
More private projects have participated in the QLASSIC programme. As
highlighted in Figure 4.5, the sample data that was collected shows 93% projects are
55
from the private sector and 7% are from public sector which under Developer
companies. Therefore, more private projects have participated by the Contractor
companies that show 87% and 13% in public sector. The trend indicates that more
private projects are registered by the Developer and Contractor Companies to be
assessed in QLASSIC assessment system in order to highlight the quality level of
their end products to the customers. This is a healthy trend that should be followed
by the developer and contractor companies for public projects.
Public Project
Private Project
93%
87%
7%
13%
Developer
Contractor
Figure 4.5 : Types and No. of Project Involved
56
4.4.1.5
Knowledge on QLASSIC
QLASSIC was established on 2006. After the establishment, the CIDB made
a lot of seminar on QLASSIC to introduce the system to the construction industry.
Therefore, the knowledge of QLASSIC also spread out by the CIDB’s bulletin in
every month. For those who are alert must be quite familiar with QLASSIC. From
the data collected, as illustrated in Figure 4.6, there are 84% developers companies
that are know about QLASSIC and only 16% are zero knowledge about QLASSIC.
Most of the developer companies are familiar with the QLASSIC in marketing their
product in construction industry. Different with the contractor companies, the result
are 50% of the companies which are familiar and knowledgeable on QLASSIC and
the other 50% are zero knowledge on the QLASSIC. It can conclude that the
contractors are not particular with QLASSIC system as there is no compulsory
requirement to bid a tender.
YES
NO
84.0%
50%
16.0%
Developer
Contractor
Figure 4.6 : Knowledge on QLASSIC
50%
57
4.4.1.6
Application in QLASSIC
From the establishment of QLASSIC on 2006, there are several developers
and contractors that applied QLASSIC for their project. From the data collected, as
illustrated in Figure 4.7 , the highest numbers of developers companies that applied
with QLASSIC is 34% for 3 years time. Therefore, 26% numbers of year of
QLASSIC application for 1 year and 2 years time. Moreover, 10% of the developers
are applied QLASSIC for 5 years time. Only 4% developers companies that are
applied QLASSIC within 4 years. Although QLASSIC was 6 years in the
construction industry, the developers are aware on this assessment system by
showing the positive acceptance.
Compared with the contractors companies, there are 50% that is the highest
numbers of contractors companies in application of QLASSIC at 1 year time
followed by 25% contractors that is applied for 2 years time. Therefore, the
application of QLASSIC for 3 to 4 years desired the same percentages which are
12.5%. From the data collected, there a 0% of the contractors that are applied for 5
years. It can be conclude that, for contractors companies, QLASSIC are still new for
them with less exposures and awareness.
The numbers of projects that registered and assesses by the QLASSIC as
illustrated in Figure 4.8. From the data collected, for developers companies, the
highest percentage is 70% which is the average numbers of projects assess are
within 3 to 10 projects. The second highest is 20% which is less than 3 projects
assessed. Hence, 9% are within 10 to 15 projects assessed and only 1% of
developers assessed about 15 to 20 projects. There is 0% developers are assessed
their project more than 20 projects after the QLASSIC establishment. Its can relate
that the developers who are experienced more than 10 years in the construction
industry might registered their projects to assessed for QLASSIC more than 10
times and applied the QLASSIC about 4 to 5 years onwards. It is to ensure their
products are in a quality in terms of workmanship.
58
As per Figure 4.8, for the contractors companies, the project that are
assessed less than 3 projects are the highest among the contractors companies which
is 60%. The second is 30% which is 3 to 10 projects. Therefore, 10% of contractors
companies are assessed their projects from 10 to 15 projects. There are 0%
contractors are assessed their project for 15 to 20 projects and more than 20 projects.
As conclusion, the contractors companies are experienced in the construction
industry more than 10 years but still less of understanding and awareness on the
application of QLASSIC in terms of year of application and the numbers of project
registered in QLASSIC to be assess.
5 years
4 years
3 years
2 years
1 year
10%
4%
Developer
34%
26%
26%
0
12.50%
Contractor
12.50%
25%
50%
Figure 4.7 : No. of Years Applied QLASSIC
59
<3
3 to 10
10 to 15
15 to 20
<20
70%
60%
30%
20%
10%
9%
1%
Developer
0%
0%
0%
Contractor
Figure 4.8: No. of Project That Assess by QLASSIC
4.4.1.7
Building Category
It is also imperative that the analysis looks into the category of building that is
being assessed. As per stated in CIS 7:2006, there are four categories of building
and differ in terms of the QLASSIC scoring breakdown. From the analysis that has
been conducted and illustrated in Figure 4.9, it was found out that developer and
contractor companies are involved with Landed Housing category respectively 40%
and 50%. Most of the projects that registered using QLASSIC are from landed
housing. The examples of Landed Housing are detached, semi-detached, terrace and
cluster house. Hence, stratified housing highlighted the second ranking of building
category that highly developed by the developers and contractors within QLASSIC
assessment which are 30% from developer companies and 35% from contractor
companies. The examples of stratified housing are flats, apartments, condominiums,
service apartments and town houses. Thus, for public building such as schools and
other office buildings that intended for public use resulted 28% from developer
companies and 14% from contractor companies. It shows that not many public
60
building are registered for QLASSIC. From the charts, it shows that only 2% from
developer companies apply QLASSIC for special public building and 1% only from
the contractor’s side. That is the very low percentages that involved special public
building. The examples of special public building are hospitals and airports only.
Normally, the hospitals are under the government as it client and government have
their own quality assessment as their system to assess quality, it might be the reason
where there are less numbers of developers and contractors are involved QLASSIC
with special public building.
