Ajceb vol2 no2bowen


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ajceb vol2 no2bowen

  1. 1. P.A. BOWEN, K.A. HALL, P.J. EDWARDS, R.G. PEARL, AND K.S. CATTELL48 THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING VOL.2 NO.2PERCEPTIONS OF TIME, COST AND QUALITY MANAGEMENTON BUILDING PROJECTSProfessor P.A. Bowen and Associate Professor K.S. Cattel,University of Cape TownK.A. Hall, The University of New South WalesAssociate Professor P.J. Edwards, Royal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyProfessor R.G. Pearl, University of NatalINTRODUCTIONThe clients of the construction industry areprimarily concerned with quality, time andcost and yet the majority of constructionprojects are procured on the basis of onlytwo of these parameters, namely time andcost (Bennett and Grice, 1990). This is un-derstandable since the majority of projectmanagement control systems highlight timeand cost, and overlook the relative impor-tance of quality (Hughes and Williams,1991). It is argued by Herbsman and Ellis(1991) that the major failings in traditionalapproaches to project delivery have been inextensive delays in the planned schedules,cost overruns, serious problems in quality,and an increase in the number of claims andlitigation associated with constructionprojects.In order to plan and manage a successfulproject, the three parameters of time, costand quality should be considered. Hughesand Williams (1991), in arguing for the con-sideration of these three factors in attainingthe client’s objectives, propose that thesefactors are the three points of a triangle andthat neglecting one factor will have a corre-sponding detrimental effect upon the othertwo. In support of this, Lansley (1993) ar-gued strongly for the importance of studyingthe behavioural aspects of management inattempting to address the problems facingthe construction industry, i.e., that it is theissue of the ‘human factor’ involved in con-struction projects that needs to be ad-dressed. Rwelamila and Hall (1995) furtherargue that little evidence exists of success-ful projects where these three factors havebeen balanced and there is a need to em-brace time, cost and quality management asa human activity system.The purpose of this paper is to explore howtime, cost and quality management onbuilding projects is perceived by those in-volved in project teams. Conclusions aredrawn and recommendations are made withrespect to the perception of time, cost andquality management associated with build-ing projects.TIME, COST AND QUALITY (TCQ)MANAGEMENT IN THE ATTAINMENTOF CLIENT OBJECTIVESThe concept of managing construction pro-jects is deeply embedded in the traditionalbuilding procurement system. Ireland (1983)argues that time, cost and quality are theprincipal feasible objectives of the client inany construction project. Although it isclaimed that time, cost and quality are in-corporated in the management of construc-tion projects, research has shown that infact a time-cost bias exists.TimeTimely completion of a construction projectis frequently seen as a major criterion ofproject success by clients, contractors andconsultants alike. Newcombe et al. (1990)note that there has been universal criticismof the failure of the construction industry todeliver projects in a timely way. NEDO (1983)states that a disciplined management effortis needed to complete a construction projecton time, and that this concerted manage-ment effort will help to control both costsand quality. This is tantamount to sayingthat the client’s objectives can be achievedthrough a management effort that recog-nises the interdependence of time, cost andquality.CostClients have been increasingly concernedwith the overall profitability of projects andthe accountability of projects generally. Costoverruns, in association with project delays,
  2. 2. PERCEPTIONS OF TIME, COST AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT ON BUILDING PROJECTSTHE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING VOL.2 NO.2 49are frequently identified as one of the prin-cipal factors leading to the high cost of con-struction (Charles and Andrew, 1990).Research to date has tended to focus on thetechnical aspects of managing costs onconstruction projects in the attainment ofclient objectives. There is little evidence inthe published literature of a concern for theorganisational, social and political problemsthat are inherent in the management ofconstruction costs and the ability of the pro-ject team to meet the client’s needs interms of cost.QualityTo the client, quality may be defined as oneof the components that contributes to “valuefor money” (Flanagan and Tate, 1997). Vin-cent and Joel (1995) define total qualitymanagement as:“…the integration of all functions and proc-esses within an