Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 447 – 453

Creative Construction Conference 2017, CCC 2017, 19-22 June 2017, Primosten, Croatia

An Assessment Of The Critical Success factor For The Reduction

Of Cost Of Poor Quality In Construction Projects In Swaziland.
Nokulunga Mashwamaa, Clinton Aigbavboab &Didi Thwalac*
University of Johannesburg
“Department of Construction Management & Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Engineering &the Built Environment, University of Johannesburg,
South Africa”a,b &c

Abstract

Cost of poor quality (COPQ) in the construction industry is a serious problem that the industry is faced with, due to
failure in preventing wastage and defects during construction work. The cost of poor quality remains hidden and eats
up to 40% revenues of the construction enterprise. Hence, the study investigated the critical success factors that reduce
poor quality in construction projects according to the perceptive of construction professionals in the Swaziland
construction industry. This research adopted quantitative research and 50 useable questionnaires were used as an
instrument tool for the study. Random sampling method was used to select the respondents in various construction
companies. Cost of poor quality impact the construction industry of Swaziland’s and construction companies have to
reserve funds for such occurrences, since poor quality cannot be tolerated and contractor have to rectify at own cost.
Another challenge would be under-pricing the construction project and rectifying construction mistake it becomes a
big problem for the contractor. Findings revealed that are a lot of success factors that can be used, it’s just a matter of
the implementation of the success factors in the project. The role of the managers in construction projects is still under
looked and therefore, this can be a problem if it is not attained to. The study revealed that are a lot of success factors
such as the use of quality management system and the critical success factors can actually help eliminate poor quality
in most construction projects of Swaziland. The implementation of quality management systems at the beginning of
the project and encouraging team work in the project could assist construction projects.
©©2017
2017TheTheAuthors. Published
Authors. by Elsevier
Published Ltd. This
by Elsevier Ltd. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2017.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2017

* Corresponding author. Tel. +27 73167 9464.

E-mail address: nokulungam@uj.ac.za

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2017
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.223
448 Nokulunga Mashwama et al. / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 447 – 453

Keywords: Construction projects; Critical success factors;& Quality.

1. Introduction

According to [19], it is important to identify the cost of poor quality so that one can determine the expenses
associated with producing quality products. Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) in the construction industry is a serious
problem that the industry is faced with; due to failure in preventing defects and wastages during construction work
[19]. The cost of poor quality remains hidden and usually appears within the lantet and patent defect period, the
contractor is obliged to fixed and eats up to 40% revenues of the enterprise including construction companies; which
then can run a company which was once or trying to be successful to failure [14]. The cost of poor quality on
construction projects impacts the economy of any nation with the reinvestment of funds to rework the poor quality
projects [13]. Also, in case of government sponsored projects, the government has to invest in the same project again,
thus leading to a waste of tax payer’s money [6, 7&13]. Success or failure of construction work significantly affects
the construction industry, which contributes significantly to socio-economic development and employment in any
country [11, 13&15].
There are many success factors such as providing effective leadership, team development and deploying skilled
workforce, cash flow, defining quality objectives, just to name a few and if addressed effectively that can reduce the
COPQ from the construction projects [14]. Losses can be reduced by handling the Success Factors effectively. In the
realm of project management, the schedule, cost and quality achievement is also referred to as the iron triangle
[11&12]. Out of these three aspects, it is the achievement of schedule and cost compliances that the project
management is attending to most of the time. This normally causes the achievement of quality to slack down at
construction sites, in order to achieve the schedule and cost objectives.
[11&12] Stated that the project quality is sometimes overlooked at and this can be seen as one of the many causes
of poor quality in construction projects. According to [17] the Cost of poor quality (COPQ) is the cost faced due to
the production of poor quality products and services. The lack of quality in construction projects is caused by poor or
non-sustainable workmanship, unsafe structures, delays, cost overruns and disputes in construction. Value and quality
of construction is of concern to both public and private sector clients [17]. This study is focused on identifying the
critical success factors for the reduction of Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) from construction projects. A survey was
conducted on companies of various categories, both working on private and public sector projects.