Landed Housing
Stratified Housing
Public Building
Special Public Building
1%
14%
2%
28%
35%
30%
50%
40%
Developer
Contractor
Figure 4.9 : Categories of Project Involved
61
4.4.1.8
Involvement of Technical Personnel in QLASSIC
The assessment system, QLASSIC needs to be handle by the person that
have a knowledge on construction. The people that are very familiar with the
construction industry are the Architect, Civil Engineer, Quantity Surveyor and the
other building team. In other hand, the supported services such as administration
department also needed in compiling and filing purposes. Hence, for the purposes of
assessment and preparing the samples must engaged more parties that have
knowledge on engineering. For the data collected, as illustrated in Figure 4.10, in
the developers or contractors organizations, 70% of the parties involved were the
person who had knowledge in engineering and 30% of the other is the supported
parties such as administration and accounting department. From the graph below
shows that, QLASSIC requires technical personnel to handle the flow of assessment
system until completed. Moreover, the technical personnel still need a commitments
from the supported parties to make sure the system are completed within the
company’s objectives.
Person Involved
Non-Engineering
30%
Engineering
70%
Figure 4.10 : Technical Personnel Involved in QLASSIC
62
4.4.1.9
Project Location
Figure 4.11 highlights the location breakdown of the projects that has been
assessed using QLASSIC. It was analyses that the highest percentage is 41% which
located in Selangor and followed by 19% of the projects located at Wilayah
Persekutuan. The result shows that the developers and contractors in these areas are
more aware of QLASSIC programme that being promoted by CIDB Malaysia. As
the market for home owners and house dwellers in these areas is huge and ever so
competitive, the developers need to have a benchmark of their workmanship in
order to be competitive with many competitors in the market. As such, it is crucial
that their projects are to be evaluated. The population in the Klang Valley region is
also very high if compared to other regions and thus it can be safely asserted that
most of the active development projects are in Selangor and Wilayah Persekutuan.
Hence, they are the highest numbers of participating projects. On the other hand, it
is also important to note that 11% are located at Pulau Pinang. It shows that that
region is increase in their developments. Thus, there are no projects being assessed
in the states of Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu.
Kedah
Sarawak Perak Pahang
2% Johor 2%
5%
2%
8%
Selangor
41%
Pulau Pinang
11%
Sabah
2%
Wilayah
Persekutuan
19%
Melaka
5%
Negeri Sembilan
3%
Figure 4.11 : Project Location That Involved QLASSIC
63
4.4.2
Section B : Analysis on Advantages in Application of QLASSIC System
using Average Index Analysis
4.4.2.1
Analysis in Developers Companies
Table 4.8 : Advantages in Application of QLASSIC System for Developers
Companies
No.
(Rank)
1(1)
Weighting Scale
Advantages in
Application of
QLASSIC
Customer satisfaction in
quality achieved
Average
Rating
Index
Scale
(Table
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
0
5
20
4.80
4.4)
Strongly
Agree
2(3)
Zero defects
0
0
5
10
10
4.20
Agree
3(4)
Zero risks
0
0
5
12
8
4.12
Agree
0
0
10
15
0
3.60
Agree
0
0
0
15
10
4.40
Agree
0
5
1
9
10
3.96
Agree
0
0
5
10
10
4.20
Agree
0
5
5
5
15
4.80
25
0
0
0
0
1.00
No major defects after
4(7)
the operation of the
projects/building
5(2)
6(5)
Return on investment
Increase profit among
Developer/Contractor
Good
7(3)
background
organization
among
Developer/Contractor
8(1)
9(14)
Increase marketing of
the projects/building
CCD points can be
collected
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
64
Table 4.8 : Advantages in Application of QLASSIC System for Developers
Companies (Cont’d)
10(8)
11(13)
12(8)
Long term quality can
be achieved
Top
management
satisfaction
Scoring
system
enhancement
0
3
12
5
5
3.48
Neutral
10
5
5
5
0
2.20
Disagree
3
2
20
5
0
3.48
Neutral
0
3
10
10
2
3.44
Neutral
5
5
10
1
4
2.76
Neutral
2
3
5
5
10
3.72
Agree
0
3
12
10
0
3.28
Neutral
0
0
5
10
10
4.20
Agree
3
5
2
10
5
3.36
Neutral
5
5
10
5
3.60
Agree
5
5
20
0
4.20
Agree
Improvement of quality
13(9)
can be delivered for the
others projects
14(12)
Increase
quality
awareness
among
Developer/Contractor
15(6)
Increasing KPI among
Developer/Contractor
Level of quality can be
16(11)
measure
based
on
industry standard
17(3)
18(10)
Enhance the quality of
the projects in Malaysia
Increasing
quality
awareness
among
technical personnel
19(7)
20(3)
Increasing opportunity
in tendering process
Minor
complaint
received by customer
0
0
65
According to the above table, from the developers companies, the highest
advantages in application of QLASSIC are customer satisfaction in quality achieved
and increase marketing of the projects or building. For the developers companies,
they are very particular on the customers need basically in quality products of
construction. Therefore, by apply QLASSIC automatically they can increase their
marketing of the projects for the quality served to the customer. The highest rating
scale for these two advantages in application of QLASSIC is 4.80. Most of the
respondents, agree with the list of advantages in application of QLASSIC. The
lowest rating scale is strongly disagree calculated to 1.00 which is CCD points can
be collected. For the developers companies, there is no entitlement for CCD points.
CCD Points only entitle for contractors.
66
4.4.2.2
Analysis in Contractors Companies
Table 4.9 : Advantages in Application of QLASSIC System for Contractors
Companies
No.
