Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jengtecman
A resilience framework to explorative quality management in
innovative building projects
Yan Ning a, *, Shang Gao b
a
b
School of Management and Engineering, Nanjing University, 210008, China
Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Resilience
Explorative
Quality management
Innovative projects
Quality management (QM) can be either explorative or exploitative. While QM in innovative
building projects is largely explorative, it is still less understood how explorative quality man­
agement (EQM) is handled. Grounded upon the resilience theory, this study aims to examine how
the resilience framework deals with EQM in innovative building projects. This is illustrated by a
case study of a precast concrete building project in China. A resilience framework combining four
interconnected strategies—planning, monitoring, responding, and learning—was developed. This
study contributes to project quality management literature by proposing a resilience framework
to deal with the EQM.
1. Introduction
Quality management (QM) may be either exploitative or explorative (Wu and Zhang, 2013; Zhang et al., 2012; Gomes et al., 2020).
Exploitative QM focuses on controlling extant QM methods in order to achieve high levels of consistency and efficiency, whereas
explorative quality management (EQM) is characterized by experimentation and innovation that generate novel QM solutions (Wu and
Zhang, 2013). In building projects, there is one type of projects which, on one hand, are characterized with adoption of new tech­
nologies, innovate design methods, and new materials. On the other hand, these innovative projects are also featured by high levels of
uncertainty and ambiguity. Thus, the purpose of QM in innovative building projects should not only target the prevention of quality
problems, but also aim to explore the unknowns, generate new knowledge, and create novel solutions (Zhang et al., 2012). This may
challenge the effectiveness of the traditional plan–do–check–action (PDCA) cycle and quality risk management tools, which focus on
preventing things that go wrong and making continuously improvement on a stable process. Similarly, these efforts might only be
effective to cope with the projects in which quality risks can be possibly anticipated. But, they could not cope with high level of
uncertainties and ambiguities associated with EQM (Loch et al., 2011). Thus, it seems necessary to develop a framework that could
handle EQM in innovative building projects.
Resilience provides an insightful approach for probing into EQM in innovative building projects. Resilience refers to “the ability of a
system to adjust its functioning prior to, during, or following changes and disturbances” (Hollnagel, 2011: xxxvi). It considers “the ‘things that
go wrong’ as the flip side of the ‘things that go right,’ and assumes that they are a result of the same underlying processes” (Hollnagel, 2011:
xxxiii). Resilience is effective to deal with both expected and unexpected conditions as it takes variability and unexpected events as
parts of system operation (Hollnagel, 2011; Rankin, Woltjer, and Hollnagel, 2013). Many studies witnessed the establishment of
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ny@nju.edu.cn (Y. Ning).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2021.101654
Received 28 April 2020; Received in revised form 8 August 2021; Accepted 16 August 2021
Available online 30 August 2021
0923-4748/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
various resilience frameworks which reportedly increase the system resilience (e.g., Becker et al., 2016; Hollnagel, 2011). The most
common resilience framework is made up of four interconnected strategies: planning, monitoring, responding, and learning (Holl­
nagel, 2011). The advantages of resilience imply that this resilience framework might be effective in handling the high levels of
ambiguity and uncertainty found in EQM. Though resilience concept is hardly novel, it has not been reflected in the work on quality
management to date and, thus, presents an opportunity for those with an interest in EQM to conceptualise more precisely what EQM is
and to theorise about how the resilience framework has an impact on EQM in innovative building projects.
This research thus aims to develop a resilience framework to enable effective EQM in innovative building projects. Through an indepth case study, a resilience framework combining four interconnected strategies, namely planning, monitoring, responding, and
learning, was developed. These four strategies together are effective for dealing with the high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty
found in EQM. The resilience framework developed in this research could provide insights for managing quality in innovative building
projects.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on EQM and the resilience framework. This is followed by a case
study of a precast concrete (PC) building project. The results are presented in Section 4; these describe the understanding obtained of
the uncertainty and ambiguity of the case, the resilience framework, and their benefits. The final section presents a discussion and the
conclusions.
2. Literature review
2.1. Explorative and exploitative quality management
Wu and Zhang (2013) argued that the distinction between explorative and exploitative QM is grounded on the taxonomy of
exploitative and explorative learning in organizations (March, 1991). Exploitation and exploration are two distinct learning activities
(March, 1991). Exploitation involves activities characterized by refinement, efficiency, and execution, whereas exploration involves
activities characterized by search, discovery, experimentation, and innovation (He and Wong, 2004; March, 1991). Explorative and
exploitative QM have distinct focuses. Exploitative QM aims to ensure the consistency and efficiency of outcomes by controlling
existing processes, whereas EQM aims to explore the unknown and to pursue novel solutions (Wu and Zhang, 2013; Zhang et al., 2012).
Strategies of experimenting, searching, and innovation are often used to generate novel QM solutions in EQM.
As Snell and Dean (1992) noted, QM is a management approach that can be characterised by a few basic principles as well as a
number of associated practices. Research efforts were made to specify the important dimensions of quality management. For example,
Flynn et al. (1994) articulated the key dimensions of QM including top management support, process management, product design,
work force management, supplier involvement and customer involvement. The fundamental principles of QM generally include
customer focus, process focus, and teamwork (Dean and Bowen, 1994; Evans and Lindsay, 2011). Based on that, researchers have
developed an EQM framework consisting of four dimensions: customer focus, process management, teamwork, and training (Zhang
et al., 2012) (see Table 1). This framework has been tested in industrial firms (Herzallah et al., 2017), in an international context
(Zhang and Wu, 2014), and in sustainable production (Gomes et al., 2020).
As Zhang et al. (2012) have noted, different organizations may require different approaches to QM. In other words, the EQM
framework might not fit well into the quality management in innovative building projects, for the following reasons:
1) Innovation: Unlike innovation in operation, innovation in projects is task-oriented, rather than people-oriented (Rekonen and
Björklund, 2016). Project teams often take projects as an opportunity to implement novel design ideas with innovative construction
methods and materials (Ozorhon, 2013);
2) Temporary organization: The project team is assembled when the project starts and is dismissed after the project completion. Some
team members (e.g., engineers, construction workers) join the project during construction and possibly leave the team halfway;
3) One-of-a-kind project: this indicates that the quality problems facing different projects are rarely identical. Thus, QM might be more
likely to be exploration-oriented;
4) Compliance: the QM of building projects has to comply with a set of statutory requirements and follow mandated quality man­
agement procedures. End users are less involved in the QM of building projects than in the operation context; and
Table 1
Comparison between exploitative and explorative QM.
Exploitative QM
Customer Focus
Process Management
Teamwork
Training
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Explorative QM
Identify existing customers
Assess customers’ needs
Better understand customer expectations
Respond to customer needs and expectations
Increase process control
Increase process reliability
Focus on within functional problem solving
Conduct training on existing skills
Source: Zhang et al. (2012).
2
• Explore new needs for customers
• Involve customers in the early stage of product development
•
•
•
•
Explore new improvement of products and processes
Dynamic change of the organization
Focus on cross-functional cooperation
Conduct training on multiple skills
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
5) Long service life: building projects normally have long service lives with significant social impacts, unlike commercial products that
are mainly market-oriented. In addition, building projects are less complex than highly interactive and tightly coupling systems (e.
g., aircraft carriers, nuclear power) (Su et al., 2014).