2. Construction industry

The construction industry is an important key player in the economy of every country [13,15&19]. Despite a
number of challenges facing the interest-rate sensitive sectors within the building and construction environment.
Although, it is deemed that the industry is improving, the construction industry still faces challenges such as rise of
construction cost to 7% [4]. Therefore, the construction industry needs to grow above 7% to show some improvement,
due to constant cost increases, the industry faces an uphill battles for growth and the cost of poor quality amongst
other factors [6&7]. Swaziland has not escaped the problem of lack of quality focus in the construction industry [15].
The Swaziland construction industry is under pressure due to a combination of factors such as skills shortage, delays
in payment, increased fee completion and variable quality [15].

3. Quality in construction industry

Errors in construction sites occur frequently and can be costly for the contractors and owners of constructed
facilities. In fact, 6-15% of construction cost is found to be wastage due to rework of defective components detected
during maintenance [19]. The nature of these errors is quit diverse 20-40% of all site defects have their roots in errors
arising during the construction phase, 54% of the construction defects can be attributed to human factors like unskilled
workers or insufficient supervision of construction works[15]. Furthermore, 12% of the construction defects are based
on material and system failures [19]. These observations suggest that a thorough inspection of construction sites is
needed and that current site inspection approaches need to be improved in identifying defects on construction sites
effectively. Since the main causes of construction errors, e.g. human involvement in the construction process and
 Nokulunga Mashwama et al. / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 447 – 453 449

changing environmental conditions resulting in discrepancies in material behavior are uncontrollable, it is critical to
improve the inspection and assessment of the quality of construction projects [19&14].

4. Quality

Quality may mean different things to different people [11].To others it may represent customer satisfaction and
others interpret it as compliance with contractual requirements. Quality in terms of construction is even more difficult
to define [11]. Therefore, quality is defined as “conformance with requirements”, construction project quality is the
fulfilment of the owners needs per defined scope of works within a budget and specified schedule to satisfy the
owners/user requirements per defined scope of works [9,11,12 &18). In the case of the construction industry the
requirements are the specifications and contract drawings [5]. These two documents are used by the contractor during
the construction phase to assist with the achievement of quality on a project. Hence, it is important not to confuse
quality with luxury [10].

5. Critical success factors

5.1 Quality measurement criteria in construction

[1] Highlighted the significant of measurement of quality in the construction sector in order to improve quality.
Producing high quality that provide customer with the value they need is the key to longer term business success and
major determinant in beating the competition [3].

5.2 Strategic planning as tool for quality improvement

Strategic planning during the early stages of a project is important in achieving the project objective successfully
[2]. When strategy is strong and tactics are weak, there is a great potential for creating strong, well-intended projects
that never get off the ground [5,6&2]. Cost and schedule overruns, along with general frustration, are often the side
effects from projects which encounter such "errors of inaction." [11].

5.3 Management as a tool for quality improvement for success factor

A project manager is the key person at the site who, within a set of guidelines kept in place by the top management,
allocates resources and makes policy decisions at site level [5]. Project manager’s involvement on site activities can
lift the morale of team members and they start working with full zeal and enthusiasm to achieve the desired quality
level [7&12]. Positive attitude of project managers and project participants according to [2&10] has emerged to be
the most important success attribute for quality compliances at project sites
5.4 Adequate monitoring and feedback as success factor
The successful running of any project is determined by a couple of attributes [7]. Numerous success factors such as
the monitoring and feedback of the project as stated above refers to the project control processes by which at each
stage of the project implementation, key personnel receive feedback on how the project is comparing to initial
projections [7]. [11] States that asking allowance for adequate monitoring and feedback mechanisms gives the project
manager ability to anticipate problem, to oversee and to corrective measures and to ensure that no deficiencies are
overlooked. Committed participants would stick to the quality plan and they would follow the accepted technical
practices to carry out the different project activities [11].