(Rank)
1(2)
Weighting Scale
Advantages in
Application of
QLASSIC
Customer satisfaction in
quality achieved
Average
Rating
Index
Scale
(Table
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
0
10
10
4.50
4.4)
Strongl
y Agree
2(4)
Zero defects
0
0
5
5
10
4.25
Agree
3(5)
Zero risks
0
0
10
2
8
3.90
Agree
0
0
10
5
5
3.75
Agree
0
0
20
0
0
3.00
Neutral
0
0
8
9
3
3.75
Agree
0
0
0
10
10
4.50
0
0
5
5
10
4.25
0
0
0
0
20
5.00
0
0
10
5
5
3.75
No major defects after
4(6)
the operation of the
projects/building
5(11)
6(6)
Return on investment
Increase profit among
Developer/Contractor
Good
7(3)
organization
background
among
Developer/Contractor
8(4)
9(1)
10(6)
Increase marketing of
the projects/building
CCD points can be
collected
Long term quality can
be achieved
Strongl
y Agree
Agree
Strongl
y Agree
Agree
67
Table 4.9 : Advantages in Application of QLASSIC System for Contractors
Companies (Cont’d)
11(7)
12(8)
Top
management
satisfaction
Scoring
system
enhancement
0
5
5
2
8
3.65
Agree
3
2
5
5
5
3.35
Neutral
0
0
5
5
10
4.25
Agree
5
5
5
1
4
2.70
Neutral
2
3
2
5
3
2.45
5
3
2
10
0
2.85
Neutral
0
0
5
5
10
4.25
Agree
3
5
2
5
5
3.20
Neutral
0
1
1
18
4.85
5
5
10
0
3.25
Improvement of quality
13(4)
can be delivered for the
others projects
14(13)
Increase
quality
awareness
among
Developer/Contractor
15(14)
Increasing KPI among
Developer/Contractor
Disagre
e
Level of quality can be
16(12)
measure
based
on
industry standard
17(4)
18(10)
Enhance the quality of
the projects in Malaysia
Increasing
quality
awareness
among
technical personnel
19(2)
20(9)
Increasing opportunity
in tendering process
Minor
complaint
received by customer
0
0
Strongl
y Agree
Neutral
68
According to the above table, from the contractors companies, it shows the
highest average index are 5.00 which are CCD Points can be collected. Majority of
the contractors are strongly agree while using QLASSIC, CCD Points can be
collected. CCD Points is collected to renewal of licenses easily. Therefore, the
criteria that give the second highest of advantages are increasing opportunity in
tendering process, good organization background among contractors and customer
satisfaction in quality achieved. The average index is 4.85 and 4.50 respectively.
Most of the respondents are agree with the advantages such as zero defects, zero
risks, no major defects after the operation of the projects, increase profit among
contractors, long term quality can be achieved, top management satisfaction,
improvement of quality can be delivered for the other projects and enhance the
quality of the projects in Malaysia. The lowest average index is 2.45 which are
increasing KPI among contractors. The contractors companies are not particular in
the Key Performance Index (KPI), for them to sustain in the construction industry
and improvement a quality in projects are more important than increasing the KPI.
69
4.4.3
Section C : Analysis on Barriers in Application of QLASSIC System
using Average Index Analysis
4.4.3.1
Analysis in Developers Companies
Table 4.10 : Barriers in Application of QLASSIC System for Developers
Companies
No.
1(10)
Barriers in Application
of QLASSIC
Less of manpower
Incompetent
2(2)
Weighting Scale
personnel
Average
Rating
Index
Scale
(Table
1
2
3
4
5
10
5
10
5
0
2.33
0
0
10
15
5
3.83
Agree
0
0
10
10
10
4.00
Agree
5
5
15
5
0
2.67
Neutral
10
5
10
5
0
2.33
5
5
5
15
0
3.00
Neutral
0
0
10
15
5
3.83
Agree
4.5)
Disagre
e
technical
to
handle
QLASSIC
3(1)
4(9)
5(10)
6(7)
7(2)
Unfamiliar
with
QLASSIC System
Project
location
is
scattered at many places
Too many elements to be
assess
No much time to focus
with QLASSIC
Less
knowledge
QLASSIC System
on
Disagre
e
70
Table 4.10 : Barriers in Application of QLASSIC System for Developers
Companies (Cont’d)
Top
8(3)
management
not
involved in QLASSIC
2
3
5
15
5
3.60
Agree
0
0
10
15
5
3.83
Agree
1
5
9
10
5
3.43
Neutral
3
5
8
13
1
3.13
Neutral
5
5
5
10
5
3.17
Neutral
5
5
5
10
5
3.17
Neutral
10
5
5
5
5
2.67
Neutral
3
7
10
10
0
2.90
Neutral
5
5
5
10
5
3.17
Neutral
0
0
10
10
10
4.00
Agree
0
15
10
5
0
2.67
Neutral
0
0
10
10
10
4.00
Agree
0
0
10
10
10
4.00
Agree
System
9(2)
10(4)
11(6)
12(5)
13(5)
14(9)
No awareness on quality
Inexperienced
personnel
Management support is
inadequate
Too many projects in
hand
Limitation
projects
in
hand
Costly
Not
15(8)
technical
a
compulsory
requirement to bid in
tender of government
16(5)
Limited
time
assessment
Less
17(1)
for
of
personnel
technical
during
the
QLASSIC assessment
18(9)
19(1)
No additional value for
property price
Less
QLASSIC’s
Assessors
Low
20(1)
of
reputation
if
QLASSIC score less than
CIDB’s requirement
According to the above table, from the developers companies, most of the
respondents are agree with the barriers in application of QLASSIC. The highest
average index is 4.00. The barriers that give the highest average index are unfamiliar
71
with QLASSIC system, less of technical personnel during the QLASSIC
assessment, less of QLASSIC’s assessors and low reputation if QLASSIC score less
than CIDB’s requirement. Most of the respondents in the developers companies are
agree with the barriers that not allowed them to the application of QLASSIC which
is they are not familiar with the QLASSIC system very well. This issue makes them
refuse to register to the CIDB for QLASSIC assessment system. Therefore, if less a
technical personnel on behalf their organization also makes a barrier to enter to
QLASSIC. Moreover, on behalf a CIDB, there barrier are while the developers are
call for an assessment the delay of time required because of less an assessors. This is
the issue that makes sense to developers not to register and assess by QLASSIC.
