Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
26 Useful Tools for an Alternative Quality Management System 5.1 Introduction The guide intends to assist project managers and qual- ity managers in developing a QMS that is well suited for the needs of their specific project and that reflects the advances made by STAs across the country in developing various quality management approaches. In implementing any QMS, tools and procedures are needed to implement the quality manage- ment plan. This chapter presents tools of various types, which are potentially valuable aids in a quality management plan. These include items that could be incorporated into procure- ment documents, a contract, or quality management plans. This chapter provides a brief description of these tools and guidance on selecting tools on the basis of individual project characteristics. Combining the QAOs of Chapter 4 with the tools and pro- cedures presented in this chapter, users of this guidebook will have many of the necessary components to create a QMS tailored for their project. In addition, this chapter provides two examples of complete QMSs developed elsewhere: the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) system and the appli- cation of International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 9000 principles to highway construction. 5.2 Tools for Alternative QMSs The tools for alternative QMSs presented in this chapter were discovered through a literature review and an evaluation of case studies. These tools encourage effective quality man- agement across a variety of QMSs, including both the base- line and alternative systems. This section introduces some of the useful tools identified through both of these discovery processes. The purpose is to provide a matrix of each tool and suggestions of where the tools may be applied. Appendix B provides a more in-depth discussion of each tool. The tool descriptions include examples of how these tools were applied in various case studies and sample language to assist with their future application. This guidebook subdivides the tools into two major catego- ries, pre-award and post-award. Additional tool subcategories aid in tool selection and ultimate application to the various phases and parties that make up a project. 5.2.1 Pre-Award Quality Management Tools Pre-award quality management tools are incorporated into project documents before the award of design or con- struction contracts. These tools help owners better define requirements for the project, inform interested designers or contractors of warranties designed to encourage a quality- focused approach, allow contractors to suggest changes to project documents or concepts before having to bid on them, and provide other quality management opportunities. Pre-award quality management tools set the right tone and expectations for the project in terms of quality. They pave the way for delivering quality designs and construction later on. This guidebook further subdivides pre-award tools into owner-led tools and contractor-led tools. Owner-led tools are those that an STA initiates. These types of tools may include specific procedures to select designers and contractors on the basis of the quality of their work, project warranties to ensure project members guarantee a quality product, or broad project goals regarding quality and its implementation. It may seem counterintuitive to have contractor-led qual- ity management tools that are used before a construction contract has been awarded; however, several of the tools focus primarily on receiving contractor feedback regarding RFP details, project specifications, and/or project designs during the procurement phase. STAs have found that the contractors who compete to build their projects have valuable insights to share with project planners that can lead to a higher quality product. STAs have further found that in the right settings, contractors are willing to share those insights before a contract award has been made. C H A P T E R 5
27 5.2.2 Post-Award Quality Management Tools Post-award tools are those procedures and tools imple- mented after the completion of procurement and through the end of the project. These include quality management tools for both the design and construction processes. The post-award tools represent a majority of the tools for alternative QMSs. The guidebook subdivides the post-award tools into the specific project phase for which they applyâ design or constructionâas well as by the nature of the tools. Design review tools provide ways to further ensure the pro- duction of quality designs. Teaming tools focus primarily on increasing the levels of communication and cooperation on a project during the construction phase. These tools seek to enhance these aspects of a project specifically to increase the quality of the final product. Process control tools represent ways to increase quality or the efficiency of the quality man- agement process as work is actually put into place. These tools assist project managers by providing streamlined access to quality management reports and information, by incentiviz- ing or de-incentivizing contractors specifically with regard to quality, and by offering innovations to some well-established existing processes. Finally, training tools assist the project team in focusing on quality issues specific to the project and in extending a broad-level quality focus from the upper man- agement down to individual subcontractors. 