Professional perceptions of right-first-time and quality management in construction projects through open-ended feedback

PurposeThe construction industry has struggled to deliver schemes on time to budget and right-first-time (RFT). There have been many studies into nonconformance and rework through quantitative research over the years to understand why the industry continues to see similar issues of failure. Some scholars have reported rework figures as high as 12.6% of total contract value, highlighting major concerns of the sustainability of construction projects. Separately, however, there have been few studies that explore and detail the views of industry professions who are caught in the middle of quality issues, to understand their perceptions of where the industry is failing. As such, this paper interrogates qualitative data (open-ended questions) on the topic of nonconformance and rework in construction to understand what industry professionals believe are the causes and suggested improvement areas.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative approach is adopted for this research. An industry survey consisting of seven open-ended questions is presented to two professional working groups within a Tier 1 contractor, and outputs are analysed using statistic software (NVivo 12) to identify prominent themes for discussion. Inductive analysis is undertaken to gain further insight into responses to yield recurrent areas for continuous improvement.FindingsQualitative analysis of the survey reveals a persistent prioritisation of cost and programme over quality management in construction project. Furthermore, feedback from construction professionals present a number of improvement areas that must be addressed to improve quality. These include increased training and competency investment, overhauling quality behaviours, providing greater quality leadership direction and reshaping the way clients govern schemes.Research limitations/implicationsThere are limitations to this paper that require noting. Firstly, the survey was conducted within one principal contractor with varying levels of knowledge across multiple sectors. Secondly, the case study was from one major highways scheme; therefore, the generalisability of the findings is limited. It is suggested that a similar exercise is undertaken in other sectors to uncover similar improvement avenues.Practical implicationsThe implications of this study calls for quality to be re-evaluated at project, company, sector and government levels to overhaul how quality is delivered. Furthermore, the paper identifies critical learning outcomes for the construction sector to take forward, including the need to reassess projects to ensure they are appropriately equip with competent personnel under a vetted, progressive training programme, share collaborative behaviours that value quality delivery on an equal standing to safety, programme and cost and tackle the inappropriate resource dilemmas projects finding themselves in through clear tendering and accurate planning. In addition, before making erratic decisions, projects must assess the risk profiling of proceed without approved design details and include the client in the decision-making process. Moreover, the findings call for a greater collaborative environment between the construction team and quality management department, rather than being seen as obstructive (i.e. compliance based policing). All of these must be driven by leadership to overhaul the way quality is managed on schemes. The findings demonstrate the importance and impact from open-ended survey response data studies to enhance quantitative outcomes and help provide strengthened proposals of improvement.Originality/valueThis paper addresses the highly sensitive area of quality failure outcomes and interrogates them via an industry survey within a major UK contractor for feedback. Unique insights are gained into how industry professionals perceive quality in construction. From previous research, this has been largely missing and offers a valuable addition in understanding the “quality status quo” from those delivering schemes.