Hence, the score for assessment will file as a record by the CIDB and this is the
negative response by the customer if they are known about the scoring of the
developer’s projects and totally decrease their reputation. Thus, the lowest average
index from the data collected is 2.33 which are less of manpower and too many
elements to be assess. The rational reason for less of manpower was not a drastic
barrier to the developers companies because they are entitling many of manpower.
Moreover, most of them are disagree with the barrier which is too many elements to
be assess because the more of elements assessed more accurate the scoring system.
72
4.4.3.2
Analysis in Contractors Companies
Table 4.11 : Barriers in Application of QLASSIC System for Contractors
Companies
Weighting Scale
Barriers in
No.
Application of
QLASSIC
1(1)
Less of manpower
Incompetent
2(3)
personnel
Average
Rating
Index
Scale
(Table
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
5
10
25
4.50
0
0
7
20
13
4.15
Agree
0
0
20
10
10
3.75
Agree
0
0
18
12
10
3.80
Agree
5
10
10
10
5
3.00
Neutral
0
5
15
10
10
3.63
Agree
0
0
5
10
25
4.50
0
0
5
10
25
4.50
0
0
10
30
0
3.75
Agree
1
5
8
23
3
3.55
Agree
4.5)
Strongl
y Agree
technical
to
handle
QLASSIC
3(6)
Unfamiliar
QLASSIC System
Project
4(5)
with
location
scattered
at
is
many
places
5(12)
6(7)
7(1)
Too many elements to
be assess
No much time to focus
with QLASSIC
Less
knowledge
on
QLASSIC System
Top management not
8(2)
involved in QLASSIC
System
9(6)
10(8)
No
awareness
on
quality
Inexperienced technical
personnel
Strongl
y Agree
Strongl
y Agree
73
Table 4.11 : Barriers in Application of QLASSIC System for Contractors
Companies (Cont’d)
11(10)
12(13)
13(11)
14(6)
Management support is
inadequate
Too many projects in
hand
Limitation projects in
hand
Costly
Not
15(2)
a
3
5
5
25
2
3.45
Agree
3
5
25
5
2
2.95
Neutral
2
5
25
3
5
3.10
Neutral
0
5
5
25
5
3.75
Agree
0
0
0
22
18
4.45
Agree
0
5
5
25
5
3.75
Agree
0
0
25
10
5
3.50
Agree
0
15
25
0
0
2.63
Neutral
0
0
25
5
10
3.63
Agree
0
0
5
30
5
4.00
Agree
compulsory
requirement to bid in
tender of government
16(6)
Limited
for
assessment
Less
17(9)
time
of
technical
personnel during
the
QLASSIC assessment
18(14)
19(7)
No additional value for
property price
Less
QLASSIC’s
Assessors
Low
20(4)
of
reputation
if
QLASSIC score less
than
requirement
CIDB’s
74
According to the above table, from the contractors companies, the highest
average index from the calculation is 4.50. The barriers that calculated the highest
average index are less of manpower, less knowledge on QLASSIC System and top
management not involved in QLASSIC System. The second highest average index
is 4.45, the barriers is not a compulsory requirement to bid in tender of government.
The third average index is 4.15, the barrier is incompetent technical personnel to
handle QLASSIC. From the table the lowest average index is 2.63 that is no
additional value for property price. The second lowest is 2.95 that is too many
projects in hand.
75
4.4.4
Section D : Analysis on Strategy for Barrier Breaker and Improvement
in Application of QLASSIC System using Average Index Analysis
4.4.4.1
Analysis in Developers Companies
Table 4.12 : Strategy for Barrier Breaker and its Improvement for Developers
Companies
No.