Above all, it is concluded that Zhang et al.’s (2012) framework might not suite the EQM in innovative building projects. It is thus
imperative to develop a new framework for EQM in innovative building projects. We argue that EQM in innovative building projects
entails resilience.
2.2. Resilience
Resilience deals with the safe and efficient functioning of systems (Hollnagel, 2013). It is effective to deal with both expected and
unexpected conditions as it takes both as natural parts of systems operation (Hollnagel, 2011;Rankin et al., 2013). Resilience is
characterized by four cornerstones: anticipating the future; monitoring the ongoing; responding to events; and learning from the past
(Hollnagel, 2011).
1) Anticipating what may happen in the future. This is the ability to address the potential;
2) Monitoring what happens and identifying what affects organization’s operations. This is the ability to address the critical;
3) Responding to expected and unexpected variability and disturbances by implementing prepared responses, adjusting functions, or
creating innovative responses. This is the ability to address the actual; and
4) Learning from experience. This is the ability to address the factual.
Resilience has been engineered to a variety of contexts (e.g., Yu et al., 2020), including the built environment (Hollnagel, 2013),
occupational health and safety management (Pęciłło, 2016; Patriarca et al., 2018), and safety operations (e.g., Kitamura, 2016;
Lindhout et al., 2020) (see Table 2). For example, given the features of societal safety sustainability, Becker et al. (2016) adapted it to
anticipating, recognizing, adapting, and learning. Rankin et al. (2016) highlighted the context and strategy in complex working
setting, and adjusted the framework to a cycle of context, monitoring, situation assessment, strategy adaptation, and responding.
3. Research methods
3.1. Research design
The literature emphasizes that the resilience framework might be useful for dealing with EQM in innovative building projects. The
research question that guides the empirical work is: “how can the resilience be used to handle EQM in innovative building projects?” Since
there is only limited understanding of how resilience exists in EQM, this study takes an explorative analysis approach via a qualitative
single-case study design (Yin, 2011). Single case study is implemented as it is viewed as a representative and typical case (Yin, 2011).
Differing from the purpose of evaluating the impact of intervention (i.e., established resilience framework) in cases, this research aims
to explore and explain whether and how resilience practice is implemented in the successful case, and to develop a resilience
framework to deal with the challenges in EQM in innovative building projects.
An innovative precast concrete (PC) project was selected, based on the following reasons:
1) PC building projects are new to China’s construction industry (Mao et al., 2016). PC buildings have been heavily promoted in China
since 2013, with the Chinese State Council stating that some pioneering regions in China should achieve 30 % precast building in
new building projects over the ten years from 2013. The provincial governments then prioritized the development of PC buildings
in their political agenda, to be aligned with the State Council. There have been many incentive policies to promote the use of
precast. In Nanjing (Jiangsu province), the construction industry has been expected to take up at least a 30 % PC ratio for new
building projects since 2017. Since PC buildings are relatively new to the market, this suggests that PC building projects are
innovative and that QM would be largely exploration-oriented.
2) The selected case was a typical innovative building project. The project was listed in four demonstration programmes1. The project
was expected to showcase advanced PC technologies. The PC elements designed for this project included precast sheer wall panels
(with thermal insulation), precast slab, precast column, balcony, beams, staircases, precast and prefinished bath units, precast
interior wall panels. It was expected to achieve transferrable and replicable technical solutions and to win the highest quality award
at the national level. In addition, it employed a traditional design–bid–build (DBB) approach.
3) The selected case was successful in quality management. This project achieved high performance, attracting attention from a wide
range of outside visitors, including other companies, universities, and government agencies. It achieved three stars in green
building and won Luban prize which is the highest quality prize in the construction sector in China.
1
The four demonstration programmes include: (1) Demonstration Projects of the Ministry of Housing and Urban–Rural Development; (2)
Demonstration Projects of Construction Industry Modernization in Jiangsu; (3) Demonstration Projects of Green Building in Jiangsu; and (4)
Demonstration Projects of Renewable Energy in Jiangsu.
3
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
Table 2
Contexts and adapted resilience framework.
References
Adapted framework
Context
Becker et al.
(2016)
Bueno et al.
(2019)
Anticipating, recognizing, adapting, and learning
Societal safety and
sustainability
Intensive care units
Hollnagel
(2014)
Rankin et al.
(2016)
Supporting visibility of processes and outcomes; design slack; encouraging diversity of perspectives when
making decisions; monitoring and understanding the gap between work-as-imagined and work as-done;
monitoring unintended consequences of improvements and changes
Respond, monitor, learn and anticipate
Context, monitor, situation assessment, strategy adaptation, respond
Built environment:
Complex working setting
The key stakeholders were the public developer, design consultant, contractor, the supervision company (jianli in Chinese), and PC
suppliers. The public developer was the largest public housing provider in the local market. The client had high requirements regarding
quality performance and had won national quality awards for its previous projects. The contractor is stated-owned and headquartered
in Shanghai. The PC elements were procured by the contractor. The design firm specializes in the PC building design, and is also a
leading player in the local market.
3.2. Data collection and analysis
Multiple investigators and a mix of data collection methods were used to achieve theoretical triangulation and to enhance con­
fidence (Yin, 2011). Data were collected through archival documents, in-depth interviews, and site visits (see Fig. 1).
3.2.1. Interviews
Two rounds of face-to-face interviews were carried out. The interviews were audio-recorded with the permission of the in­
terviewees and notes were taken during each interview. As Table 3 indicates, the first round of interviews involved eleven participants
from the five stakeholders (the public developer, the design consultant, the contractor, the supervision consultant, and the govern­
mental departments). The investigation of multiple stakeholders helped to triangulate the empirical findings. The qualitative evidence
was used to develop the resilience framework. For each stakeholder, experienced managers were asked to describe the novelty of the
project in terms of the QM practices of planning, monitoring, responding, and learning. The interview questions were guided by the
central constructs of the resilience framework, which in turn aided in interpreting the data.
The second round of interviews had five participants to verify the proposed framework. The interviewees were asked to rate the
appropriateness of the proposed framework. The evidence was used to refine the framework.
3.2.2. Site visits and archival data
Additional data were sourced from site visits and archival documents. Three site visits were made on April 13, September 28, and
October 13, 2017. During these visits, construction was at different stages and faced different quality problems. Multiple site visits
helped in reaching a comprehensive understanding of the QM in its different stages. Archival documents were obtained from a set of
research reports presented by each stakeholder. The research report summarized the challenges faced and the solutions used in the
design, the PC production, the construction, and the quality inspection by the government agencies.
3.2.3. Data analysis
A multistage process for data analysis was adopted, following the systematic combining approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). The
data analysis followed an iterative process in which data collection and data analysis had significant overlap and influenced each other.
Using content analysis, key practices and indicators were identified from the first-round interviews, relying on labels that could
represent similar descriptions across multiple interviews. To collapse the list of practices, only the completely agreed-on practices were
initially retained. Practices involving conflicts would be further verified through subsequent interviews. This juxtaposition of con­
tradictory evidence could help to inspire the insights. Further, these key practices and indicators are tapped into the four categories of
resilience framework.
In addition, the practices that emerged were compared with the existing findings in terms of their concept boundaries. In another
word, we also draw directly from the work of high reliability organizations (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2011), and exploratory project
management (Loch et al., 2011) to explain the emerging practices from the case study. By going back and forth between framework,
data sources, and analysis, this step allowed matching between theory and data in systematic combining (Dubois and Gadde, 2002).