5.5 Owner involvement as success factor

The owners’ involvement in the project is of outmost important in achieving the goals deliverables. The owners play
an important role in achieving the desired quality level [15]. Not only are they responsible for the preparation of a
clear and unambiguous specification, but they must also monitor the actual work at the site. It is well recognized that
having the clients’ inspectors work with the contractor to establish good quality control procedures before the work is
done, is much more effective than walking around after [11,13,15&19). However, it is advantageous to understand
how the different parts of the process fit together. Waste, excessive cost and delays can result from poor coordination
and communication among specialists. It is particularly in the interest of owners to insure that such problems do not
occur. According to [11] if the owners desire a quality job, they should stick to the specification since any relaxation
in quality performance, even for few times, can set a bad precedence. Thus competence of the owner plays a prominent
450 Nokulunga Mashwama et al. / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 447 – 453

role in defining the expected level of quality from the contractor organization hence the factor truly justifies its
importance.

5.6 Team Organization

According to [16] explains that bringing people together does not necessarily ensure they will function effectively
as a team or make appropriate decisions. Teams are composed of people who have a variety of emotional and social
needs which the team can either frustrate or help to meet. Teamwork indifference – failing to take action to promote
good teamwork – is a strategy likely to result in mediocre performance [10]. Quality improvement teams do not appear
on the organization chart. Each floats—it has no personal boss. Instead, the team is supervised impersonally by its
mission statement and by the quality improvement roadmap [16]. The team does have its own internal organizational
structure. This structure invariably includes a team leader (chairperson and so on) and a team secretary [2].

5.7 The need for training as a success factor

According [2,3,11,15&19)], many researchers agreed that appropriate training and enlarging experience is necessary
in transferring the quality project. [3] Added that labour productivity is become significant in construction because of
its impact in the process of completing projects. [7 &15] further supported that the construction quality can be
enhanced by increasing the capability of site labours.

5.8 Continuous improvement on quality

Improving quality reduces the cost of poor quality; every time a mistake is identified, or things are not done right
the first time, it costs time and money to repair and rectify. According to [16] which is A paper Quantifying quality
costs and the COPQ in translation[8,9&16] Cutting costs by budget reductions, percentage points or targets usually
reduces quality and thus increases the cost of poor quality, if no analysis is made of which factors contribute to good
quality and which are hindrances. Cost of Poor Quality in Translation [8,9&16] states that: It is usually more expensive
to correct errors than to get it right the first time, but the latter requires an investment in quality, which, if done
properly, is offset by cost savings because fewer errors occur further down the line. It is a matter of finding the right
balance between investing in quality control and working in a cost-effective way.

6. Methodology

The study focused on the critical success factors for the reduction of cost of poor quality in construction projects.
The study investigated possible techniques, measures and methods to improve the cost of poor quality in construction
projects. The data was collected from secondary data which is (journal, articles, books & electronic databases) and
primary data which is the questionnaire. This research adopted quantitative research and 50 useable questionnaires
were used as an instrument tool for the study. Random sampling method was used to select the respondents in various
construction companies.
Questionnaires were used to collect data for the study and closed questions were asked in order to manage the data.
The likert scale of 1 to 5, where 1 -“Strongly disagree”, 2-“Disagree”, 3-“neutral or unsure”, 4-“Agree” and 5-
“Strongly agree” was used. The likert scale is a popular format of questionnaire that is used in education research.
[15] The likert scale is chosen in this study because it allows the respondents to express how much they are agree or
disagree with certain statements. The Mean Item Score (MIS) is ranked in descending order (from the highest to the
lowest).The statement with the highest ranking is the one that was considered to be dominant. The Mean Item Score
(MIS) was derived from the following formula [15].
MIS = 1n1 + 2n2 +3n3+ 4n4+ 5n5
∑N
Where;
n1 = number of respondents for strongly disagree
n2 = number of respondents for disagree
n3 = number of respondents for neutral
n4 = number of respondents for agree
n5 = number of respondents for strongly agree
N = Total number of respondents
 Nokulunga Mashwama et al. / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 447 – 453 451

7. Findings and discussion

7.1 Quality
This doughnut chart (figure 7.1) represent that 80% of the respondents have an understanding of the quality control
processes and 12% are unsure, where the least of the respondents showed that they do not have knowledge on quality
control processes at 8%.