1(3)
2(1)
3(1)
4(3)
5(2)
Weighting Scale
Strategy for Barrier
Breaker
Experience technical
personnel
Support from top
management
Top management
awareness
Motivation of change
Increase
Training/Courses
Average
Rating
Index
Scale
(Table
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
5
15
10
4.17
0
0
5
5
20
4.50
0
0
5
5
20
4.50
0
0
5
15
10
4.17
Necessary
0
0
5
10
15
4.33
Necessary
0
5
5
10
10
3.83
Necessary
0
3
5
12
10
3.97
Necessary
2
3
8
12
5
3.50
Necessary
3
3
10
9
5
3.33
Neutral
4.6)
Necessary
Highly
Necessary
Highly
Necessary
Promotional programs
6(9)
towards government
owners
7(5)
8(11)
Promotional programs
towards house buyers
Supplementary quality
development programs
Monetory and non-
9(12)
monetory incentive
programs
76
Table 4.12 : Strategy for Barrier Breaker and its Improvement for Developers
Companies (Cont’d)
Focus must be given to
10(10)
attract participants
0
6
6
10
8
3.67
Necessary
6
8
5
8
3
2.80
Neutral
0
0
8
17
5
3.90
Necessary
0
0
7
18
5
3.93
Necessary
0
0
12
10
8
3.87
Necessary
0
0
5
15
10
4.17
Necessary
0
0
10
10
10
4.00
Necessary
0
0
15
10
5
3.67
Necessary
0
5
15
10
0
3.17
Neutral
0
0
10
12
8
3.93
Necessary
joining QLASSIC
11(14)
12(7)
Improvement assessing
in Structural Elements
Increase more
QLASSIC Assessors
QLASSIC Assessors
13(6)
perform as marketer for
the QLASSIC
programme
Defects grouping
14(8)
analyses should be
captured
Training/Courses
15(3)
organized in every
states of Malaysia
Establish on job
16(4)
training/courses on real
situation exposure
17(10)
Increase existing CCD
Points to Contractors
Free QLASSIC
18(13)
assessment for the first
project
19(6)
Government bodies
participants
77
Table 4.12 : Strategy for Barrier Breaker and its Improvement for Developers
Companies (Cont’d)
Set a special
20(3)
requirement to
Developers/Contractors
0
0
5
15
10
4.17
Necessary
to get a project
According to the above table, from the developers companies, the highest
average index is 4.50. The highest rating strategies for barrier breaker are support
from top management and top management awareness. Basically, the top
management will enhance to the application to the QLASSIC and break the barrier
of the employee and technical personnel to apply QLASSIC. The second highest
average index is 4.33 that is increase Training/Courses by CIDB. From the
Training/Courses it will increase the understanding towards QLASSIC. The third
highest is 4.17. There are four (4) criteria as a strategy for barrier breaker that share
the same average index which are experience technical personnel, motivation of
change, Training/Courses organized in every states in Malaysia and set a special
requirement to Developers/Contractors to get a project. Most of the strategy for
barrier breaker and the improvement are necessary to apply and to implement in
order to achieve successful in a projects. There is no unnecessary strategy that been
chose by the respondents.
78
4.4.4.2
Analysis in Contractors Companies
Table 4.13 : Strategy for Barrier Breaker and its Improvement for Contractors
Companies
Weighting Scale
Staretgy for Barrier
No.
Breaker and its
improvement
1(10)
2(9)
3(5)
4(9)
Experience technical
personnel
Support from top
management
Top management
awareness
Motivation of change
Average
Rating
Index
Scale
(Table
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
15
20
5
3.75
Necessary
0
0
10
5
3.88
Necessary
0
0
5
30
5
4.00
Necessary
0
0
10
25
5
3.88
Necessary
0
0
0
30
10
4.25
Necessary
0
5
15
15
5
3.50
Necessary
0
3
15
17
5
3.60
Necessary
2
3
13
17
5
3.50
Necessary
25
4.6)
Increase
5(2)
Training/Courses by
CIDB
Promotional programs
6(12)
towards government
owners
7(11)
8(12)
Promotional programs
towards house buyers
Supplementary quality
development programs
79
Table 4.13 : Strategy for Barrier Breaker and its Improvement for Contractors
Companies (Cont’d)
Monetory and non9(13)
monetory incentive
3
3
15
14
5
3.38
Neutral
0
6
1
25
8
3.88
Necessary
6
3
25
3
3
2.85
Neutral
0
0
8
27
5
3.93
Necessary
0
0
7
28
5
3.95
Necessary
0
0
12
20
8
3.90
Necessary
0
0
0
20
20
4.50
0
0
2
28
10
4.20
Necessary
0
0
0
30
10
4.25
Necessary
programs
Management focus
10(9)
must be given to attract
participants joining
QLASSIC
11(14)
12(7)
Improvement assessing
in Structural Elements
Increase more
QLASSIC Assessors
QLASSIC Assessors
13(6)
perform as marketer for
the QLASSIC
programme
Defects grouping
14(8)
analyses should be
captured
Training/Courses
15(1)
organized in every
states of Malaysia
Highly
Necessary
Establish on job
16(3)
training/courses on real
situation exposure
17(2)
Increase existing CCD
Points to Contractors
80
Table 4.13 : Strategy for Barrier Breaker and its Improvement for Contractors
Companies (Cont’d)
Free QLASSIC
18(9)
assessment for the first
0
0
10
25
5
3.88
Necessary
0
0
5
27
8
4.08
Necessary
0
0
10
25
5
3.88
Necessary
project
19(4)
Government bodies
participants
Set a special
20(9)
requirement to
Developers/Contractors
to get a project
According to the above table, from the contractor company’s perspectives,
the highest average index is 4.50. The strategy for barrier breaker that calculated
highest average index is Training/Courses organized in every states in Malaysia. For
the contractors companies, the Training/Courses that organized in every state more
encourage them to join the Training/Courses because it is flexible. The second
highest average index is 4.25. There are two (2) criteria that share the same average
index which are increase Training/Courses by CIDB and increase existing CCD
Point to contractors. The third highest average index is 4.20 that is establish on job
training/courses for real situation exposure. Most of the strategy for barrier breaker
and its improvement are necessary to implement. There are no unnecessary
strategies that are chose by the respondents. Hence, all the respondents from the
contractors companies agreed with the suggested strategy that will be improve by
CIDB, government, and also the contractor’s companies.
81
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1
Introduction
This chapter will described to the findings and recommendation from the
study conducted. Conclusion on the result of the study required to review in
accordance to study objectives. This is important to ensure that the methodology
that conducted in this study can achieve the research objectives.
5.2
Achievement of the Study
From this research, there are three (3) objectives that been set as mentioned
in Chapter 1. The objectives are as follows:
d) To identify the driving factors to the application of QLASSIC
82
e) To identify the barriers in complying a QLASSIC
f) To establish the improvement and strategy of barrier breaker towards
QLASSIC application
5.2.1
Objective 1 : To identify the driving factors to the application of
QLASSIC
The first objective is to identify the driving factors to the application of
QLASSIC. The driving factors to the application of QLASSIC are similar to the
advantages of application of QLASSIC. The application of QLASSIC among
developers and contractors gives several positive impacts to their organizations and
projects. The brief descriptions on QLASSIC are illustrated in Chapter 2 which is
literature review.. Hence, to collect a data from the respondents, mode of
administration is setting out. From this study, the respondents are defining by faceto-face interview for literature review and distributing questionnaires. The
respondents are focus on developers and contractors companies.