The data analysis of the second round interviews was based on content analysis, which was used to verify and alter the proposed
framework. All interviewees in the second round agreed with the appropriateness of the resilience framework combining planning,
monitoring, responding, and learning. They also verified the comprehensiveness of practices under each categories. In the end, in­
terviewees commented that the resilience framework presents them a clear picture of managing quality in the innovative building
project.
4
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
Fig. 1. Case study procedure.
Table 3
Profile of interviewees.
NO.
Position
Organization
1
Project manager
Public developer
2
Head
Construction quality inspection authority (City branch)
3
Chief engineer
Contractor
4
Technical manager
Contractor
5
Design manager
Public developer
6
7
Quality manager
Site manager
Contractor
Contractor
8
Chief architect
Design consultant
9
10
11
Chief structural design engineer
Chief supervision engineer
Head
Design consultant
Supervision consultant
Construction quality inspection authority (District branch)
Date
Duration (min)
04/13/2017
05/12/2017
04/14/2017
04/20/2017
04/18/2018*
04/20/2017
10/13/2017*
04/25/2017
10/11/2017*
06/07/2017
06/16/2017
09/21/2017
11/28/2017*
09/21/2017
09/25/2017
12/01/2017*
53
80
93
66
55
67
91
64
50
72
77
51
82
50
45
50
Note: * 2nd round interviews.
4. Results
4.1. Challenges for quality management
The level of novelty of the building project could be inferred from the regulatory uncertainties, the technical ambiguities and
uncertainties (see Table 4), which in turn posed challenges to QM.
As for regulatory uncertainty, several key specifications and codes of practices were still under development. For example, no wellestablished inspection methods for grouting had yet been prepared for PC standards. This was a major concern for the construction
quality inspection department.
The architect gave one example, indicating that “from 2015 m the floor slabs had to comply with requirements of both thermal and
acoustic insulation. Only the thermal insulation needed to comply with the standard before 2015. The problem is that there were few materials
available on the market to fulfil the double requirement… Another example was the prohibition on the use of thermal insulation mortar this year;
it was permitted for use last year. We thus had to alter the plans”. This indicates the presence of a high level of regulatory uncertainty.
The novelty of the building project could manifest as technical uncertainty or ambiguity. One strategic target of this project was to
integrate advanced PC technologies with the highest precast ratio (38 %) in buildings of comparable size and height in Jiangsu. A
5
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
Table 4
Ambiguity and uncertainties associated with quality management.
Categories
Regulatory uncertainty
Technical ambiguity
Technical uncertainty
Examples
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The specifications for the adopted precast technologies were not well established
The change of relevant specifications was unplanned
The regulations for precast buildings were changed in an unplanned manner
Difficult to decide how to deal with the quality problem when it arises
Difficult to fully anticipate the impacts of the quality problem
Difficult to identify the root causes of the quality problem
Difficult to fully inspect the quality problem
The inspection methods were not well established
Unanticipated quality problems
Novel precast technologies adopted
Multiple alterations to the quality management method
Multiple alterations to the construction plans
Table 5
The resilience framework for explorative quality management.
Interview and documentation
Indicators
“We were more concerned with the key quality issues. This was why we designed separate quality management plans for
them.”
“Having a clear understanding of the characteristics of the scenario, we prepared various contingency plans for quality
control.”
“whatever we are concerned regarding the plan will be fully documented and discussed by the team.”
“What if the sole supplier failed to deliver PC elements on time? We could do nothing but wait, leading to a waste of manhours.”
“It was mandatory to have one hoister when holstering the components up. But we added another to assure safety. The
additional one might seem redundant, but it provided higher safety guarantees”.
“It was not often that we had to interrogate the drawing in cast in-situ project. In this project, we participated in the whole
process.”
“we did not have well-established standards for some technologies used in precast sheer wall panels. We thus had to consult
experts in the absence of standards and given the conflicts with existing rule and regulations.”
“It was easy to monitor and to implement quality control. Also, the paper work was traceable and could be used for the
purpose of inspection.”
“At the start of the project, we had high requirements for mindfulness. We emphasized focusing on the details. No
concessions or compromises were allowed.”
“The collective efforts in site inspection have contributed to the high quality”.
“The multiple-round checking method was developed during the construction”.
“Our engineers could learn a lot from the front-line construction workers.”
“after concrete cast-in, all the engineers and managers would come together to the site, checking all the key quality control
areas.”
“If construction workers or foremen found issues in construction, they could report it to us, along with suggestions and
countermeasures. We would then quickly follow up and assign an engineer to review the problem and verify the
suggestions.”
“We found that construction workers and foremen were happy to participate. Most importantly, we helped them to increase
labour efficiency and reduce rework.”
“We hired an experienced engineer from the subcontractor in our last project.”
“We had the competence to deal with technical problems. When dealing with very specific technical problems, we would
request assistance and clarification from the technical division and invite them to the site. We worked together to figure
out if there were better alternatives.”
“Our communication is open. We could convey what we saw and what we thought directly to the person in charge.”
“it was quite efficient and convenient.”
“once an on-site quality problem that the foremen could not solve was spotted, we would go to the place and help them out
immediately. Meanwhile, we would be working with others in order to find a better solution.”
“Experimentation was a great strategy to optimize the design solutions.”
“setting up the experimentation had multiple purposes.”
“The completion of the ground floor provided us with many meaningful quality data. We then had to determine what caused
the defects.”
“We required the crane operators to pass a test. We drew a rectangle on the ground and checked whether the driver could
reach a small object within that boundary.”
“Experience was very important. We were the leading design firm in our home city and had experience of similar project
before.”
“Our use of experimentation was actually learned from other projects. We also invited experts to run workshops for our
managers and engineers.”
6
Categories
Scenario description
Redundancy
Planning
Scrutinize plans
Developing checklists
Conscientiousness
On-site real-time
monitoring
Sensitive to operations
Monitoring
Incentive problem
identification
Deference to expertise
Open communication
Responding
Joint problem solving
Experimentation
Learning by doing
Acquisition of knowledge
Learning
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
variety of innovative technologies was adopted with the aim of showcasing the latest PC technologies. Technical uncertainties gave rise
to unexpected technical problems. The project teams had no prior experience of using precast sheer wall panels. The site manager
commented that “We had no clear plan on how to manage quality, among many other issues, in the production of PC elements and the
procedures”. The technical manager mentioned that “this was new to us. If it were not new, we could have followed the standards”. The
quality manager added, “lots of issues are under exploration in PC buildings”.
The developer’s project manager commented that “We had no idea what quality problems might occur. We had to investigate the
problems step by step”. Giving an example, he explained that “the quality focus actually shifted. Water leakage at the windows was not a
problem in this PC building. But we had to focus on water leakage at joint gaps”. The chief engineer added that “in our previous experience, we
had only focused on on-site construction. But in this PC project, because we procured the PC components, we had to be involved with the
production shop, to maintain close interaction with the PC designer and supplier. Additionally, we had to quality control the PC supplier’s work”.
4.2. Resilience framework for explorative quality management
A resilience framework combining planning, monitoring, responding, and learning was developed on the basis of the qualitative
evidence. The practices in each category are presented in Table 5. Each category and its associated practices are described in detail in
the following.
