Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 7 results ...

Elazouni, A (2009) Heuristic method for multi-project finance-based scheduling. Construction Management and Economics, 27(02), 199–211.

Ng, S T, Fan, R Y C, Wong, J M W, Chan, A P C, Chiang, Y H, Lam, P T I and Kumaraswamy, M (2009) Coping with structural change in construction: experiences gained from advanced economies. Construction Management and Economics, 27(02), 165–80.

Ofori, G and Toor, S-U-R (2009) Research on cross-cultural leadership and management in construction: a review and directions for future research. Construction Management and Economics, 27(02), 119–33.

Robinson, H S and Scott, J (2009) Service delivery and performance monitoring in PFI/PPP projects. Construction Management and Economics, 27(02), 181–97.

Rosenfeld, Y (2009) Cost of quality versus cost of non-quality in construction: the crucial balance. Construction Management and Economics, 27(02), 107–17.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: quality; cost of quality; quality assurance
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0144-6193
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190802651744
  • Abstract:
    The research is a pioneering attempt to determine the optimal level of investment in quality by construction companies. The methodology is based on quantifying the four types of quality-related costs in residential construction, and relates them to each other by expressing them all as percentages of the relevant total construction revenues (revenues to the company due to construction, excluding land, etc.). The findings reaffirm, on the one hand, that investing in quality is a worthy strategy and that, in the situations examined, the ratio of the direct benefits to the investment (in terms of savings on internal and external failures) is at least 2:1. On the other hand, the findings also show that an excess of quality costs (prevention and appraisal) is wasteful. Above a certain level of investment, the extra benefits are marginal, and thus do not offset the extra costs. Statistically fitted graphs, based on actual quantitative data, support this hypothesis, and provide approximate boundaries of effective versus ineffective investments in quality. In this study, the optimal range lies between 2% and 4% of the company's revenue. Investing less than 2% in prevention and appraisal will definitely entail higher failure costs, whereas an investment of over 4% most probably will not pay itself back.

van Mossel, H-J and Straub, A (2009) The need for customizing maintenance services in social housing. Construction Management and Economics, 27(02), 135–51.

Warsame, A (2009) Organizational modes in the residential building sector in Sweden. Construction Management and Economics, 27(02), 153–63.