5.2.3 Selection of Tools The tools shown in Table 5 are not necessarily compatible with every project delivery method or QAO. In developing a full QMS, project managers must carefully consider the goals of the project and the reasoning behind their selection of a particular set of tools and procedures for use. For example, if a project has no administrative or legal authority to alter its quality standards or overall design, then inviting contrac- tor input into the design or quality procedures would not be worthwhile and could in fact be counterproductive. Table 5 presents a matrix that agencies can use to identify a set of tools compatible with both the project QAO and the specific project requirements. As previously described, the guidebook subdivides tools in several distinct categories. Using their knowledge of the project, project managers should approach the matrix by first identifying categories of tools they are interested in adding to their QMS. After finding that category in the chart, users of this guide should then identify those tools which are compatible with the QAO selected for their project. Appendix B provides a detailed description of each tool, its purpose, and how it is applied. The tools selected by the project managers can then be added to the set of procedures compatible with the transportation agency building the project. From this final set, project managers can select a combination of quality management tools that best meet the needs and goals of their project. Not every tool is useful for every project, and managers should not expect to incorporate all or even most of the tools listed here on their particular project. 5.3 Examples of Alternative QMSs This section highlights two existing alternative QMSs and their key points to provide example approaches. The USACE QMS is a well-developed system complete with its own QAO and well-defined system of tools, which has been used very successfully. ISO 9000 is an international system used by a diverse set of industries to improve production quality. It emphasizes complete organizational support for quality prin- ciples and has the potential to offer a great deal to the highway construction industry in the United States. 5.3.1 USACE Quality Assurance Policy for Alternative Project Delivery The USACE has been using alternative project delivery methods since the 1980s (Henner 2007). The overarching document is Engineer Regulation 1110-1-12, âQuality Man- agementâ (USACE 2006). It furnishes the following definitions for each component to the overall USACE quality manage- ment program: â¢â âProject Management Plan . . . The Project Management Plan identifies the scope, schedule, and resources needed to accom- plish the work. â¢â âThe Quality Management Plan . . . is the quality component of the Project Management Plan. Its purpose is to document the project-specific quality control and quality assurance pro- cedures appropriate to the size, complexity, and nature of the project. â¢â âThe Quality Control Plan . . . is the quality control component of the Quality Management Plan and defines how quality control will be executed for products and services. â¢â âThe Quality Assurance Plan . . . is the quality assurance compo- nent of the Quality Management Plan and defines how quality assurance will be executed for products and services that are completed by outside resources, including architect-engineer contractors as well as other USACE Districts and Centers. â¢â âThe Contractor Quality Control Plan . . . is a written plan, pro- vided by an architect-engineer contractor that defines how quality control will be executed on products and services that are completed with architect-engineer resources. The USACE model operates on Total Quality Manage- ment (TQM) principles and prescribes a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle (commonly referred to in industry as the Deming Cycle). Understanding the USACE approach entails carefully applying the USACE definitions for key terminology and not confusing them with the FHWA definitions for the same
28 Tools QAOs Compatible D A V O S Pre-Award Tools O w ne r L ed *B.1. Pre-bid meeting with specific focus on quality + + + B.2. Industry review of requests for proposals with a focus on quality + + + B.3. Alternative quality management approaches in procurement + + + + + B.4. Quality-based selection system + + + + + B.5. Use of warranties + + + + + B.6. Requirements managementâverification + + + + + C on tr ac to r L ed B.7. One-on-one procurement meetings with a focus on quality + + + B.8. Contractor involvement in establishing and streamlining quality control standards + + B.9. Alternative Technical Concepts + + + B.10. External contractor panel input + + + Post-Award Tools D es ig n R ev ie w B.11. Independent party design review + + + + B.12. Over-the-shoulder agency review + + + B.13. In-progress design workshops + + B.14. Discipline task force + + + + + C on st ru ct io n â Te am in g B.15. Formal partnering with regulatory agencies + + + + B.16. Formal team-partnering/goal-setting process + + + + + B.17. Co-location of quality management personnel + + + + + B.18. No low-bid requirement for subcontractors + + + + + B.19. Use of dual CEI/OCEI roles + C on st ru ct io n â Pr oc es s C on tr ol B.20. Innovation in witness and hold points + + + B.21. Continuous internal process audit + B.22. Real-time electronic quality management information + + + + + B.23. Financial incentives/disincentives for quality + + + + B.24. Contractor-controlled QC testing + + + + + C on st ru ct io n â Tr ai ni ng B.25. ISO 9000 training sessions + B.26. Project-specific quality management team training + + + + + D = Deterministic QAO, A = Assurance QAO, V = Variable QAO, O = Oversight QAO, S = Acceptance QAO + = Compatible, blank cell = Incompatible *B.1, B.2, etc., refer to numbering of tools in Appendix B. Table 5. Tool selection chart.