4.2.1. Planning
QM planning was focused on the anticipation of QM problems and countermeasures. It is important to decompose quality problems
and to utilize resources appropriately for different types of problems, with a focus on challenging QM risks. This is consistent with the
idea of decomposing the project (Browning and Ramasesh, 2015) into smaller subsystems, or a big problem (Loch et al., 2008) into
smaller pieces, so that the smaller elements and items can be easily managed, thus avoiding unwelcome surprises and providing a
better diagnosis of unforeseeable uncertainties.
The QM plans were decomposed into key quality risks and routine quality risks; these categories require different QM strategies
(See Fig. 2). In this project, three key quality risks were identified: grouting method, hoisting and installation methods, and aluminium
formwork; these are related to the construction method and technologies. According to the contractor, three volumes of construction
methods were developed in house for managing these key quality risks, whereas common and smaller quality issues were briefly
mentioned in the normal construction plans. The chief engineer commented, “We were more concerned with the key quality issues. This
was why we designed separate quality management plans for them”.
After decomposing such issues, the most difficult and challenging QM problems can be dealt with using customized solutions,
whereas routine QM problems can be addressed with normal procedures.
4.2.1.1. Scenario description. Good planning in EQM requires the full description and careful analysis of QM scenarios, analysis of the
risks of the QM method, and preparation for both the planned and the unplanned. The scenario description is not intended to make an
accurate prediction, but to develop an understanding of the alternative futures that are subject to change (Browning and Ramasesh,
2015).
Since the key quality issues were exploratory in nature, the project team began with full descriptions of specific quality scenarios.
The goal was to portray the scenario so that an accurate assessment would be possible. The design manager noted, “Having a clear
understanding of the characteristics of the scenario, we prepared various contingency plans for quality control. For example, we designed
multiple positions in which the insulation materials could be placed. Each design came with full documentation of the associated risks and their
consequences”. The quality manager stated that, “whatever we are concerned regarding the plan will be fully documented and discussed by the
team”
In presenting scenario information, a picture or model is worth a thousand words. The project team were satisfied with the
effectiveness of Building Information Modelling (BIM) as a tool to describe the scenarios for design and construction methods. BIM was
used by the team to detect clashes among MEP disciplines and to highlight the mistakes and errors associated with openings, embedded
conduits, and inserts.
4.2.1.2. Redundancy. Redundancy mindsets were instilled into the QM planning. According to the contractor, two PC suppliers were
hired because the onsite schedule could be more reliable if there were two suppliers. The site manager asked, “What if the sole supplier
failed to deliver PC elements on time? We could do nothing but wait, leading to a waste of man-hours”.
Another example concerns the use of two hoisters. The chief engineer noted, “It was mandatory to have one hoister when holstering the
components up. But we added another to assure safety. The additional one might seem redundant, but it provided higher safety guarantees”. The
final example is the Halfen connection system. The technical manager described that “The original connection system required 1.5 mm indepth fastening, which was a pretty standard requirement. But we increased this to 2 mm. The quality inspection department was also concerned
with the reliability of the system since it was the first time it was used in Nanjing. However, 2 mm connection bolts were not available on the local
market and so we purchased them from Germany”.
4.2.1.3. Scrutinizing plans. QM plans are scrutinized in a collective manner, involving the client, contractor, designer, and supervisors,
or even engage a professional third party (e.g., external experts). Given this collective and routine scrutinizing, the construction plans
improve continuously. The developer’s project manager commented, “It was not often that we had to interrogate the drawing in cast in-situ
7
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
Fig. 2. Decomposition of quality management practices.
project. In this project, we participated in the whole process”.
The contractor also discussed the construction plans in detail with foremen and construction workers. The quality manager noted,
“Workers can sometimes provide valuable feedback. It was not one-way communication, but mutual consultation”. Construction workers
could propose alternative views based on their frontline experience. This allowed the construction plan to be easily accepted by
workers, as it was open to adopting “the construction workers’ reasonable suggestions”, as noted by the quality manager.
Expert consultation was adopted in scrutinizing the construction plan. The project manager pointed out “we did not have wellestablished standards for some technologies used in precast sheer wall panels. We thus had to consult experts in the absence of standards
and given the conflicts with existing rule and regulations”. The client organized more than ten expert consultations, at which precast
construction experts with direct experience in the field look for weaknesses in the construction plan. Often, staff from governmental
agencies2 were also invited. Consensus was ultimately was reached for constructing specific processes.
However, organizing the expert consultation was time-consuming and sometimes interrupted the construction process. It was,
however, acknowledged that the interruption was tolerable, given that the project team has strong social responsibilities to promote
the technologies and to produce high-quality public housing. The client’s project manager cautioned that “it may be a significant burden
for those in the private sector who are reluctant to invest resources”.
4.2.1.4. Developing checklists. A number of checklists were developed for auditing both the preparatory and inspection work. They
became an effective communication tool between different divisions of the contractor’s team. They also provided a common
communication tool in a dynamic temporary organization. For instance, the specific requirement and step-by-step procedures for
hoisting and installing PC panels form the basis of checklists in the hoisting permit-to-work form. The checklist also provided a
common tool for facilitating collaboration between contractors and subcontractors. The site manager explained that “It was easy to
monitor and to implement quality control. Also, the paper work was traceable and could be used for the purpose of inspection”. The checklist
could be refined as the project progresses.
4.2.2. Monitoring
Monitoring concerns the work itself: seeing what the project teams are actually doing. To deal with EQM, project teams should be
conscientious and preoccupied with the possibility of failure. This is consistent with Weick and Sutcliffe’s (2011) principles of
high-reliability organization. Team members should have doubts in their mind regarding the QM. They should be sensitive to oper­
ations, be capable of recognizing a quality problem had occurred, be able to arrange the work on site, and to thoroughly understand the
real situation. Skills in the problem-resolution cycle (Liker, 2006) can help to detect early signs of unanticipated events. It was also
important to incentivize the discovery of quality problems, which was found to be a useful strategy in Ramasesh and Browning’s
(2014) study on reducing unknown unknowns. Detection of a quality problem was the first step in designing improved solutions.
4.2.2.1. Conscientiousness. Since project team had no prior experience of precast sheer wall construction, they were preoccupied with
the possibility of failure and became very mindful. The quality manager noted, “At the start of the project, we had high requirements for
mindfulness. We emphasized focusing on the details. No concessions or compromises were allowed”. There are two reasons for this: First, the
innovation in structural design poses significant impact on structural stability and safety. Second, the project is highly exposed to the
public, due to it being a demonstration project. The project team was therefore motivated to pay great attention to quality.
The chief engineer stated that “Our engineers had to monitor the hoister and lifting inserts embedded in the PC component every morning.
The safety supervisor had to do spot checks”. The site manager emphasized, “We were concerned that crane operators and riggers did not have
the confidence to handle it because the assembly demanded very high levels of accuracy … The largest PC element weighs 4.55 tons, so we had to
be very careful”. They also specified the responsibilities of the crane operators and rigger. The quality manager commented, “We
highlighted the consequence of misbehaviours. Through these processes, we hope to increase the consciousness of the workers”.
However, construction workers’ ‘quality’ attitudes did not change significantly at the start. The contractor’s general assessment of
the construction workers was that they did not have a high level of consciousness or awareness. Many on-site workers had no
experience of precast construction and were not ready for the stringent quality requirements. The workers did not recognize the
severity of the problems. The site manager stated that “We had to instil the right attitude and mindset constantly through effective monitoring
and education. We aimed to instil the mindset that precast quality needs great awareness, unlike traditional construction methods”.