Based on the data collected and analysed, from the developers companies
majority of them are agree with the following ranked driving factors that contribute
in application of QLASSIC:
i)
Customers satisfaction in quality achieved
ii)
Increase a marketing of the projects and buildings
iii)
Return on investment
iv)
Good organization background among Developer
v)
Enhance the quality of projects in Malaysia
vi)
Minor complaint received by the customer
vii)
Zero defects
viii)
Zero risks
83
ix)
Increase profit among Developer
x)
Increasing KPI among Developer
xi)
Increasing opportunity in tendering process
Thus, for the contractors companies, there are the following ranked driving
factors that positively contribute them in the application of QLASSIC:
i)
CCD Points can be collected
ii)
Customers satisfaction in quality achieved
iii)
Increasing opportunity in tendering process
iv)
Good organization background among Contractors
v)
Zero defects
vi)
Zero risks
vii)
Improvement in quality can delivered to others projects
viii)
Enhance the quality of projects in Malaysia
ix)
No major defects after the operation of the projects /buildings
x)
Increase profit among Contractor
xi)
Long term quality can be achieved
xii)
Top management satisfaction
From the questionnaire distributed, the customer satisfaction in quality achieved
is the most agreeable driving factors on behalf developers companies. Therefore, the
CCD Points can be collected are the most agreeable driving factors on behalf
contractors companies. Moreover, to the developers companies and contractors
companies there are quite similarly agree with the criteria as an value added in
application of QLASSIC to their organization. The driving factors that are analysed,
give an extra advantages to their organization by gain success and satisfaction in
construction industry. It can be conclude that the driving factors that are highlighted
can achieved the objectives of the study.
84
5.2.2
Objective 2 : To identify the barriers in comply with QLASSIC
The second objectives for this research is to identify the barrier in comply
with QLASSIC. From the data collected, not all the organizations are well-known
and already apply with QLASSIC. In Malaysia, QLASSIC is not a compulsory
requirement to enter to the construction activities. Moreover, there are several
organizations that are aware on the advantages of the application of QLASSIC. This
research is conducted to identify the barrier that make a certain organizations are not
comply with QLASSIC.
From the analysis, most of the barriers that encourage developers companies not
to comply with QLASSIC rank as followings:
i)
Unfamiliar with QLASSIC System
ii)
Less knowledge on QLASSIC System
iii)
Incompetent technical personnel to handle QLASSIC
iv)
Top management not involved in QLASSIC
v)
No awareness on quality
vi)
Less of technical personnel during the QLASSIC assessment
vii)
Less of QLASSIC assessors
viii)
Low reputation if QLASSIC score less than CIDB’s requirement
Thus, most of the barriers that made contractors companies refuse to register and
assess by QLASSIC rank as followings:
i)
Less of manpower
ii)
Less knowledge on QLASSIC System
iii)
Not a compulsory requirement to bid in tender of government
iv)
Incompetent technical personnel to handle QLASSIC
v)
Unfamiliar with QLASSIC System
vi)
Project location is scattered at many places
85
vii)
Top management not involved in QLASSIC System
viii)
Limited time for assessment
ix)
Less of technical personnel during the QLASSIC assessment
x)
Less of QLASSIC’s Assessors
xi)
Low reputation if QLASSIC score less than CIDB’s requirement
From the analysis, the barriers to comply with QLASSIC are identified whether
in a developers companies or contractors companies. Basically, the barriers between
these two organizations are similar but there are priority based on the analysis.
These barriers identification shows that the reason on refusal of certain parties not to
comply with QLASSIC. Moreover, there is might have a strategy on barriers
breaker.
5.2.3
Objective 3 : To establish the improvement and strategy of barrier
breaker towards QLASSIC application
The third objective in this study is to establish the improvement and strategy
of barrier breaker towards QLASSIC application. QLASSIC assessment system
contains advantages, but also contains barriers. Hence, there is a strategy on
breaking a barrier to ensure that all parties get involves in QLASSIC because for
long term, QLASSIC are very important to gain a quality products of construction.
From the analysis, there is strategy on barrier breaker that established. The
strategy on barrier breaker and its improvement are:
i)
Top management awareness
ii)
Support from top management
iii)
Increase Training/Courses by CIDB
86
iv)
Training/Courses organized in every states of Malaysia
v)
Set a special requirement to Developers/Contractors to get a project
vi)
Experience technical personnel
vii)
Motivation of change
viii)
Establish on job training/courses on real situation exposure
ix)
Promotional programs towards house buyers
x)
QLASSIC Assessors perform as marketer for the QLASSIC
programme
xi)
Government bodies participants
xii)
QLASSIC Assessors perform as marketer for the QLASSIC
programme
xiii)
Increase more QLASSIC Assessors
xiv)
Defects grouping analyses should be captured
xv)
Promotional programs towards government owners
xvi)
Increase existing CCD Points to Contractors
xvii)
Focus must be given to attract participants joining QLASSIC
xviii) Supplementary quality development programs
The above list of strategy of barrier breaker and improvement, are
chose by the developers companies and contractors companies.