organisation in order toachieve continuous improvement of the qual-ity of goods and services. The goal is cus-tomer satisfaction.”Furthermore, in order to achieve successfulproject quality management three separatedrivers to quality management must bemanaged, namely:Integration of the project team so as tohave a single objective and a common cul-tureA customer focus for the team therebyfacilitating the provision of products andservices that will meet the clients needsA process of continuous improvement inthe management of the construction project.When these three components are success-fully integrated, the project will begin to re-alise significant, measurable and observableimprovements in the attainment of the cli-ents’ objectives.We argue that an efficient way to addressthese shortfalls is to recognise the ‘human’factor within the management of time, costand quality. An analysis of the perceptionsheld by clients, contractors and buildingprofessionals, concerning client objectivesrelating to time, cost and quality manage-ment will allow this proposition to be ex-plored. This is done through an opinionsurvey.THE SURVEYThe focus of the studyThe effective management of project time,cost and quality (TCQ) is intrinsically impor-tant to the attainment of client objectives. Inorder to examine this causal link, the opin-ions of clients, architects, quantity survey-ors, project managers, consulting engineersand general contractors in South Africawere obtained by means a national ques-tionnaire survey. The questions sought toestablish their perceptions concerning clientobjectives and the project time, cost andquality associated with building procure-ment systems in South Africa.MethodologyA stratified mail questionnaire opinion sur-vey was conducted in South Africa. Surveyparticipants comprised clients, architects,quantity surveyors, consulting structuralengineers, project managers, and generalcontractors. Questionnaires were sent topractices and organisations rather than toindividuals, using the membership directo-ries of the South African Property OwnersAssociation, the South African Institute ofArchitects, the Association of South AfricanQuantity Surveyors, the Institute of Consult-ing Engineers, the Institute of Project Man-agers, and the Master BuildersAssociations. In total 180 questionnaireswere distributed, comprising 30 from eachsub-group. One hundred and forty-threereplies were received (79.4%), comprising 10clients (33%), 24 architects (80%), 30 quan-tity surveyors (100%), 30 engineers (100%),25 project managers (83%) and 24 generalcontractors (80%). The questions for each ofthe six groups of participants were designedto facilitate an inter-group comparison. Inthe discussion of the results, percentagesgiven in tables refer to the proportion of re-spondents offering that perception. The in-tention of the survey was to reveal areas ofconcern for the industry within the processof project time, cost and quality manage-ment rather than to provide hard evidence ofinter-group differences between membersof the design team.Clients, as a group, are likely to be less ho-mogeneous than the other groups of par-ticipants. The majority of client respondentsto the survey described themselves as beingexperienced in property development, with80% claiming to have continuous or frequentinvolvement in property development (50%
  3. 3. P.A. BOWEN, K.A. HALL, P.J. EDWARDS, R.G. PEARL, AND K.S. CATTELL50 THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING VOL.2 NO.2claimed a continuous involvement). Mostclients (90%) reported being primarily in-volved in the commercial and industrial sec-tors of property development, with themajority (67%) being involved in the com-mercial sector. Average annual turnovervaried considerably, but 89% of respondentsclaimed an annual turnover in excess of ZAR10m (1 AU$ = ZAR 5.50). The majority of cli-ent respondents thus constitute organisa-tions wielding considerable financialinfluence in the property development mar-ket in South Africa, and have a frequent, ifnot continuous, involvement in property de-velopment. In this context, the client groupexhibited reasonable homogeneity, but itshould be noted that the views of small,one-off clients are almost certainly under-represented in this survey, as the data col-lection method would have limited theirability to participate.Survey resultsFor the purposes of this study, various pro-curement systems have been grouped to-gether into three generic types, namely:conventional (traditional, negotiated, cost-plus); design and build (design and build,package deal, turnkey, develop and con-struct); and management-orientated (man-agement contracting, constructionmanagement, design and manage) (Mas-terman, 1992). The conventional method ofbuilding procurement