Middle-level managers, on the other hand, had a very mindful attitude. The site manager commented: “For the on-site management
2
Such as the Department of Quality and Safety Supervision and the Department of Construction.
8
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
staff, conscientiousness was an important factor of good quality. The more conscientious the mindset, the easier it was for us to implement
management principles”. For example, the quality inspection was traditionally undertaken by the quality division alone. However, on
this project, according to the site manager, “all the staff would gather together, including the quality engineers from other divisions, to
participate in the quality inspection. The site manager explained that since we had not touched on this before, managers in all divisions had to be
very careful about quality performance”.
4.2.2.2. Real-time on-site monitoring. The contractor used a multiple-checking approach to ensure the effectiveness of QM in different
stages. For example, prior to grouting, it prepared a checklist that required approval from the quality, technical, and site management
divisions. During grouting, they recorded all sign-offs to ensure that all behaviours were traceable. They undertook a final inspection
with participants from the quality, technical and site management divisions. The quality manager commented that “The collective
efforts in site inspection have contributed to the high quality”.
The quality manager provided another example related to panel lifting: “We had three rounds of checks. The first was during lifting: our
engineers ensured that the location of the PC element was accurate. The second check was for the alignment between the aluminium formwork
and PC elements. It was common that vibrations caused movement between the aluminium formwork and the PC elements. The third check was
on the concrete after cast-in. By using multiple checks, the quality of the panel lifting was ensured. All the checks took place on the site”. The
quality manager also emphasized that “The multiple-round checking method was developed during the construction”.
At the beginning of the project, many technical problems could be traced back to the production of the PC elements. The contractor
decided to assign one engineer to the factory, not only to provide detailed construction requirements, but also to monitor the pro­
duction and to give feedback to the contractor on production and quality status.
4.2.2.3. Sensitive to operations. The workers understood their job and were sensitive to each step in their work. Experience helped
them detect quality problems early, as they were the ones doing the work, as noted by the site manager: “Our engineers could learn a lot
from the front-line construction workers”. To motivate the construction workers to be sensitive to operations, the contractor implemented
a very strict monitoring policy. The site manager described this: “When workers noticed that concrete came out of the grouting hole, they
should fix it immediately. They knew that strict penalties would apply if they ignored the problem. But monetary penalties were not the only
motivation; it was most important to change their mindsets, as they have to understand that precast building was totally different from the cast
in-situ”.
Managers and engineers were also sensitive to the QM operations. It was found that the contractor’s technical and quality divisions
stayed on site all day. Key activities, such as the grouting process were video-recorded. The quality manager described how “after
concrete cast-in, all the engineers and managers would come together to the site, checking all the key quality control areas”.
4.2.2.4. Incentives to identifying problems. The project was open to industry visitors. The project team considered that any quality
problem was a reputational risk, and so focused on quality and problem solving. This required workers to identify problems as early as
possible. According to the site manager, the contractors constantly encouraged the construction workers and foremen to report their
observations and suggestions on quality issues. This was based on the premise that many experienced workers have excellent ideas, and
that their contributions provide continuous improvement to QM. In addition, the contractor responded rapidly to reported quality
problems. The quality manager commented that “If construction workers or foremen found issues in construction, they could report it to us,
along with suggestions and countermeasures. We would then quickly follow up and assign an engineer to review the problem and verify the
suggestions. We found that construction workers and foremen were happy to participate. Most importantly, we helped them to increase labour
efficiency and reduce rework”.
4.2.3. Responding
Responding includes analysing the situation and deciding what to do. When situations in EQM are ambiguous or uncertain, it is
important to defer to expertise. Deference to expertise does not necessarily involve the knowledge located on the management level
(Weick and Sutcliffe, 2011). This project showed that construction workers and foremen often had the first-hand experience needed to
deal with EQM. If the condition is beyond the defined span of control of the workers (Liker, 2006), the problem should be elevated and
support requested. Open communication and focus group discussion were found to be beneficial in analysing the situation and pro­
posing a sound solution in a collective manner. These information-rich responding approaches complement QM plans and provided a
basis for diagnosing the problem and selecting the best solution. Alternatively, it was important to perform joint problem-solving on
site, as observation at the actual location of the problem provides the most accurate and vivid description of the real situation of the
quality problem.
4.2.3.1. Deference to expertise. Deference to expertise was an effective way to deal with quality problems. Generally, the person with
the right knowledge is in the best position to resolve the problem. The site manager explained that foremen were invited to attend
quality meeting discussions. This was because they worked on site and had first-hand experience. The chief engineer noted, “We hired
an experienced engineer from the subcontractor in our last project. His experience in precast buildings brought us tremendous benefits”. The site
manager commented, “We had the competence to deal with technical problems. When dealing with very specific technical problems, we would
request assistance and clarification from the technical division and invite them to the site. We worked together to figure out if there were better
alternatives”. The participation of the technical division was helpful in finding better technical solutions.
9
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
4.2.3.2. Open and timely communication. The project team initiated timely discussions to identify quality problems. As the site
manager described, “Our communication is open. We could convey what we saw and what we thought directly to the person in charge”. The
project team used the instant message application, which has a group chat feature. When a quality problem was identified, it was
quickly broadcasted in the chat so that everyone in the group could see. Anyone with expertise or experience could then provide a
timely response and suggestions. This platform provided opportunities to clarify and resolve discrepancies between architectural,
structural, and mechanical requirements. Since there were many voids and embedded conduits in the PC elements, any potential
clashes were shared on the instant message application with photos and a brief description through. The quality manager commended
that “it was quite efficient and convenient”.
Focus group discussion was another practice employed by the project team to deal with quality problems and to brainstorm for well
thought-out solutions. The project team thought it was impossible for one person to solve every problem, so the participants of the
focus group were not restricted to managers and engineers, but also included suppliers, subcontractors, and foremen. The focus group
discussion contributed to creating a climate in which all employees could bring their suggestions to the discussion.
4.2.3.3. Joint problem-solving on site. The contractor preferred problems to be resolved at the actual place where the problem was
located on site. Like the Toyota Way style of problem solving (Liker, 2004), the project team encouraged different parties on site to
thoroughly study the situation and the problem. The quality manager described “once an on-site quality problem that the foremen could
not solve was spotted, we would go to the place and help them out immediately. Meanwhile, we would be working with others in order to find a
better solution”. Joint problem solving on-site provided a better understanding of both situations and problems.
4.2.4. Learning
Learning plays a central role in EQM in innovative building projects. Experimentation in building projects can be carried out at the
early stage, so that the uncertainties and ambiguities can be discovered, thus facilitating QM at later stages. This echoes Lenfle (2016),
who argued that experimentation plays a central role in exploratory projects.
Experimentation can take place on different scales, ranging from a full-scale preconstruction mock-up of a typical floor to a typical
kitchen unit. Taking a typical floor mock-up as an example, experimentation provides an opportunity to document, modify, and adapt
different QM tools and methods, which all go through an iterative process. Once the benefit of applying a particular QM method is
verified, the method can be quickly adopted to the construction of upper floors or other buildings blocks. However, this requires timely
reviews and a good climate for innovative solutions.
Quality knowledge can be acquired from training, prior projects, and industrial networks. One way is to the replicate experience
from previous projects. This allowed for inter-project learning (Aerts et al., 2017; Brady and Davies, 2004; Prencipe and Tell, 2001).
The most effective way is to maintain the previous team in the new project, so that collaborations between the client, designers, and
contractors can continue. In addition, it is important to acquire knowledge from the industrial network, which was found to be an
effective source of useful knowledge.
