The impact of defects, from both a claims-made perspective and the rising
cost of general liability and completed operations insurance coverage,
demonstrates that quality can be a critical determinant of project and
organizational success.
This article, the first in a series addressing issues in construction
quality, will examine the concept and explore some definitions. Later
articles will review some essential elements of quality, introduce some
critical procedures related to making quality matter, and explain how to
obtain the results needed to increase the cost effectiveness of
construction.
What Is Quality?
Quality: 1. a: a peculiar and
essential character, b: an inherent feature; 2. a: degree of excellence, b:
superiority in kind;… 4. a: a distinguishing attribute.
Source: Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary
It is interesting to note that even from the perspective of the
dictionary, quality has a variety of definitions, all of which relate to
each other but which differ to some greater or lesser degree. This range of
views also maps to the real world, where projects struggle to balance
expectations and results, and seek to settle on an appropriate balance of
often competing interests with respect to whether a delivered product or
service is sufficient to satisfy the client's quality standards.
The problem for construction is that in any project, the definition of
quality can be a moving target. "Normal and customary" is the term routinely
incorporated into contract language, with regard to the expectations of
craftsmanship in installation. This means that the standard of outcome will
vary in accordance with many factors. As a result, an extraordinary effort
must be made to specifically define all aspects of the standards for
construction in the contract, before the actual construction process begins.
Otherwise, subjective evaluations will prevail after the conclusion of a
project.
Since the terms defining quality are abstract and subject to wide
variation, depending on the point of view of the receiver, it is difficult
to pin down in sufficient detail to make it possible to achieve satisfactory
results. After the delivery of service or a product, which is when the
quality of an installation is actually gauged and measured by the receiver,
this becomes a still larger challenge.
What one party perceives to be "normal and customary" depends on many
factors, making it difficult to achieve success, even before a project
begins. This task becomes impossible once they decide that it was not
achieved. Now, this subjectivity can redact to the benefit of the contractor
delivery system, but only if the contractor is incredibly lucky (and who can
trust luck as a strategy?) or if they are able to go well beyond the
expectations of their client. Since neither of these methods can be
anticipated with any high degree of certainty, to deliver the desired
result, a more intelligent approach is essential. When standards defining
quality are left vague, ill-defined, or unclear, it is impossible to be in
compliance, either as-you-go or upon completion.
The challenge is that, since for most people, quality is one of those
things which is primarily noted in its absence, there has not been extensive
thought applied to this aspect of a project. Once the service is delivered,
or the product is delivered, the client decides whether it satisfies or if
it functions as intended for its stated purpose. Thus, quality must be in
contemporaneous compliance, created as the project is being delivered, since
it cannot be back-fitted onto the facility after it is completed.
Pre-Project Quality Definitions
The objective of this article is to provide some direction for more
comprehensive quality-related considerations in pre-project definitions of
quality standards. To craft a more coherent approach, quality needs to be
defined in a more comprehensive manner. The standards for describing in a
clearly defined and objectively measured manner must be stipulated in the
contract documents, such as drawings, specifications, and other documents.
When this is achieved, all parties involved in the process have a common
basis on which to evaluate, as they go, whether the contractors are
delivering on their commitments to provide quality within the expected
parameters. A failure to accomplish this, or to even check what the existing
standards are before beginning a project, spring loads the project for
failure from the perspective of quality.
The starting point must begin with understanding some basic concepts
which relate to the delivery of quality. First, it needs to be understood
that quality always has an inherent dynamic, responsive aspect to it. This
creates a challenging paradox. While the definition of quality is fixed for
each project, for the construction industry as a whole, and in comparing one
project to another, quality is a very fluid and changing standard of care.
This is due to evolving standard of care which drives a rise in the
expectations of clients.
An easily understood illustration of this dynamic is the migration of
cash machines. When they first appeared, they were to be found only inside
lobbies of bank buildings. Over time, consumers came to realize that the
machines could be in other places and began to demand that someone provide
them, making it more convenient for them to access and obtain cash in a more
convenient manner. Now, cash machines are so ubiquitous that they can be
found nearly every location where the use of cash is a routine occurrence.
Rising expectations, which flow from market dynamics and innovation in both
processes and technologies, continue to expand under the relentless pressure
of consumers and businesses for better, faster, cheaper, and more convenient
ATMs.