29 terms. The USACE model is graphically presented in Figure 19. Each step in this process is defined as follows (USACE 2006): â¢â âPlanâdesign the Project Management Plan to achieve customer requirements and provide for high quality products and services. â¢â âDoâimplement the Quality Management Plan, including the quality control and quality assurance procedures. â¢â âCheckâevaluate the project results. â¢â âActâidentify and implement process changes for continual improvement. The USACE utilizes a systems approach to quality and does not break quality out as a separate category of agency responsibility. The quality management plans are included as an integral part of the project management plan, which also includes other components such as a âProduction Schedule; Risk Management Plan; Value Management Plan; and Change Management Planâ (USACE 2006). 5.3.1.1 USACE DB Quality Management Philosophy The USACE specifically states its expectations in a chapter devoted to applying Engineer Regulation 1110-1-12 to DB project delivery. Important elements considered when shifting from the legacy DBB system include the following: â¢â The DB contractor is responsible for design quality. â¢â The USACE project delivery team has the role primarily of quality assurance. â¢â The USACE project delivery team develops and provides a quality control review of the performance criteria and prescriptive requirements in the RFP. â¢â The DB contractor is charged with a higher standard of care for correcting construction associated with faulty design. â¢â The DB contractorâs construction function will address constructability, coordination, and also ensure that the project cost is within the contract budget/price amount. â¢â The DB contract will include a warranty of design provision(s) to provide for an extended callback, the callback is due to design errors and omission. â¢â The DB contract will address QC for both design and design- related activities that are required during construction. â¢â The DB contractor will ensure that the project is constructed in accordance with the accepted design and the contract. The USACE project delivery team has the role of quality oversight through concurrence with the designer of record and contract quality control activities. 5.3.1.2 USACE CMGC Quality Management Philosophy The USACE quality management approach for projects delivered using alternative methods can be summarized as follows: â¢â USACE sees QA as the agencyâs role in quality management. â¢â USACE uses a systems approach to quality management and has detailed guidance for QA in each phase of the life cycle of a CMGC, early contractor involvement (ECI), or DB project. â¢â USACE uses a standard series of quality management plans to codify, quantify, and assess quality performance on both design and construction quality. 5.3.2 ISO 9000 QA Principles Applied to Alternative Project Delivery The ISO 9000 standard provides a common foundation for instilling a quality culture in organizations with eight quality principles (Miron, Rogers, and Kopac 2008): â¢â Customer focus â¢â Leadership â¢â Involvement of personnel â¢â Process-based approach â¢â Systems approach to management â¢â Continual improvement â¢â Factual approach to decision-making â¢â Mutually beneficial relationships with suppliers ISO provides a wealth of information on quality manage- ment in design and manufacturing that has direct application to highway projects. For example, an article written in 1998 describes how an ISO 9002âcertified Canadian contractor applies the fundamental principles of ISO 9000 to âproduce, monitor and control its own concrete mixes, not only to ensure mix quality, but to more efficiently feed its continuous concrete paving operationsâ (Dufferin 1998). The primary application of â¢Check for problems â¢Revise procedures â¢Work the plan - Build in quality â¢Plan for quality 1. PLAN 2. DO 3. CHECK 4. ACT Figure 19. USACE QA model for alternative project delivery (adapted from USACE 2006).
30 ISO 9000 was on the contractorâs mobile concrete batch plant. This fits neatly into the manufacturing standards available from ISO. Since highway construction is equipment inten- sive and becoming more highly automated, the opportunity clearly exists to apply manufacturing standards to appropri- ate construction systems, such as GPS-driven construction machine guidance or in-place recycled asphalt paving trains, as shown by the ISO-certified Canadian batch plant. The FHWA used ISO 9000 principles to guide an initiative titled âAdvanced Quality System (AQS)â (Miron, Rogers, and Kopac 2008). AQS is defined as follows: An AQS is an integrated quality management system to fulfill the customerâs expectations of pavement performance by making optimum use of the available tools and resources to continuously improve the system processes and the quality of the product delivered while fostering cooperative working relationships among all parties. An âintegrated quality management systemâ is one where the designer and the constructor work together during the design and construction phases, which includes both CMGC and DB project delivery methods. In its AQS initiative, tools developed by the FHWA such as pavement design, quality, and warranty products were considered effective measures of an integrated quality management system. Therefore, the appli- cation of this ISO 9000âbased initiative to alternative project delivery requires little or no alteration to be able to implement. 