In building projects, learning was often problem-driven. Team members would request solutions when anticipating or confronting
quality problems. In EQM, learning takes place in the interim review and through sharing successful experience from the early phase of
the project. It features learning by doing. In innovative building projects, foremen and construction workers might be short of skills and
experience, and so effective training is important. Note that, to the “unskilled” worker, training refers to new basic skills (not mul­
tiskilling) for undertaking the work. The learning curve increases as construction workers had more experience of actual doing.
4.2.4.1. Experimentation. The experimentation took place in a full-scale preconstruction mock-up with a trial-out purpose. The mockup unit was a standardized unit of approximately 150 m2, constructed using the construction techniques and materials that were
expected to be used during construction. The designer welcomed such experimentation saying that, “numerous problems could not be
detected on the 2D drawings and 3D models. We have had issues before, where the PC elements transported to the building site could not be
installed because of inaccurate alignment. Experimentation was a great strategy to optimize the design solutions”. After the experimentation
phase, the project team took a 360-angle review of the design, PC production, and construction. In the end, five groups of quality
problems were identified and 29 sets of countermeasures were suggested. The experimentation exposed the problems before the
project commenced and provided an opportunity for fine-tuning the QM plans in a timely manner and facilitating the learning of
construction workers, engineers, and managers. The chief architect concluded that “setting up the experimentation had multiple purposes:
1) exposing quality problems before the real construction; 2) nurturing collaboration between different teams; 3) promoting craftsmanship; 4)
alerting the design, PC production, and construction methods; 5) preparing a reception area for visitors”. All interviewees commented that
they did not deal with any significant problems after the full-scale preconstruction mock-up. The full scale construction mock up is an
ideal methodology of engaging construction parties (i.e., clients, designers and construction teams) at all levels.
4.2.4.2. Learning by doing. Three practices discussed during the interview seem to manifest learning by doing: These were interim
reviews, sharing experience, and training.
4.2.4.2.1. Interim reviews. The project team had three reviews at key milestones: mock-up completion (experimentation), ground
floor completion, and tenth floor completion. Each stage had its own focus. The interim review helped to summarize the key quality
problems that occurred and to find effective solutions in a timely manner. This reduced the negative impact of quality problems on
later stages.
The quality manager commented that, “The completion of the ground floor provided us with many meaningful quality data. We then had
10
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
to determine what caused the defects. We listed all the possible causes, reviewed the statistics, and identified which ones most affected quality
performance. All the factors were thoroughly examined”.
4.2.4.2.2. Training. Training was provided for the general construction workers and tradespersons. The contractor issued certif­
icates to tradespersons who had been qualified to perform jobs, such as the grouting and crane operation. This certificate was valid only
for this project. The grouting training was provided by the supplier. The site manager described, “We required the crane operators to pass
a test. We drew a rectangle on the ground and checked whether the driver could reach a small object within that boundary. Passing this type of
test indicates that the drivers were competent to perform the lifting work”.
4.2.4.2.3. Sharing experience. Experience was effectively shared between the construction workers. They learned the techniques as
soon as they were hired. The site manager shared that “we often brought construction workers from other buildings sites to learn specific
things, for instance, how to grout, how to clear grout holes, and many others. Construction workers thus had a chance to discuss with each
other”. The contractor also initiated intense cross division experience sharing. The technical manager described that “we had a
routinized experience sharing session in which mangers from other divisions shared their experience. Every division had to assign a staff member
to share in a rotating manner”.
4.2.4.3. Knowledge acquisition. The project team could acquire knowledge from: a) prior experience, and b) networks.
4.2.4.3.1. Replications of prior experience. The developer, design firm, and contractor had collaborated on their previous project,
and the same team members were now working in the current project. Coincidently, the contractor also partnered with the same
subcontractors and construction workers, indicating a long-term relationship. The site manager noted that “We trust each other and rely
on each other’s experience”. The chief architect echoed, “Experience was very important. We were the leading design firm in our home city and
had experience of similar project before”. The client director pointed out “regardless of the different technologies used in different projects, the
management experience does share the same grounds”. The quality manager provided an example of replication of experience: “At the
start, the factory did not use base-moulds in producing the precast wall panels. We suggested adding a base mould, as indicated by our experience
on previous projects, and this improved the quality of the cast-ins”.
4.2.4.3.2. Reliance on the network. Compared to the expert consultation, acquiring knowledge from the network happens more
informally, as occurs in two ways: First, seeking support from previous business partners. The chief engineer commented, “We often
consulted previous partners who had relevant PC construction experience. We had very close interactions with them”. Second, seeking
knowledge from the industrial network. The chief designer emphasized that “if we had waterproofing problems, we could arrange visits to
other sites which had good practice in waterproofing treatment”. Besides, conferences, workshops, and seminars were also good venues for
keeping the project team updated with the latest technology and management practices. The project manager shared that “Our use of
experimentation was actually learned from other projects. We also invited experts to run workshops for our managers and engineers”.
4.3. Quality performance
Quality performance could be summarized as falling into three categories: high-quality performance, improved QM efficiency, and
enhanced QM capability (See Table 6).
The quality performance of the precast building was presented in various aspects. For example, quality manager emphasized that
“the deviance of vertical direction was kept within 10 mm for every 30-storey height. This was a key quality control indicator”. The grouting
quality was also highly rated by the governmental department. The chief engineer indicated that outside visitors highly commended
the method of controlling grouting quality. The government department also discussed the possibilities of citing the grouting quality
control method in the new PC standard. In addition, due to the successful use of aluminium formwork, the appearance of the concrete
was highly appreciated.
The quality management efficiency was measured against the reduction of waste and time saving in QM. The innovative QM tools
and methods increased labour efficiency, for instance by reducing rework and creating an operator-friendly environment. For instance,
no additional plastering was required due to the use of aluminium formwork. This significantly saved construction time. The Quality
Manager also commented that “joint problem-solving on site was highly efficient, which could reach a consensus about the solutions in a timely
Table 6
Benefits of practicing resilience framework.
Quality performance
Quality level
Quality management efficiency
Quality management capability
Examples
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Satisfactory installation quality
Satisfactory grouting quality
Controlled deviation in vertical direction
Concrete appearance
Reduced waste
Time saving
Reduced rework
Operator friendly
Company technical capability
Foremen and construction workers’ craftsmanship
Engineers and managers’ quality management capability
11
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
manner.” Also construction workers were highly motivated to report quality risks, which could effectively prevent from the occurrence
of defects and reworks. All these factors together improved the quality management efficiency.
The QM capability of the construction workers and engineers were also improved through this project. Engineers and construction
workers improved their skills and knowledge of PC construction significantly. The technical manager mentioned that “after three floors,
the construction workers became familiar with the craftsmanship. It took some time to reach this level. For example, the aluminium formwork
took fifteen days for the first floor, twelve days for the second floor and eight days for the third floor. It then stabilized at six or seven days per
floor”.
The company’s quality management capabilities manifested as a set of newly developed QM procedures and tools (such as QM
handbooks and manuals), new QM patents, and construction methods. For example, due to the benefits obtained from this project, the
company promotes aluminium formwork in all projects it performs.
5. Discussion
EQM in innovative building projects face great challenges of technical and regulatory uncertainties and technical ambiguities.