Particularly in construction, quality is not judged in a sense of either
one standard of care for a service and another for a product. In
construction, quality is measured against standards for both. While the
final outcome of construction is some facility (a product) intended to
support some client operation, the process of constructing that facility (a
service), which takes place over time, also matters. It is often
misunderstood that how the process of construction occurs and how it is
perceived (e.g., as being responsive, purposeful, and effective—sufficient
for service) can influence not just the customer's judgment of service
quality but also perceptions of product quality.
Three Dimensions of Quality
Regardless of whether we're discussing a product or service, quality must
be seen as having three dimensions in the "space" in which it resides. These
three dimensions help to translate the ephemeral nature of quality into
something tangible.
A Dimension of Time
The first dimension is to understand that there is a critical time
component associated with quality. While measurement of quality comes after
the fact, meaning that the service or product is received, evaluated, and
then judged, the concept of quality a service (about which something can be
done to affect the outcome) always resides in the future. Quality is related
in some way, to the expectations of the client, as to what they will receive
at some future point in time. As a result, quality is the outcome of some
process.
As with all other aspects in life, when a goal in the future is desired,
a structured process is necessary to deal with the dynamic nature of getting
from here to there. This creates a paradox. Quality is tied to the
application of foresight in preparing for a desired future, but is only
judged through hindsight by looking at actual results delivered.
A Dimension of Place
The second dimension of quality is that it is a local phenomenon. By
this, it means that the context in which either the service or product is
delivered has a major impact on how that is measured and judged. What may
constitute high quality in one situation is not likely to be the equivalent
of it as determined in a completely different setting in another location.
Thus, regional influences, local construction markets (for labor, material,
equipment, and other inputs), building codes, market conditions, and a wide
array of other components can influence judgments about quality.
As a result, to satisfy the ability to respond to all of the local
inputs, those in control of the construction process must be attuned to the
environment in which a project is being built, with the ability to evaluate
and respond to those influences.
A Dimension of Specificity
The third dimension of quality is that it is particular. This means that
is it tied to the content of the project or the specific element being
evaluated. Quality standards are, and should be, different from component to
component, and the intended function of the facility will also influence how
things are viewed. Thus, what one would see as high quality in one situation
may be judged as insufficient to satisfy needs or requirements with a
different situation. This aspect shows that the specifics of each component
matter.
Together, these three dimensions tie back to the common contract language
of defining quality standard by the term of "normal and customary." This
demonstrates how the law, while being subjective, does respond to the
requirements of a changing world, without constantly changing terminology.
Thus, for each project, there is a different standard, from every other
project, for how quality will be measured. This measurement comes through
the judgment of the client, who is funding and receiving the project.
Therefore, it is incumbent on both the owner funding a project, and a
contractor building it, to reach an objective definition of client
expectations, in advance, so that subjective evaluations after the fact do
not prevail in judgment.
Disparate Views of What Constitutes Quality
The primary source of dissatisfaction, with respect to quality, occurs
when there is a gap between the understanding of what the client expects to
get, and what the contractor delivering the project believes they have to
do. If the gap between the two understandings is large enough, the result
can be an escalating spiral of acrimony, resulting in claims, disputes, and
eventual litigation. Once this path is entered, no one involved will
benefit, regardless of the conclusion.
The same scenario can occur even when there is no gap in the
understanding, but the gap is between what was to be done and was actually
was done. In this case, the outcome, for all parties involved in the
process, is not just failure with that particular project, but cascading
impacts, which flow far beyond the boundaries of any particular project.
This path is started through either an outright failure to deliver to the
standards defined in advance or through the revelation of some unintentional
construction defect.
Either way, once this "damage event" has occurred, there is no going
back. In both of the situations of failure to achieve quality in the result,
if it terminates in litigation, the outcome becomes an expensive proposition
for everyone involved. Despite protestations to the contrary, only the
attorneys and experts win in litigation. Once the point of litigation has
been reached, it is too late to mitigate the damages, and there is little
likelihood of recovery, as positions harden into adversarial perspectives.
The process will run until one side has reached the limits of its endurance
or money, whichever comes first.
Conclusion
The only reliable method to prevent construction litigation over quality
is to avoid the damage in the first place. Avoidance of damage means
delivery of quality results in line with expectations. For this to occur,
the standards by which both construction services and the completed project
will be judged must be defined in a sufficiently clear, specific, and
achievable manner. The path to this result is to address all the aspects of
quality as described in this article.