5.3.2.1 ISO 9000 Applied to Design Quality Management in CMGC and DB Design quality management is the place where ISO 9000 principles may be most applicable. The principles of âinvolve- ment of personnelâ and âfactual approach to decision-makingâ personify integrated delivery methods. The Oregon DOT lists the major services that can be performed by the construction contractor during the design phase of CMGC projects as fol- lows (Lee 2008): â¢â Cost estimates â¢â Schedule analysis â¢â Work sequence â¢â Risk identification/mitigation/pricing â¢â Constructability reviews â¢â Develop work packages for bid â¢â Develop a GMP that meets owner requirements and budget restraints ISO 9000 argues that a critical factor in achieving high- quality design is free and open communication among all parties during the design phase (Miron, Rogers, and Kopac 2008; Beard, Loulakis, and Wundram 2001). The FHWA AQS initiative recognizes this and prescribes that the design and associated drawings and specifications define what the trans- portation agency wants and that they all need to be consistent (Miron, Rogers, and Kopac 2008). 5.3.2.2 ISO 9000 Applied to Construction Quality Management in DBB, CMGC, and DB Construction quality management in a CMGC project will not differ greatly from that found in a DBB project. The owner still occupies the same contractual position with respect to the designer and builder. Therefore, the ISO 9000 systems in use in DBB projects can be directly applied to CMGC projects with little alteration. The key difference is the change in motivation of the constructor with regard to quality. In DBB, the construc- tor has no input to the design and must build what is shown in the construction documents. In CMGC, the contractor assists in developing the final design and as a result assumes a sig- nificant degree of ownership in the design product. NCHRP Synthesis 402 (Gransberg and Shane 2010) describes the idea of having âbuy-inâ to the design making the CMGC less prone to submit a claim for additional compensation for design prob- lems in features of work for which the Construction Manager at Risk had been paid to review and furnish input. In DB, STAs have the opportunity to allow design builders to use construction means and methods to differentiate them- selves from their competitors and to provide efficiencies that may not have been contemplated by the agency. This creates an opportunity to use ISO 9000 certification of construction companies as a mechanism to mitigate the risk that the con- struction means and methods used by the design builder may not achieve the same quality as those prescribed in DBB con- tracts (Battikha and Russell 1998). 5.4 Summary Guidance for Assembling a QMS This guidebook provides suggestions for designing a QMS that meets the userâs needs. The framework of a full QMS is introduced in Chapter 1. QAOs and their selection are dis- cussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Alternative tools to use and their selection are introduced in this chapter. This section suggests a process, as shown in Figure 20, to combine the QAO/tool combinations selected into a broader QMS applicable to every aspect of a project. Development of a QMS begins with an understanding of the project conditions, especially a consideration of the proj- ect delivery system and whether the design and construction organizations vary from the âbaselineâ systems noted in this guidebook. The next step is to determine potential QAOs, using the techniques described in Chapter 4 and the appendi- ces. Once the options for QAOs are clear, then it is appropriate
31 tools described in this chapter to assemble a complete QMS that will become the guiding quality principle for the project. Clear documentation of the holistic QMS will provide the basis for contractor and consultant proposal and contract docu- ments, aligning team efforts toward the same quality goal and establishing each partyâs role in the process. As the project participants are brought on board, it is impor- tant to disseminate the principles and procedures outlined in the project QMS. It is also important to recognize that some QMSs differ from the traditional QMS, and, without spe- cific communication, any new party to the project could just âdefaultâ to the traditional system, causing mis understandings and conflicts. 5.5 Chapter 5 References Battikha, M. G., and A. D. Russell, âConstruction Quality ManagementâPresent and Future,â Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25(3), 1998, pp. 401â411. Beard, J. L., M. C. Loulakis, and E. C. Wundram, Design Build Planning Through Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001. Dufferin, O., âCanadian Contractor Builds on ISO 9002 Status,â Public Roads, Vol. 36, No. 7, July 1998, pp. 1â14. Gransberg, D. D., and J. S. Shane, NCHRP Synthesis 402: Construction Manager-at-Risk Project Delivery for Highway Programs, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, 128 pp. Henner, J., âLegal and Contractual Issues in Military Design- Build Projects,â Proceedings, 2007 North Carolina State University Military Design-Build Forum, Raleigh, North Carolina, 2007, p. 15. Lee, J., âCM/GC at Oregon DOT,â Presentation, WASHTO Conference, Portland, Oregon, 2008, 14 pp. Miron, A., R. B. Rogers, and P. A. Kopac, âApplying Advanced Quality Systems in the Highway Industry,â Public Roads, Vol. 72, No. 2, September/October 2008, pp. 1â14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Engineer Regula- tion 1110-1-12, âQuality Management,â Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 2006, 31 pp. Consider the project delivery methods proposed for the project Evaluate potential QAOs for the QMS (Chapter 4) Develop a business case for each QAO (Chapter 2) Obtain agency buy-in for chosen QAO Select appropriate tools for chosen QAO (Chapter 5) Document QAO and chosen tools into written project QMS Disseminate QMS requirements across project team Figure 20. Process for assembling a QMS. to establish the âbusiness caseâ for each QAO, carefully con- sidering the pros and cons for each one, especially in relation to administrative and regulatory requirements and industry custom. Once the business cases are established, any QAO that varies from the baseline QAO for the organization should be presented to appropriate decision-makers in the agency. Selection of the QAO for the project should be a collaborative effort of project personnel and administrative decision- makers. Consideration should be given to soliciting industry input as well. The chosen QAO can then be matched with the