Through the case study, resilience was found to be an effective way of dealing with the uncertainties and ambiguities of QM (see
Fig. 3). Differing from PDCA framework, the four dimensions of the resilience framework are effective to deal with the uncertainties
and ambiguities.
Specifically, first, planning is dealing with anticipation of QM problems through fully describing scenarios and scrutinizing plans
and developing checklists. The purpose of planning could prepare the project team for both anticipated and unanticipated scenarios in
technical uncertainties and ambiguities. Thus, uncertainties and possible ambiguities could be fully described and discussed through
the planning process, such as through expert consultation, and scrutinizing the plan. Second, if the unanticipated issues take place on
site, the project team could closely monitor the real situation and respond to any unexpected and ambiguous technical problems. Close
monitoring could help to early detect the emergent technical problems which are not anticipated in planning. On-site joint problemsolving could help project teams to identify the root cause and developed a most accepted solution in a timely manner. Last, as high-rise
building projects often have standardized floors or have several building blocks, the lessons learnt from the early stage of the con­
struction can benefit the later work, such as upper floors and other building blocks. QM tools and methods can thus be continuously
fine-tuned as the project progresses. Thus, one proposition is drawn that:
Proposition 1: The implementation of resilience framework is effective to deal with the uncertainties and ambiguities in EQM.
A resilience framework for EQM has elements of planning, monitoring, responding, and learning. It requires a systematic imple­
mentation, rather than relying on any individual one of them, as these four elements interact with each other. The key to the resilience
framework for EQM in innovative building projects is the systematic and step-by-step implementation of planning, monitoring,
responding, and learning. Planning refers to the anticipation of the future, which is however performed on the basis of prior expe­
rience. As a result, it seems impossible to fully anticipate all the quality problems at the planning stage. If QM were strictly oriented
towards planning, it might yield negative effects, since the scenarios would be too bound to the past (Böhle et al., 2016). For example,
reliance on a checklist might lead to possible ignorance of quality details.
A resilient system must be designed to be both prepared, and unprepared (Pariès, 2017). In another word, resilience implies a
combination of readiness and creativity, and of anticipation and serendipity (Pariès, 2017). Good planning in EQM can prepare the
project team to be better dealt with anticipation of QM problems. In the meanwhile, close monitoring, responding, and learning steps
of the resilient framework serve as lines of defence (Pariès, 2017) which help to deal with things that will never be anticipated in detail
- the unprepared. The adoption of resilience framework requires monitoring the real situation, responding to any quality problems that
are detected, and learning from experience. Monitoring means oversight of real situations. The effectiveness of monitoring depends on
the quality of planning. High-quality planning and full description of scenarios makes monitoring more focused. It is important that the
team members are sensitive to the real QM situation and are highly conscientious. Being sensitive to the QM situation can help detect
early warnings of quality problems that might not be anticipated in planning. The results of monitoring could further increase the
effectiveness of responding.
Responding has features of knowing how to deal with the actual quality problems that are discovered (Hollnagel, 2011). It is
important to detect early warnings of the quality problems and to fix them at the lowest cost. As high levels of ambiguity and un­
certainty exist in EQM, the use of information-rich responding measures was found to be effective—for instance, open communication,
focus-group discussion, and joint problem-solving on site. While responding, some new QM methods may be developed, which can be
Fig. 3. Conceptual framework.
12
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
further updated into the planning.
Lessons learnt from the early stage can be shared and maintained at later stages, thus contributing to planning, monitoring, and
responding. For example, lessons learnt from the usefulness of the checklist might help to alter and refine the checklist. In addition,
learning takes place when replicating prior experience or acquiring knowledge from the networks of team members. More importantly,
project team members can learn while doing the work.
Therefore, another proposition is set up:
Proposition 2: Resilience framework for EQM requires a systematic implementation of planning, monitoring, responding, and
learning.
6. Implications
6.1. Implications for research
This study contributes to the QM in innovative building projects by presenting a resilience framework. It differs from the PDCA
cycle for the quality management. The PDCA methods are part of continuous improvement (Ishikawa, 1985) and help to prioritize
improvement work, identify root causes, and reduce the incidence of defects and deviation (Lundkvist et al., 2014; Meiling et al.,
2014). This feature is in line with cybernetic control and is part of the Quality Exploitation practice (Zhang et al., 2012). On the other
hand, the four strategies incorporated by the resilience framework are effective in dealing with high levels of ambiguities and un­
certainties in EQM, which might not be effectively handled by the traditional PDCA cycle.
The resilience framework enriches the body of knowledge of quality risk management. Traditionally, risk management considers
the system to be operating essentially on known terrain—i.e., that range of events and outcomes of actions can be anticipated.
However, the EQM of innovative building projects is characterized by high level of ambiguities and uncertainties, and the usefulness of
traditional risk management tools might be severely lessened. In addition, this study attempted to extend the resilience framework into
the quality management domain, particularly in the building project context. Previously, resilience framework has been linked to
systems engineering (Jackson and Ferris, 2013) and to occupational health and safety management (Costella et al., 2009).
Although this study has focused on building projects, it has implications for the wider quality management community. Prior
studies have found that project-based learning involves the acquisition of knowledge within projects and the codification and transfer
of this knowledge to an enduring environment (Bakker et al., 2011). This study complements this finding by indicating that, in
innovative building projects, the codification and transfering of knowledge takes place in the temporary context, being salient in the
late stages of the project. The project team codifies the knowledge in the QM checklist and procedures at an early stage (for instance, in
experimentation before construction and on lower floors) and then implements and refines them on the upper floors.
6.2. Implications for practice
The research also has several practical implications. First, since precast concrete has been heavily promoted as a form of innovation
in the Chinese construction industry, the resilience framework provides a new perspective in managing the quality of innovative
building projects. On the policy level, since project teams are often reluctant to create knowledge by themselves, the framework
emphasises the importance of creating more information-sharing opportunities for the stakeholders (e.g., clients, contractors, sup­
pliers, and construction workers) of the innovative building projects. The information channels facilitate knowledge sharing and
enable effective planning, monitoring, learning, and responding to quality problems. On the project management level, the resilience
framework for EQM informs project managers how to cope with the ambiguity and uncertainties in innovative building projects,
following steps of planning, monitoring, responding, and learning. It is suggested that these four strategies be systematically imple­
mented, avoiding a heavy focus on any single strategy.
7. Conclusions
This study aimed to investigate EQM in innovative building projects using a resilience framework. A case study of a typical PC
building project was carried out. The resilience framework contributes to quality risk management by expanding the context into the
innovative building projects. Extant tools that focus on the prevention of quality problems might be less effective for quality problems
in EQM. This is because these quality problems are explorative in nature, and could not be properly planned ex ante. They thus require
more reactive solutions. From the case study, a resilience framework is developed as being made up of planning, monitoring,
responding, and learning. The results showed that the framework was effective for dealing with high levels of uncertainty and am­
biguity in EQM. This could ultimately increase the quality performance and the organizational capability of managing quality.