5.3
Conclusion
A summary of the findings based on analyses of 30 developers companies
and 40 contractors companies that give a feedback to the research are:
i)
53% of the developers are experienced about 11 to 15 years in
construction industry but only 25% of the contractors are experienced
87
about 11 to 15 years. Most of the contractors which is 50% experienced 6
to 10 years in construction industry.
ii)
43% of the contractors companies are registered a grade 7 (G7) with
CIDB.
iii)
84% of developers are familiar with QLASSIC and 50% of contractors
are familiar with QLASSIC.
iv)
34% of developers are 3 years comply with QLASSIC which is the
highest year of application comparing to the contractor companies which
is 12.5% for 3 years time. For contractors companies are 50% participate
with QLASSIC for 1 year only.
v)
93% of developers and 87% of contractors participate with private
projects. Only 7% of developers and 13% of contractors engaged with
public projects.
vi)
In a construction of landed housing, stratified housing, public building
and special public building, the most active building category that
involved with developers and contractors is landed housing which are
40% and 50% respectively.
vii)
70% of developers are 3 to 10 projects assess by the QLASSIC which is
the highest of project assessment comparing to contractors companies
which is 30% only. For contractors companies are 60% assess by
QLASSIC less than 3 projects after the establishment by CIDB.
viii)
70% of person that handled QLASSIC have an engineering background
and 30% is non-engineering person.
ix)
41% of QLASSIC system applied in Selangor which is the highest state
and 19% are from Wilayah Persekutuan. The rest are not actively
involved with QLASSIC due to economic development growth.
It can be summarized that based on the study carried out, the advantages in
application of QLASSIC should be highlighted to attract more developers and
contractors engagement. Moreover, the barriers towards the application of
QLASSIC must be take into serious issue and prepare a strategy to improve
QLASSIC system.
88
5.4
Recommendation
From the research, there are some of the recommendations should be
conducted. It is proposed that these actions are being executed. More parties need to
be educated on the benefits and advantages of QLASSIC program. The target
groups not only focus on developers and contractors but also the major client in
contributing GDP of economic growth which is the government owners and house
owners too for all state in Malaysia. In other hands, the Ministry of Housing and
Local Government (KPKT), Public Works Department (JKR), Government Linked
Companies (GLC) such as Sime Darby and UEM Land as well the other big
companies support and join the QLASSIC programme that been invited by CIDB,
Malaysia as a services to conduct quality programme similar to ensure the quality of
construction by all parties that contribute in construction industry.
89
REFERENCES
Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (2011),Quality Assessment
System in Construction (QLASSIC)(Brochure),Kuala Lumpur:CIDB Malaysia.
Construction Industry Development Board (2011),Statistik Penilaian Kualiti Bagi
Projek Pembinaan(Brochure),Kuala Lumpur: CIDB Malaysia.
Construction Industry Development Board (2011),Sistem Penilaian Kualiti Bagi
Projek Pembinaan(Brochure),Kuala Lumpur: CIDB Malaysia.
David N. Griffiths (1994), Management in A Quality Environment, Published by
Amer Society for Quality
Howard S.Gitlow (1999), Quality Management Systems : A practical Guide,
Published by CRS Press
James R. Evans and James.W.Dean,Jr(2003), Total Quality : Management ,
Organization, and Strategy, Third Edition, Published by Mason 04: Thomson /
South-Western
John Beckford (1998),Quality,Published by in Taylor & Francis e-Library
John S.Oakland and Leslie J.Porter (1994), Cases in Total Quality
Management,Published by Butterworth –Heinemann
90
Lesley Munro-Faure and Malcolm Munro-Faure (1992) . Implementing Total
Quality Management,Published by London: Pitman Publishing
Paul F.Wilson and Richard D.Pearson ( 1994) . Performance Based Assessments,
United States of America ,Published by ASQC Quality Press Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Paul P.Biemer and Lars e.Lyberg (2003), Introduction to Survey Quality, Published
by John & Sons Inc, Hoboken New Jersey
Richard S.Johnson and Lawrence E. Kazense (1993), The Mechanics of Quality
Process, Published ASQC Quality Press
Richard S.Johnson (1993), Leadership for the Quality Transformation,Published
ASQC Quality Press
Richard S.Johnson (1993) , Management Processes for Quality Operations,
Published ASQC Quality Press
Sharon L.Lohr (1999), Sampling : Design and Analysis,Published : Richard
Stratton
William M.Lindsay and Joseph A.Petrick (1997), Total Quality and Organization
Development, Published by St.Luice Press
91
APPENDIX I
MASTER OF SCIENCE ( CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT )
QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
STUDY AREA : CHALLENGES OF QLASSIC SYSTEM IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN MALAYSIA
This survey, conducted as part of my master degree program in construction management
The aim of the study is to study on challenges of QLASSIC system and its acceptance by Developers and Contractors
that registered under the CIDB , Malaysia for the construction projects as to achieve the standard of quality in
construction in terms of workmanship.
All information in this questionnaire is confidential and will only be used for research and educational purpose only
I would like to thank you for your response to the following questions
Prepared by;
Farrah Rina Binti Mohd Roshdi
(Master Student, Faculty of civil Engineering, Universiti Teknology Malaysia)
Supervised by;
Prof Ir Dr Rosli Mohamad Zin
(Lecturer of Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia )
Please return completed Questionnaire to :
Farrah Rina Binti Mohd Roshdi
(013-3059242 )
[email protected]
92
QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire consist of four sections :
Section A
: Company Respondent Profile and Project Description
Section B
: Advantages in application of QLASSIC System
Section C
: Barriers in application of QLASSIC System
Section D
: Strategy for barriers breaker and its improvements
OBJECTIVE
Objective of the project are as follows :
1.To identify the driving factors to the application of QLASSIC
2.To identify the barriers in complying a QLASSIC
3.To establish the improvement and strategy of barrier breaker towards QLASSIC application
93
SECTION A (Respondent's Profile and Project Description )
Instruction
Please answer all question and fill in the blank or [/] where appropriate
1
Name of respondent (optional)
:
___________________________________________
Name of organization
:
___________________________________________
Type of respondent organization or company
Developer
2
Contractor
Please indicate the number of years in construction industry
As Developer
0 - 5 Years
6-10 Years
11 - 15 Years
Over 15 Years
6-10 Years
11 - 15 Years
Over 15 Years
As Contractor
0 - 5 Years
3
4
(Answer by the Contractor only )What Grade have you registered with CIDB ?