is reported by nearly70% of respondent clients in South Africa tobe the most widely utilised procurementsystem. The management-orientated (21%)and design and build (9%) systems enjoy con-siderably less usage.The results are discussed question by ques-tion and compare the participating groupsopinions about each issue.Question 1: Please indicate whether clientsare realistic with respect to expectations oftime, cost and quality at the outset of theproject. (Answer choice = all/most/some/none of the time)The responses show that clients’ and con-sultants’ opinions are far from uniform. Cli-ents are relatively sanguine about their TCQexpectations, with a large majority believingeach of these to be realistic. The most pes-simistic view of the reality of clients’ TCQexpectations is held by architects, with onlyclients’ quality expectations receiving a ma-jority affirmative response. This is probablyattributable to the control over quality whicharchitects perceive themselves to hold asprincipal agents for the client under conven-tional traditional procurement systems, ascompared to the management of time andcost, for which they would assign responsi-bility to contractors and quantity surveyors,respectively. A similar response pattern isdetectable with engineers and, given theirprincipal role in engineering projects, asimilar explanation may hold for their views.Apart from the client group, quantity sur-veyors hold the next most optimistic view, aclear majority believing that clients haverealistic expectations about time, cost andquality from the outset of a project. Thequantity surveyors’ views are closelymatched by those of project managers.The views of engineers are probably influ-enced by the nature of engineering projects,where quality is usually highly specified atthe outset, but time and cost are far moreuncertain (e.g., the use of schedule of ratesand cost-plus forms of contract for engi-neering projects). Given that engineeringprojects often comprise far fewer compo-nents than building projects, and that manyengineering projects are commissioned bypublic sector agencies with substantial ex-perience, this may explain why engineersare more optimistic about realistic clientexpectations of quality.Contractors are surprisingly optimisticabout the reality of client expectations forproject time and quality. An explanation forthis view of project time is not readily forth-coming, given that, for most conventionalprocurement systems, the contract period isnot part of the contractor’s bid but is stipu-lated in advance by the client. Similarly, thedefects liability period stipulated in mostconventional procurement systems suggestthat clients’ expectations of quality are con-siderably less than realistic. Contractors’pessimistic view of the reality of client costexpectations is probably explained by their(the contractors) having to seek work in ahighly competitive market.Responses for the project time objectiveexhibit the greatest variability. Given clients’practical inability to model time perform-ance reliability, their highly optimistic viewof the reality of their own expectations forthis factor, at the outset of a project, de-serves more thorough research attention.
  4. 4. PERCEPTIONS OF TIME, COST AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT ON BUILDING PROJECTS51 THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING VOL.2 NO.2Table 1: Perceived extent to which clients are realistic, all or most of the time, with respect totheir expectations of project time, cost and quality at the outset of the project% of respondent groupsAll Clients ArchitectsQuantitysurveyors EngineersProjectmanagers ContractorsProjectparameter(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Time 57 90 33 67 47 60 63Cost 57 70 44 83 41 72 46Quality 74 80 65 83 59 84 79Question 2: Please rank the following fac-tors in terms of their importance to build-ing clients. (Answer choice: 1 = mostimportant; 3 = least important)All respondents to this question ranked pro-ject cost as the most important project pa-rameter to building clients. The interestingfinding from the responses to this questionis that, contrary to the views of other projectteam participants, clients rate project qual-ity as more important than project time per-formance. The converse was true for theother respondents. This suggests that cli-ents may well be prepared to sacrifice con-struction time for improved quality.Question 3: To what extent is an attemptmade by the procurement team to matchclient needs with the characteristics of dif-ferent procurement systems? (Answerchoice:(always/sometimes/never)Clearly, clients have a false illusion aboutthe extent to which consultants andcontractors will match procurementsystems to clients’ needs. Table 2 belowindicates