One limitation of this study is the choice of one case. This is a typical innovative building project. This project was the listed in
several demonstration programmes, also with the tallest height in the structure of PC sheer wall panels in the local province. Although
the in-depth case study provided rich information, multiple cases are suggested for future studies. In addition, this study provides
testable propositions and framework and further quantitative studies could be carried out in order to reinforce the generalizability of
the findings. The second limitation is concerned with the focus on EQM, rather than on both explorative and exploitative QM. QM in
exploratory projects is explorative in the beginning, but may become exploitative later on. It would be interesting to examine both
simultaneously. Thirdly, this study examined a public building project, which might be different from commercial projects or complex
infrastructure projects. Thus, the findings should be generalized to other contexts with care. Finally, this study took the resilience
13
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 62 (2021) 101654
Y. Ning and S. Gao
framework as the theoretical lens, which was also proved to be effective to deal with EQM in innovative building projects. However,
the adoption of resilience framework as the theoretical underpinning does not necessarily rule out alterative theoretical lens. It is thus
recommended that future studies might compare different theoretical lens in terms of managing EQM in innovative building projects.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (71872039; 71602031), and the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities.
References
Aerts, G., Dooms, M., Haezendonck, E., 2017. Knowledge transfers and project-based learning in large scale infrastructure development projects: an exploratory and
comparative ex-post analysis. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (3), 224–240.
Bakker, R., Cambré, B., Korlaar, L., Raab, J., 2011. Managing the project learning paradox: a set-theoretic approach toward project knowledge transfer. Int. J. Proj.
Manag. 29 (5), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.002.
Becker, P., Abrahamsson, M., Tehler, H., 2016. An emergent means to assurgent ends: societal resilience for safety and sustainability. In: Resilience Engineering in
Practice, vol. 2. CRC Press, pp. 29–40.
Böhle, F., Heidling, E., Schoper, Y., 2016. A new orientation to deal with uncertainty in projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 34 (7), 1384–1392.
Brady, T., Davies, A., 2004. Building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning. Organ. Stud. 25 (9), 1601–1621.
Browning, T.R., Ramasesh, R.V., 2015. Reducing unwelcome surprises in project management. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 56 (3), 53.
Bueno, W.P., et al., 2019. Coping with complexity in intensive care units: a systematic literature review of improvement interventions. Saf. Sci. 118, 814–825.
Costella, M.F., Saurin, T.A., de Macedo Guimarães, L.B., 2009. A method for assessing health and safety management systems from the resilience engineering
perspective. Saf. Sci. 47 (8), 1056–1067.
Dean, J.J.W., Bowen, D.E., 1994. Management theory and total quality: improving research and practice through theory development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19 (3),
392–418.
Dubois, A., Gadde, L.E., 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J. Bus. Res. 55 (7), 553–560.
Evans, J., Lindsay, W.M., 2011. Managing for Quality and Performance Excellence, 8th edition. South Western Educational Publishing.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S., 1994. A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. J. Oper. Manag. 11 (4),
339–366.
Gomes, P.J., Silva, G.M., Sarkis, J., 2020. Exploring the relationship between quality ambidexterity and sustainable production. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 224, 107560.
He, Z.L., Wong, P.K., 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ. Sci. 15 (4), 481–494.
Herzallah, A., Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L.J., Munoz Rosas, J.F., 2017. Quality ambidexterity, competitive strategies, and financial performance: an empirical study in
industrial firms. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 37 (10), 1496–1519.
Hollnagel, E., 2011. Prologue: the Scope of Resilience Engineering. Resilience Engineering in Practice: a Guidebook.
Hollnagel, E., 2013. Resilience engineering and the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 42 (2), 221–228.
Ishikawa, D.K., 1985. What Is Total Quality Control?: The Japanese Way (Business Management). Prentice Hall Trade.
Jackson, S., Ferris, T.L., 2013. Resilience principles for engineered systems. Syst. Eng. 16 (2), 152–164.
Kitamura, M., 2016. Resilience engineering for safety of nuclear power plant with accountability. In: Resilience Engineering in Practice, vol. 2. CRC Press, pp. 75–90.
Lenfle, S., 2016. Floating in Space? On the strangeness of exploratory projects. Proj. Manag. J. 47 (2), 47–61.
Liker, J.K., 2004. The 14 principles of the Toyota way: an executive summary of the culture behind TPS. The Toyota Way 14, 35–41.
Liker, J., 2006. The Toyota Way Fieldbook. Esensi.
Lindhout, P., Kingston-Howlett, J., Hansen, F.T., Reniers, G., 2020. Reducing unknown risk: the safety engineers’ new horizon. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 104330
Loch, C.H., Solt, M.E., Bailey, E.M., 2008. Diagnosing unforeseeable uncertainty in a new venture. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 25 (1), 28–46.
Loch, C.H., DeMeyer, A., Pich, M., 2011. Managing the Unknown: a New Approach to Managing High Uncertainty and Risk in Projects. John Wiley & Sons.
Lundkvist, R., Meiling, J.H., Sandberg, M., 2014. A proactive plan-do-check-act approach to defect management based on a Swedish construction project. Constr.
Manag. Econ. 32 (11), 1051–1065.
Mao, C., Xie, F., Hou, L., Wu, P., Wang, J., Wang, X., 2016. Cost analysis for sustainable off-site construction based on a multiple-case study in China. Habitat Int. 57,
215–222.
March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2 (1), 71–87.
Meiling, J.H., Sandberg, M., Johnsson, H., 2014. A study of a plan-do-check-act method used in less industrialized activities: two cases from industrialized
housebuilding. Constr. Manag. Econ. 32 (1-2), 109–125.
Ozorhon, B., 2013. Analysis of construction innovation process at project level. J. Manag. Eng. 29 (4), 455–463.
Pariès, J., 2017. Resilience and the ability to respond. Resilience Engineering in Practice. CRC Press, pp. 43–48.
Patriarca, R., Bergström, J., Di Gravio, G., Costantino, F., 2018. Resilience engineering: current status of the research and future challenges. Saf. Sci. 102, 79–100.
Pęciłło, M., 2016. The concept of resilience in OSH management: a review of approaches. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 22 (2), 291–300.
Prencipe, A., Tell, F., 2001. Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Res. Policy 30 (9), 1373–1394.
Ramasesh, R.V., Browning, T.R., 2014. A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project management. J. Oper. Manag. 32 (4), 190–204.
Rankin, A., Lundberg, J., Woltjer, R., Rollenhagen, C., Hollnagel, E., 2013. Resilience in everyday operations. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 8 (1), 78–97.
Rankin, A., Lundberg, J., Woltjer, R., 2016. A framework for learning from adaptive performance. In: Resilience Engineering in Practice, vol. 2. CRC Press.
Rekonen, S., Björklund, T.A., 2016. Adapting to the changing needs of managing innovative projects. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 19 (1), 111–132.
Snell, S.A., Dean Jr., J.W., 1992. Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a human capital perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 35, 467–504.
Su, H.C., Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., Van de Ven, A.H., 2014. A comparative case study of sustaining quality as a competitive advantage. J. Oper. Manag. 32 (7-8),
429–445.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., 2011. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty, vol. 8. John Wiley & Sons.
Wu, S.J., Zhang, D., 2013. Analyzing the effectiveness of quality management practices in China. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 144 (1), 281–289.
Yin, R.K., 2011. Applications of Case Study Research. Sage.
Yu, D.J., Schoon, M.L., Hawes, J.K., Lee, S., Park, J., Rao, P.S.C., et al., 2020. Toward general principles for resilience engineering. Risk Anal. 40 (8), 1509–1537.
Zhang, D., Wu, S.J., 2014. The focus of quality management practices: a national culture perspective. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 9 (2), 91.
Zhang, D., Linderman, K., Schroeder, R.G., 2012. The moderating role of contextual factors on quality management practices. J. Oper. Manag. 30 (1-2), 12–23.
14