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
Other.Please Specify______________________
What types of project that you involved ?
Public Project
5
Private Project
Did you know about QLASSIC System ?
As Client
Yes
No
As Contractor
Yes
6
No
If yes, how many years have you been applied QLASSIC after CIDB established this system in 2006 ?
1 year
7
2 years
5 years
Other.Please Specify______________________
Type of project that you have experience
Landed Housing
9
4 years
If no, what standard of measuring quality that you applied in your projects ? ( Please proceed to Section C & Section D )
CONQUAS
8
3 years
Stratified housing
Public Building
Special Public Building
How many project that you registered to be assess by QLASSIC System ?
<3
3 to 10
10 to 15
15 to 20
> 20
10 Please indicate the number of technical person engaged in preparation for QLASSIC ?
1
3
3
4
>5
11 Person that handled QLASSIC educational background
Engineering
______ out of _____
Non Engineering
________ out of _____
12 Project Location that involved with QLASSIC ?
Klang Valley
North
South
West
Other.Please specify _______
94
SECTION B (Advantages in Application of QLASSIC System)
Please answer all question by shaded the relevent answer
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
1
Customer satisfaction in quality achived
1
2
3
4
5
2
Zero defects
1
2
3
4
5
3
Zero risks
1
2
3
4
5
4
No major defects after the operation of the projects/builidng
1
2
3
4
5
5
Return on investment
1
2
3
4
5
6
Increase profit among Developer/Contractor
1
2
3
4
5
7
Good organization background among Developer/Contractor
1
2
3
4
5
8
Increase marketing of the projects/builidng
1
2
3
4
5
9
CCD points can be collected
1
2
3
4
5
10
Long term quality can be achived
1
2
3
4
5
11
Top management satisfaction
1
2
3
4
5
12
Scoring system enhancement
1
2
3
4
5
13
Improvement of quality can be delivered for the other projects
1
2
3
4
5
14
Increase quality awareness among Developer/Contractor
1
2
3
4
5
15
Increasing KPI among Developer/Contractor
1
2
3
4
5
16
Level of quality can be measure based on industry standard
1
2
3
4
5
17
Enhance the quality of the projects in Malaysia
1
2
3
4
5
18
Increasing quality awareness among technical personnel
1
2
3
4
5
19
Increasing opportunity in tendering process
1
2
3
4
5
20
Minor complaint received by customer
1
2
3
4
5
95
SECTION C (Barriers in Application of QLASSIC System)
Please answer all question by shaded the relevent answer
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
1
Less of manpower
1
2
3
4
5
2
Incompetent technical personnel to handle QLASSIC
1
2
3
4
5
3
Unfamiliar with QLASSIC System
1
2
3
4
5
4
Project location is scattered at many places
1
2
3
4
5
5
Too many elements to be assess
1
2
3
4
5
6
No much time to focus with QLASSIC
1
2
3
4
5
7
Less knowledge on QLASSIC System
1
2
3
4
5
8
Top management not involved in QLASSIC System
1
2
3
4
5
9
No awareness on quality
1
2
3
4
5
10
Inexperienced technical personnel
1
2
3
4
5
11
Management support is inadequate
1
2
3
4
5
12
Too many projects in hand
1
2
3
4
5
13
Limitation of projects in hand
1
2
3
4
5
14
Costly
1
2
3
4
5
15
Not a complulsory requirement to bid in tender of government
1
2
3
4
5
16
Limited time for assesment
1
2
3
4
5
17
Less of technical personnel during the QLASSIC assesment
1
2
3
4
5
18
No additional value for property price
1
2
3
4
5
19
Less of QLASSIC's Assessors
1
2
3
4
5
20
Low reputation if QLASSIC score less than CIDB's requirement
1
2
3
4
5
96
SECTION D (Strategy for barriers breaker and its improvements )
Please answer all question by shaded the relevent answer
1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
1
Experience technical personnel
1
2
3
4
5
2
Support from top management
1
2
3
4
5
3
Top management awareness
1
2
3
4
5
4
Motivation of change
1
2
3
4
5
5
Increase Training/Courses by CIDB
1
2
3
4
5
6
Promotional programs towards government owners
1
2
3
4
5
7
Promotional programs towards house buyers
1
2
3
4
5
8
Supplementary quality development programs
1
2
3
4
5
9
Monetory and non-monetory incentive programs
1
2
3
4
5
10
Focus must be given to attract participants joining QLASSIC
1
2
3
4
5
11
Improvement assessing in Structural Elements
1
2
3
4
5
12
Increase more QLASSIC Assessors
1
2
3
4
5
13
QLASSIC Assessors perform as marketer for the QLASSIC programme
1
2
3
4
5
14
Defects grouping analyses should be captured
1
2
3
4
5
15
Training/Courses organized in every states in Malaysia
1
2
3
4
5
16
Establish on job training/courses for real situation exposure
1
2
3
4
5
17
Increase CCD Point to Contractors
1
2
3
4
5
18
Free QLASSIC assessment for the first project
1
2
3
4
5
19
Government bodies i.e JKR to participate in QLASSIC
1
2
3
4
5
20
Set a special requirement to Developers/Contractors based
on project amount
1
2
3
4
5
21
Any other suggestion to improve the application of QLASSIC to all Developer/Contractor
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Download
Related flashcards
Create Flashcards