that while the majority of clients(67%) believe that the procurement teamdoes match their needs to the appropriateprocurement system, the perception is notsupported by the procurement teamthemselves. The majority of the buildingprofessionals surveyed clearly believed thatthey did not usually attempt to match theirclients’ needs to an appropriate procurementsystem. It is possible that they did not seeany need to do so, given the overwhelmingprevalence of the traditional systems. Thedanger here is not only that consultants arenot properly advising their clients in thisregard (and thus clients may not be gettingthe procurement system which bestmatches their needs), but also (and moreimportantly) that clients are erroneouslybelieving that they are actually receivingsuch advice from the procurement team.Question 4: What proportion of buildingprojects are completed within the client’sagreed budget for the project? (Answerchoice = all/most/some/none of the projects)The response data is shown in Table 3. Cli-ents clearly appreciate the greater cost cer-tainty attributable to design and buildprocurement systems. Architects, however,see less potential in management-orientedsystems or antipathy towards procurementsystems which appear to diminish archi-tects’ traditional leadership roles in projects.Quantity surveyors appear optimistic aboutthe capacity of all three procurement sys-tems to maintain project cost budgets. En-gineers, on the other hand, are relativelypessimistic about this for design and buildand management-oriented procurementsystems.Project managers show increasing confi-dence the capacity of alternative procure-ment systems to maintain project costbudgets, as their own level of involvementincreases.Contractors are highly confident of theirown ability to meet client cost limits for pro-jects under design and build and manage-ment-oriented procurement, but are lessoptimistic about these limits being main-tained on conventional traditionally-procured projects.Question 5: To what extent do clients makechanges to the original brief (in respect totime, cost and quality) after the start of theproject? (Answer choice = always/some-times/never)Eighty percent of client respondents be-lieved that they never make changes to theoriginal brief after the start of the project.This apparent high regard for their ability tostick to the original brief is clearly notshared by their consultants, who believethat changes do occur at least sometimes
  5. 5. P.A. BOWEN, K.A. HALL, P.J. EDWARDS, R.G. PEARL, AND K.S. CATTELL52 THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING VOL.2 NO.2Table 2: Perceptions of the extent to which the procurement team always and sometimesattempt to match client needs with the characteristics of different procurementsystems during the election of a procurement system% of respondents groupsAll Clients ArchitectsQuantitysurveyors EngineersProjectmanagers Contractors(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Extent ofthe match 43 67 48 43 37 44 25Table 3: Perceptions of whether all or most building projects are completed within the client’sagreed budget (building cost) for the project% of respondent groupsAll Clients ArchitectsQuantitysurveyors EngineersProjectmanagers ContractorsProcurementmethod(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Conventional 78 78 75 83 83 75 69Design and build 77 83 71 76 58 89 94Management-orientated 75 67 54 77 59 95 89Table 4: Perceived extent to which inadequate briefing of the procurement team by the clientis always responsible for client dissatisfaction with the resultant building in terms oftime, cost and quality% of respondent groupsAll Clients ArchitectsQuantitysurveyors EngineersProjectmanagers ContractorsProjectparameter(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Time 24 30 22 23 13 20 42Cost 29 56 35 23 30 21 29Quality 26 33 22 30 35 12 25Architects = 58%; QuantitySurveyors = 67%;Engineers = 70%; Project Managers = 60%).Nor are clients’ views shared by contrac-tors, with 71% believing that changes alwaysor sometimes took place. This finding sug-gests that there is a serious gap betweenthe perceptions of clients and the othermembers of the project procurement teamabout what constitutes a variation to theoriginal brief, and that consultants in par-ticular may not be successfullycommunicating the full implications ofproject variations to their clients.Question 6: Does the procurement teamutilise a formal brief-elicitation procedurefor determining client requirements inrespect of the project? (Answer choice =always/sometimes/never)Surprisingly, the responses to this questionwere considerably worse than expected.Only 44% of clients believe that the pro-curement team utilises formal brief-elicitation procedures. Similarly, 