I recently read about the idea of construction leaders writing the work instructions for processes they utilize – such as their quality programs – instead of a corporate overhead resource. I’m still reflecting on this and not sure if I agree. My guess is most of you will find it extremely contrary to our modern expectation: the corporate quality managers are responsible for writing work instructions for the organization’s quality program.
As I searched for information to either validate this or prove it wrong, I came across the following in “Engineered Quality in Construction” on page 137:
“Improved construction process quality must begin at the job site. Main office programs have proved inadequate for improving either construction processes or the completed product. The establishment of project site TQM programs is mandatory for making the industry-wide improvements that will move the industry forward once again.”
What’s typical for construction quality is a “main office program” that dictates how each project site should set up its project-specific quality plan. These two sources – “The Management of Quality in Construction” and “Engineered Quality in Construction” – make similar claims that the project teams and their management should be wholly responsible for developing their quality system for their job and writing the instructions for how to do it, teaching those on their team accordingly.
Many corporate quality leaders and managers request this of their teams, yet don’t make much progress.
Project teams instead ask for a quality process or a list of steps to follow to create their project-specific quality program. This puts responsibility on corporate quality to create the program and push it out to the teams, endlessly attempting to find the magic process that is flexible enough to work for all projects – regardless of type and region – and bring consistency across the organization when every project is unique. These two forces continuously work each other because project teams don’t have time to create their own plan and “corporate” can’t make a plan that works for everyone.
The problem we encounter is “corporate” will never know as much about the project as the project team does to build a quality plan that not only works for that specific project but is also simple and 100% effective. The interesting question is:
Would project-specific quality plans be simpler and more effective if project teams truly took full responsibility for writing work instructions for their own quality plans and for creating those quality plans?
For training and implementation of quality, there are two approaches:
- First, a quality manager can develop a complicated program – to address all potential needs for a project – then teach the entire company how to utilize it for their project.
- The project teams can take on the full responsibility of creating their plans.
I don’t think there is a right or wrong way – it all depends on the context of your organization. However, when it comes to training and implementation, one method may be much more effective than the other.
Sources
Kubal, Michael T. “Engineered Quality in Construction: Partnering and TQM.” New York City, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Leave a Reply