Unsure
No 12%
8%

Yes
80%

Figure 7.1 Respondent knowledge on quality control processes

7.1 Success factors for the reduction of cost of poor quality

Respondents under the planning stage they ranked Defining quality objectives (standards and specifications)
highest with (MIS=4.39; R=1); Providing effective leadership was ranked second (MIS=4.20,R=2); respondents
ranked team development third with (MIS=4.13,R=3); Clearly defining the project objectives was ranked fourth with
(MIS=4.12, R=4) cash flow planning was ranked second last with(MIS=3.85, R=7) and Defining measurement and
testing procedures was ranked last with (MIS=3.34; R= 8).

Table 7.1: Success factor at planning stage

Success factors that influence the reduction of COPQ MIS RANK
Defining quality objectives (standards and specifications) 4.39 1.00
Providing effective leadership 4.20 2.00
Team development and deploying skilled work force 4.13 3.00
Planning Clearly defining the project objectives (scope, time and cost) 4.12 4.00
stage Identification of processes and skills for activities 4.08 5.00
Identifying technology requirement for processes 4.03 6.00
Cash flow planning 3.85 7.00
Defining measurement and testing procedures 3.34 8.00

Under the organising stage the respondent ranked defining quality control mechanism the highest with
(MIS=4.12,R=1); Team development second with (MIS=4.1,R=2); Providing effective project management process
was ranked third with (MIS=4.02,R=3), Defining the decision making process and empowerment was rank fourth
with (MIS=3.76, R=4); Use of integrated procurement systems was ranked second last with (MIS=3.71,R=6) and
Training, development and quality awareness of HR with (MIS=3.68, R=7)

Table 7.2: Success factor at organizing stage

Success factors that influence the reduction of COPQ MIS RANK
Defining quality control mechanism 4.12 1.00
Team development and deploying skilled work force 4.10 2.00
Organizing Providing effective project management process 4.02 3.00
stage Defining the decision making process and empowerment 3.76 4.00
Induction of appropriate technology 3.88 4.00
Defining organizational structure 3.78 5.00
452 Nokulunga Mashwama et al. / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 447 – 453

Use of intergrated procurement systems 3.71 6.00

Training, development and quality awareness of HR 3.68 7.00

The respondent ranked team work the highest under the executing stage with (MIS=4.32,R=1); Providing effective
leadership was rank second with (MIS=4.20,R=2), Optimum uses of resources was ranked third with (MIS=4.05,
R=3); Fulfilling contractual obligations was ranked fourth with an (MIS=3.93, R=4); Exercising transparency in
procurement process and transactions was ranked second last with (MIS=3.63, R=8); and protecting stakeholder rights
with (MIS=3.51,R=9)
Table 7.3: Executing Stage
Success factors that influence the reduction of COPQ MIS RANK
Team work 4.32 1.00
Providing effective leadership 4.20 2.00
Optimum use of resources 4.05 3.00
Fulfilling contractual obligations 3.93 4.00
Executing Fulfilling health and safety requirements 3.87 5.00
stage Employee involvement 3.71 6.00
Fulfilling environmental protection requirements 3.66 7.00
Exercising transparency in procurement process and
transactions 3.63 8.00
Protecting stakeholder rights 3.51 9.00

Under monitoring stage the respondent ranked fulfilling health and safety requirement the highest with (MIS=4.10,
R=1); measuring performance of activities on critical path was ranked second with (MIS=3.93, R=2); Measurement
of executed works was ranked third with (MIS=3.85, R=3); Measurement of productivity of resources was ranked
second last with an (MIS=3.68, R=6); and Measure variation in planned and actual resource utilization was ranked
last with (MIS=3.61,7).
Table 7.4: Monitoring stage
Success factors that influence the reduction of COPQ MIS RANK
Fulfilling health and safety requirements 4.10 1.00
Measuring performance of activities on critical path 3.93 2.00
Measurement of executed works 3.85 3.00
Monitoring Measurement of wastage and reworks(COPQ) 3.80 4.00
stage Audit of expenditure and procurement process 3.70 5.00
Fulfilling environmental protection requirements 3.68 6.00
Testing of executed works 3.68 6.00
Measurement of productivity of resources 3.68 6.00
Measure Variation in planned and actual resource utilization 3.61 7.00

