Field quality metrics – findings and recommendations

Field quality metrics – findings and recommendations PurposeBased on a 2015 research survey by the author, the purpose of this paper is to evaluate a group of tablet- and smartphone-based software in order to recommend which one (or two) best matches the requirements for building construction field quality management. The secondary purpose of this paper is to identify which usage criteria best represent the needs of designers and builders. A tertiary but equally important purpose is to identify best means for knowledge transfer to up to 100 project teams per year.Design/methodology/approachUsing a previously developed in-house questionnaire comprising 34 evaluation criteria, the author identified and evaluated eight currently available field quality management software being used by project teams in several different branches of the author’s building construction company. Evaluation involved face-to-face meetings with each of the 11 project teams using a standard questionnaire. Software vendors were also interviewed. Each comment made during interviews was captured and the results were communicated back to the team members for review – there were several comments and clarifications received in this manner. Questionnaires were evaluated, findings and recommendations drafted and circulated to senior management for review.FindingsOut of the original 34 evaluation criteria, there emerged 12 field-derived evaluation criteria; an additional five arose from the site office, for a total of 17 out of the original 34. While site office-based personnel were comfortable with tablet-based software solutions, field staff such as superintendents favored smartphone-based solutions. Where field staff were required to use tablets for field quality management, they insisted on being accompanied by junior project management staff to act as scribes – all agreed this was inefficient.Research limitations/implicationsThe eight software products selected for evaluation were limited to those already in use in the company; in one case a product was evaluated due to strong recommendations from staff based on hearsay. There are many more field quality management software and the field is changing rapidly, however the author believes the findings are of value in analyzing any current or future offering.Practical implicationsThe ideal building construction field staff member should be equipped with a tablet used periodically during the workday to access the most up-to-date project documents. But the same individual should use a smartphone for the large majority of quality management observations, such as identifying and tracking to resolution deficiencies and non-conformances. Details of this mix and usage have not been previously identified.Originality/valueIn addition to evaluating a variety of field quality management software and identifying selection criteria, the paper identifies a practical implementation protocol that will maximize the likelihood of successful implementation. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Business Process Management Journal Emerald Publishing

Field quality metrics – findings and recommendations

Business Process Management Journal, Volume 23 (4): 11 – Jul 3, 2017

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/field-quality-metrics-findings-and-recommendations-IqlXk7W5dF
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1463-7154
D.O.I.
10.1108/BPMJ-01-2017-0010
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

PurposeBased on a 2015 research survey by the author, the purpose of this paper is to evaluate a group of tablet- and smartphone-based software in order to recommend which one (or two) best matches the requirements for building construction field quality management. The secondary purpose of this paper is to identify which usage criteria best represent the needs of designers and builders. A tertiary but equally important purpose is to identify best means for knowledge transfer to up to 100 project teams per year.Design/methodology/approachUsing a previously developed in-house questionnaire comprising 34 evaluation criteria, the author identified and evaluated eight currently available field quality management software being used by project teams in several different branches of the author’s building construction company. Evaluation involved face-to-face meetings with each of the 11 project teams using a standard questionnaire. Software vendors were also interviewed. Each comment made during interviews was captured and the results were communicated back to the team members for review – there were several comments and clarifications received in this manner. Questionnaires were evaluated, findings and recommendations drafted and circulated to senior management for review.FindingsOut of the original 34 evaluation criteria, there emerged 12 field-derived evaluation criteria; an additional five arose from the site office, for a total of 17 out of the original 34. While site office-based personnel were comfortable with tablet-based software solutions, field staff such as superintendents favored smartphone-based solutions. Where field staff were required to use tablets for field quality management, they insisted on being accompanied by junior project management staff to act as scribes – all agreed this was inefficient.Research limitations/implicationsThe eight software products selected for evaluation were limited to those already in use in the company; in one case a product was evaluated due to strong recommendations from staff based on hearsay. There are many more field quality management software and the field is changing rapidly, however the author believes the findings are of value in analyzing any current or future offering.Practical implicationsThe ideal building construction field staff member should be equipped with a tablet used periodically during the workday to access the most up-to-date project documents. But the same individual should use a smartphone for the large majority of quality management observations, such as identifying and tracking to resolution deficiencies and non-conformances. Details of this mix and usage have not been previously identified.Originality/valueIn addition to evaluating a variety of field quality management software and identifying selection criteria, the paper identifies a practical implementation protocol that will maximize the likelihood of successful implementation.

Journal

Business Process Management JournalEmerald Publishing

Published: Jul 3, 2017

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off