57% of ar-chitects and 37% of quantity surveyors be-lieve that formal brief-elicitation proceduresare utilised for conventionally procured pro-jects. A lack of understanding on the part ofthe procurement team about what consti-tutes a formal brief-elicitation process mayexplain the responses to this question. Ar-chitects and quantity surveyors might havebeen expected to display far more confi-dence in formal brief-elicitation proceduresfor conventionally-procured projects.Question 7: In your experience, is inade-quate briefing of the procurement team bythe client responsible for client dissatisfac-tion with the building in terms of time, costand quality? (Answer choice = always/sometimes/never)The results to this question tend to contra-dict those obtained in Question 6. If the re-sponses to Question 6 are reliable, then farhigher percentages could have been ex-
  6. 6. PERCEPTIONS OF TIME, COST AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT ON BUILDING PROJECTSTHE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING VOL.2 NO.2 53pected for the ‘always’ response to thisquestion. The logic for this is that, if formalbrief-elicitation procedures are not alwaysused, then inadequate briefing is likely tooccur and hence there will be higher levelsof client dissatisfaction with the finishedbuilding in terms of time, cost and quality.The mismatch of responses to Questions 6and 7 could be explained by theorising thatan adequate project brief may not always beattainable at the outset, and that it often“grows” with the project development.Question 8: At the outset of the project, doclients know what their needs are with re-spect to the following factors? (Answerchoice = always/sometimes/never)Table 5 shows that all respondent groups(including clients) have little faith in clients’ability to know exactly what they want at theoutset of a project, particularly with respectto time schedules, quality requirements andmethods of procuring the building. Thislends support to the proposition theorisedabove. Only client respondents believe thatthey knew at the outset what level of func-tional performance they expect from thecompleted building. Other respondents werefar more pessimistic about clients knowingthis. This points to the possibility of acommunication failure occurring betweenclients and their professional advisors.Question 9: What proportion of clients usetheir own resources to monitor and controlconstruction time, cost and quality?(Answer choice =all/most/some/none)For the purposes of this question, ‘control’refers to the effective management of pro-ject time, cost and quality factors. From Ta-ble 6 it is clear that consultants andcontractors hold a pessimistic view of cli-ents’ capacity to monitor and control theTCQ performance of projects. The majorityof clients (80%), however, believe that theyhave the resources available in order toadequately monitor and control project cost.It should be incumbent upon consultants toensure that the accuracy and reliability oftheir clients’ cost monitoring and controlresources at least matches their own.Table 5: Perceived extent to which clients always know their requirements at the outset of theproject% of respondent groupsAll Clients ArchitectsQuantitysurveyors EngineersProjectmanagers ContractorsClientrequirement(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Budget limit 58 80 35 70 67 60 44Functionalityof building 29 60 26 27 23 33 25Time schedules 35 40 39 40 17 52 29Qualityrequirements 23 50 18 20 17 28 21Procurementmethod 10 30 0 13 10 4 13Requiredreturn oninvestment 58 70 52 60 66 58 48Table 6: Perceptions of whether all or most clients use their own resources to monitor andcontrol construction time, cost and quality% of respondentsClientsArchi-tectsQuantitySurveyorsEngi-neersProjectmanagers ContractorsProject parameter(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Time 40 30 37 13 20 21Cost 80 35 43 23 33 50Quality 40 9 37 10 20 29
  7. 7. P.A. BOWEN, K.A. HALL, P.J. EDWARDS, R.G. PEARL, AND K.S. CATTELL54 THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING VOL.2 NO.2Table 7: Perceptions about whether client objectives with respect to time, cost and quality(as laid down in the brief) are always achieved on building projects (C = Conventional;D = Design and Build; M = Management oriented)% of respondent groupsClients ArchitectsQuantitysurveyors EngineersProjectManagers ContractorsProjectparameter C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D MTime 22 40 0 21 13 31 24 50 35 7 17 4 46 52 73 18 41 47Cost 33 40 20 22 27 27 25 32 8 4 29 4 46 52 59 10 59 41Quality 11 20 0 32 14 27 50 5 8 25 13 13 64 38 62 43 35 35Table 8: Perceptions about whether clients are satisfied with the time, cost and qualitymanagement of their building projects using