8. Conclusion and Recommendations

8.1 Conclusion
The findings of this study presented success factors that can be used to reduce COPQ only if addressed
appropriately and effectively. The finding revealed that the construction professionals do not agree with that
measurement s and testing procedure could reduce the COPQ, but rather defining the quality objectives during the
planning stages is what is thought could help reduce the COPQ .Once the project participant know what is expected
of them from the beginning in order to achieve quality then COPQ will be reduced. The finding represents that it is
more like knowing what to do, when to do it and at a certain cost is what could sum up to a meaningful successful
 Nokulunga Mashwama et al. / Procedia Engineering 196 (2017) 447 – 453 453

running of a project, without poor quality having an impact on it.

8.2 Recommendation
The study has revealed research gap which might be fruitfully pursued, such quality to be taught in the higher
learning instituted as a subject so that when the graduate access the industry they can simply apply and share the
information with their colleagues in the industry.

References

[1] Abdel-Razek, R. H. (1998) Quality improvement in Egypt: methodology and implementation. ASCE Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management. 124(5): 354–360.
[2] Andrew, R. A. (1999). The role of human error in construction defects. Structural Survey. 17(2: 231-236.
[3] Ali &Wen. (2011). Building Defects: Possible Solution For Poor Construction Workmanship. Journal of Building
Performance. 2(1):63-69.
[4] BIZCO. (2012). Construction Industry Faces Challenges Assessed on:13 October 2013http://bizco.co.za/construction-
industry-faces-challenges-2/.
[5] CIDB. (2008). Construction Quality in South Africa: A client’s perspective. 4-32.
[6] Dale B.G. (2000). Managing quality, 4th ed, Germany, Blackwell Publishing.
[7] Dale B.G (2003) Managing Quality, 4th ed . United Kingdom, Blackwell Publishing
[8] Dai, J., Paul, M. G., and William, F. M. (2009).Construction craft workers’ perceptions of the factors affecting
their productivity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(3), 217-226.
[9] FIDIC. Quality of Construction; Policy.International Federation of Consulting Engineers, Geneva.
http://www1.fidic.org.
[10] Hassan, A, Baksh, M.S.N Shaharoan, A.M. (2000). Issues in Quality Engineering Research. International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management. 17 (8): 858-875
[11] Jha K.N &Iyer K.C, (2006). Critical Factors Affecting Quality Performance in Construction, Total Quality
Management, 17 (9): 1155–1170
[12] Jha, K. N., and Chockalingam, C. T. (2009). Prediction of quality performance using artificial neural networks.
Journal of Advances in Management Research, 6(1), 70-86.
[13] Love, P.E.D., Wyatt, A.D. and Mohamed, S. (1997b) Understanding Rework in Construction. International
Conference on Construction Process Re-engineering, Gold Coast, July, 269-278.
[14] Mahmood S, Shahrukh, Sajid A, 2012, ,Advancing in Civil, Architectural, and Construction Engineering &
Management, Identification of Critical Success Factors for Reduction of Cost of Poor Quality from the Construction
Projects. 4-6 July 2012, Bangkok, Thailand
[15] Mashwama, N,X; Aigbavboa, C & Thwala, D. (2016).Investigation of construction stakeholder’s perception on
the effects and cost of construction dispute in Swaziland. Procedia Engineering. 164: 196-205
[16] Studies on translation and multilingualism (2012) Quantifying cost and the cost of poor quality in Translation-
Quality efforts and consequences of poor quality in European commissions, Belgium, Luxemburg Publications
[17]Rumane A R, (2011).Quality Management in Construction Projects, United States of America, CRC Press
[18] Summer T.B. (2004). Quality Management in Construction, Britain, Gower Publishing
[19] Waje V.V &PatilV, Cost of poor Quality in Construction, 1Department of Civil Engineering, MIT College, Paud
Road Camp. Pune/ Pune University, India, Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering