درک پیمانکاران از استفاده از هزینه های سیستم مدیریت کیفیت در پروژه های ساخت و ساز ساختمان مالزی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|5307||2012||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7130 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||11 روز بعد از پرداخت||641,700 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||6 روز بعد از پرداخت||1,283,400 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 30, Issue 7, October 2012, Pages 827–838
While conforming on the findings of prior researches regarding quality cost system in building companies, current research successfully illustrates the contractors' perceptions on the importance of the quality cost system and the barriers that may constrain the implementation of the system for recording and collecting quality cost data. A postal and email surveys were undertaken on Malaysian building companies, focusing on the benefits and difficulties associated with the implementation of quality cost system. Statistical analyses based on Chi-Squared test and Relative Importance Index techniques were used to investigate the significance of the findings and determine the relative importance of the factors. The most important benefit of measuring quality costs is “getting management attention and increase quality awareness” as perceived by the sample of the study. The possible barriers that may affect the management's decision to implement quality cost system are identified and grouped into three categories, which are culture and knowledge; system; and company. The study suggests that the level of the site staff's knowledge should be as important as that of the management to successfully collect and record quality costs data. The findings of this research will raise the level of awareness and sensitize managers and those involved with building industry about the importance of quality cost system and collecting quality costs data.
The main purpose of project management is to address the stakeholder needs and expectations; thus, dissatisfactions of a project's stakeholders lead to extra time and cost (Tam and Le, 2007). In addition, the successful companies must deliver projects on time and within budget, and meet specifications while managing project risk (Raymond and Bergeron, 2008). Achieving the stakeholder's satisfaction and the completion of project within predefined time, cost and quality constraints is not an easy task in building construction (Al-Tmeemy et al., 2011). Likewise, the process of measuring quality costs is often difficult due largely to the complexity of construction processes (Aoieong et al., 2002). Hence, many economic and mathematical models have been developed to track quality costs; for example: Quality Performance Management System (CII, 1990); Quality Performed Tracking System (Davis et al., 1989); Quality Cost Matrix (Abdul-Rahman, 1995); Process Cost Model (Aoieong et al., 2002); and Construction Quality Costs Quantifying System (Low and Yeo, 1998). Unfortunately, these models have been of little use and many companies still do not have a quality cost system in place (Kazaz et al., 2005, Love and Irani, 2003 and Miguel and Pontel, 2004). The importance of quality management is quite noticeable in project management literature (Choi et al., 2009 and Din et al., 2010). Also the need for companies to capture and assess quality costs data has been well-established in previously published literatures (Abdelsalam and Gad, 2009, Dale and Plunkett, 1999, Morse and Roth, 1987 and Tam and Le, 2007). Several researchers (Miguel and Pontel, 2004, Schiffauerova and Thomson, 2006b and Sower and Quarles, 2003) stated that many companies appreciate the necessity of the quality cost system; however, they continue to lack one. As a result, the companies are not able to recognize how much they lose because of poor quality (Schiffauerova and Thomson, 2006b). This implies a gap between existing theory and practical application regarding quality management. In Malaysia, the application of the cost of quality concept in the construction industry is a relatively new field of interest. Hence, the economics' sense of improving quality is not well understood within the players of the building construction industry. It is no surprise therefore that some building contractors may avoid quality improvement processes believing that these processes add only time and cost to the process of construction. In the same time, less satisfactory performance in the construction industry has led to the belief that construction projects cannot be completed within budget and desired quality (Abdul-Rahman et al., 1996). This paper attempts to gain a deeper understanding of quality cost practices in the Malaysian building construction projects. Major issues that this study set out to establish were to study the perceptions of the contractors as to the benefits of collecting quality cost measurements and the barriers to adopt quality cost system. This study is very timely as CIDB of Malaysia has mandated ISO 9001 certification as a requirement for G7 contractors since first January 2009. It is therefore anticipated that registration with ISO 9000 will be increased and will become a norm rather than an exception. This implies that it is imperative for construction companies to adopt continuous improvement and change conventional management practices into a new paradigm to achieve high performance. A literature search was used to generate the usefulness of collecting quality costs and the possible barriers for adopting quality cost system, which were administered to the building construction companies via a postal and e-mail surveys. The findings from this research significantly contributed towards enriching the boundary of existing knowledge to achieve a quality costs culture within building construction. Understanding the significance of quality costs system inspires the managers and contractors to effectively track and report the quality cost data. Indeed, this will alert all those involved with building industry to the extent to which quality costs can reduce the costs of construction. On the other hand, knowing the barriers that halted the adoption of the quality system will assist the contractors to overcome their struggle against these barriers.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The present study is concerned with the assessment of the awareness of the Malaysian building construction industry regarding quality costs and investigating the barriers that may constrain the implementation of the system for recording and collecting quality cost data. However the majority of the respondents acknowledged the importance of collecting quality cost data, the level of quality cost knowledge among the site staff was relatively low. The present study suggests that the level of the site staff's knowledge should be as important as that of the management to successfully collect and record quality cost data. Therefore, there is a high demand on quality cost training to enhance the site staff's knowledge and skill. The necessity of establishing a quality cost system stems from the fact that the implication of COQ cannot be realized without reporting and establishing all the true quality costs. However, the implementation of such a system is not an easy task and it is normally met with barriers. The barriers are not known, so overcoming them is difficult. The current research provided managers and participants a more informed sense to weigh the benefits against the barriers in the process of eliminating to or removing them. To obtain a quantum leap with regard to achieving the resultant gain from the benefits of collecting quality cost data, it is important that the management enhance its awareness, take the right initiatives, and provide its utmost support while eliciting cooperation and instilling enthusiasm among all its departments to successfully implement the quality cost system. The sample of the current study comprised G6 and G7 contractors in Kuala Lumpur; therefore, the transferability may be limited. In addition, we did not consider the use of COQ for cost reduction and quality improvements, but merely provided insight into the perceptions of managers and contractors on the benefits of implementing a quality cost system and the most significant barriers that limit or prevent its implementation. Consequently, further research is needed to show how quality cost data can be used to improve the performance of construction projects. More research is also needed to delve deeper into the causes and consequences of quality failures in terms of time and cost overrun. Such will raise awareness on the significance of quality costs and will equip managers with knowledge and confidence as to where it is best to spend money.