the listed procurement systems(C = Conventional; D = Design and Build; M = Management oriented)% of respondent groupsClients ArchitectsQuantitysurveyors EngineersProjectManagers ContractorsProjectparameterC D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D MTime 100 100 100 91 73 80 41 95 91 97 81 92 81 90 86 75 93 94Cost 78 60 60 96 80 80 62 74 74 93 69 88 81 84 91 75 80 94Quality 67 40 40 96 47 87 77 42 91 93 50 70 96 79 91 80 67 81Question 10: To what extent are clients’objectives with respect to time, cost andquality (as laid down in the brief) achievedon building projects? (Answer choice:aways/sometimes/never)Project managers and contractors are theonly respondent groups to exhibit at leastone majority positive response in each oftheir procurement system/TCQ matrices.The majority of project managers believethat client time, cost and quality objectivesare always achieved under management-oriented procurement systems. A smallermajority believe that time and cost objec-tives (but not quality) are always achievedunder design-build systems, while a largermajority believe that only quality objectivesare always achieved under conventionalprocurement systems. It seems likely thatthe project managers’ responses are condi-tioned by the role they see themselves play-ing in achieving client TCQ objectives.Contractor respondents are most confidentabout their ability to always meet client costobjectives under design-build procurementsystems; which might be expected, given thenature of these systems, but they are pes-simistic in every other respect for all pro-curement systems.Quantity surveyor respondents are evenlysplit about whether design-build systemscan always deliver client time objectives;and are similarly split about whether con-ventional systems can always achieve clientquality objectives. All other respondentgroups are generally pessimistic about thecapacity of any procurement system to al-ways achieve any of the client’s TCQ objectives.Question 11: In general, how satisfied areclients with the time, cost and quality man-agement of their projects under the listedprocurement systems? (Answer choice:satisfied/dissatisfied)According to the client respondents, theconventional systems of building procure-ment yield the greatest level of client satis-faction with respect to time, cost and qualitymanagement on building projects. Clientsappear to be indifferent between design andbuild and management-orientated systems.Within the client group responses relating tothe conventional system, it is noteworthythat satisfaction with time managementranks the highest, followed by cost man-agement. Indeed, clients appear dissatisfiedwith quality management under design andbuild and management-orientated systems.Other respondent groups generally rate cli-ent satisfaction with time, cost and qualitymanagement on building projects as beinghigher (under all three procurement sys-tems) than do the client respondents. Twopoints are noteworthy. The first point relatesto quality management, where architects,
  8. 8. PERCEPTIONS OF TIME, COST AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT ON BUILDING PROJECTSTHE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING VOL.2 NO.2 55quantity surveyors and engineers point todisturbing levels of client satisfaction in thisregard. Clearly room for improvement existson the part of the procurement team. Thesecond point refers to the response of quan-tity surveyors regarding cost managementunder conventional procurement systems.Only 62% of quantity surveyors claim thatclients are always satisfied in this regard—the very function this group of professionalconsultants is charged with managing.CONCLUSIONSThis paper has reported on the findings of aSouth African national questionnaire surveyof the opinions project team participantshold about the relationship between time,cost and quality management and the at-tainment of client objectives.Clients’, contractors’ and consultants’ opin-ions with respect to client expectations oftime, cost and quality at the outset of theproject are not uniform. Clients believe theirtime, cost and quality expectations to berealistic, whereas contractors and consult-ants do not believe that this is generally so.Clients rate project quality as more impor-tant than project time performance,whereas contractors and consultants be-lieve that clients actually hold a converseview.Contractors and clients place great confi-dence in the time performance of designand build procurement systems but haveslightly less confidence in the conventionaland management-oriented procurementsystems. Lower levels of confidence wereevidenced with respect to the cost perform-ance of projects under all the various pro-curement systems.Clients believe that variations only some-times occur after the start of the project.There is a large discrepancy between theperceptions of clients and other members ofthe project procurement team about whatconstitutes a variation to the original brief.All members of the project procurementteam showed little faith in the clients’ abilityto know exactly what they wanted at the out-set of the project.Clients, contractors and building profes-sionals believe that the choice of buildingprocurement system has little influence onthe level of subsequent cost variations to thecontract. Clients believe that they have theresources to monitor and control projectcost. Contractors and building professionalsdid not believe that this is so.Client induced changes are seen by contrac-tors and building professionals to contributethe most to project time over-runs. Quantitysurveyors see the potential for effective timemanagement increasing in the constructionphase of the project delivery process,whereas project managers believe that thebriefing stage offers the highest potentialfor the effective management of time.The conventional systems of building pro-curement yield the greatest level of clientsatisfaction with respect to time, cost andquality management on building projects.High levels of satisfaction were noted fortime management. Clients are more likelyto be dissatisfied with project quality man-agement under design and build and man-agement-orientated procurement systems.The purpose of the research was to explorethe proposition that a recognition of the‘human’ factor, i.e., perceptions within theproject team of the management of time,cost and quality, would assist attempts toaddress the perceived shortcomings of TCQmanagement. The findings of this surveyindicate that misperceptions do exist amongproject team members regarding the time,cost and quality management associatedwith building projects and potentially havean impact on the ability of the project teamto achieve client objectives. While the find-ings of the research do not warrant anychange in practice at this stage, the re-search itself has aided in gaining a richerunderstanding of the complexities of ‘hu-man’ issues inherent in the management oftime, cost and quality. More importantly, itpoints the way forward for further researchinto the ‘human’ aspect of how projectteams can be more effectively managed inorder to achieve client objectives, therebyproviding a catalyst for change in practice.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors wish to acknowledge, withthanks, the financial support of the Founda-tion for Research Development (F.R.D.) andthe Centre for Science Development (C.S.D).In addition, thanks are also extended to LaraOpperman for her work on the data codingand BMDP programming, and to PaulineMakonese for formulating the tables. Thispaper extends the procurement systemsresearch being undertaken at the Universityof Cape Town.
  9. 9. P.A. BOWEN, K.A. HALL, P.J. EDWARDS, R.G. PEARL, AND K.S. CATTELL56 THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS AND BUILDING VOL.2 NO.2REFERENCESBennett, J. and Grice, T. (1990) Procurementsystems for building. In: Brandon, P. (ed)Quantity Surveying Techniques: New Direc-tions, Blackwell Scientific Publications,Oxford.Charles, T.J. and Andrew, M.A. (1990) Pre-dictors of cost-overrun rates. Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management,ASCE, 116, 548–552.Flanagan, R. and Tate, B. (1997) Cost Con-trol in Building Design. Blackwell Science,Oxford.Herbsman, Z. and Ellis, R.D. (1991) Thecost/time/quality integrated bidding sys-tem—an innovation in contract administra-tion. In: Bezelega, A. and Brandon, P. (eds)Management, Quality and Economics inBuilding. E. & F.N. Spon Ltd., London.Hughes, T. and Williams, T. (1991) QualityAssurance. BSP Professional Books, Oxford.Ireland, V. (1983) The Role of ManagerialActions in the Cost Time and Quality Per-formance of High Rise Commercial BuildingProjects. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Univer-sity of Sydney, Sydney.Lansley, P. (1993) Towards improvedmanagerial effectiveness. In: Proceedings ofthe CIB W-65 International Symposium onOrganisation and Management of Construc-tion, 671–679. Trinidad.Masterman, J.W.E. (1992) An Introduction toBuilding Procurement Systems. E & FNSpon, London.National Economic Development Office(N.E.D.O.) (1983) Faster Building for Indus-try. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London.Newcombe, R., Langford, D. and Fellows, R.(1990) Construction Management 2.Mitchell, London.Rwelamila, P.D. and Hall, K.A. (1995) TotalSystems Intervention: an integrated ap-proach to time, cost and quality manage-ment. Construction Management andEconomics, 13, 235–241.Vincent, K.O. and Joel, E.R. (1995) Principlesof Total Quality. Kogan Page, London.