Construction Management and Economics (1997) 15, 457± 467

Construction project teams for TQM:

a factor-element impact model
IRTISHAD U AHMAD 1 * and MAUNG K. SEIN 2
1Department of Construction Management, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA
2Department of Information Systems, Agder College, Kristiansand, Norway and Department of Computer
Information Systems, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA

Received 17 October 1995; accepted 19 June 1996

The factor-element impact model is a normative, theory-based contingency model. It is concerned with iden-
tifying the factors that affect the success of total quality management (TQM) initiatives in construction
projects. This model is based upon organizational theory, utilizing an interactionist view of organizational
design. If TQM is to succeed, construction project teams should be formed with its implementation in mind.
The most important factors in¯ uencing the success of particular project team con® gurations are project char-
acteristics. Organizational characteristics of participating ® rms are also signi® cant. The contingency model
developed in this paper involves an iterative approach of designing construction project teams to minimize
negative effects on TQM. Guidelines are offered on how to apply the model, and two scenarios are presented
to illustrate its application.

Keywords: Project team, organization theory, total quality management (TQM), normative models

Introduction models ± based on manufacturing principles ± are

mechanically imposed in the construction industry.
Importance of TQM in the construction industry Some recent attempts have been made to customize
TQM models speci® cally to the construction industry.
Total quality management (TQM) has become a
Notable contributions include development of quality
crucial aspect in the construction industry. Many arti-
indicators (Deffenbaugh, 1993) and a quality measure-
cles have been written and published on the adoption
ment matrix (Stevens et al., 1994), and attempts to
of TQM principles in construction. Seminars, work-
apply Juran’s triple role concept (customer± processor±
shops and training programmes are routinely organized
supplier) to construction (Burati et al., 1992).
to promote a better understanding of the TQM
These efforts are useful, and have helped organiza-
process. Despite these efforts, most organizations and
tions to implement TQM in their context. However,
companies involved in the construction industry view
the factors that lead to the success or failure of TQM
TQM as an enigmatic proposition. To some, it is
implementation have not been precisely identi® ed. The
nothing more than a buzzword, while to others it is
results of a poll conducted among 300 architectural,
dif® cult to implement. While this echoes the general
engineering and contracting ® rms ranging from under
confusion that prevails in the literature on TQM
$20 million to well above $500 million in annual
and in practice (Hackman and Wageman, 1995),
revenues revealed that most of their top managers don’t
perhaps the main reason for this perception in the
understand or accept TQM (Anon, 1993). The survey
construction industry seems to be that TQM princi-
concluded, `Most employees and subcontractors are
ples were developed in the manufacturing industry.
neither considered enthusiastic about quality nor
Therefore, problems may arise if implementation
empowered to make improvements’.
Grif® s (1992) asserts that, in the construction
*Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed. industry, TQM and similar management philosophies

0144± 6193 € 1997 E & FN Spon

458
have not focused on the complete problem. He goes
on to say that the focus should be on how to lead
people to develop a system that will continually
improve the constructed product. In construction
projects, teamwork is not a choice but a necessity.
Therefore achievement of total quality in a construc-
tion project is greatly dependent on the features of the
project team.
This paper addresses the issue of formation of
construction project teams. The objective is to present
a normative model based on accepted and validated
theoretical constructs from the literature on organiza-
tion theory. The model will be useful to the managers
of architectural, engineering and contracting (AEC)
organizations to build effective project management
teams by identifying factors affecting the success of a
TQM programme in construction projects. In order to
understand the dynamics involved with construction
project teams, the nature of construction projects needs
to be understood ® rst.
Unique features of construction projects
Barrie and Paulson (1984) noted:
Construction is the process whereby designers’ plans
and speci® cations are converted into physical struc-
tures and facilities. It involves the organization and
coordination of all the resources for the project ± labor,
construction equipment, permanent and temporary
materials, supplies and utilities, money, technology and
methods, and time ± to complete the project on
schedule, within the budget, and according to the stan-
dards of quality and performance speci® ed by the
designer.
In contrast to products of manufacturing, products of
construction are large in scale and varied in kind. Each
product or facility has its own design, and a distinct
process of production or erection. The product is, in
general, one of a kind, and the speci® c process is
usually non-repetitive. Steps involved in the process
are not always distinctly identi® able. Process segments
overlap, and the links between them are often non-
uniform and non-standard. Measurement of progress
in terms of percentage of completion of construction
projects is dif® cult, and is often an arbitrary pro-
cedure that frequently gives rise to disagreements and
disputes.
Unlike the manufacturing context, construction is
not a repetitive continuing process; `rework’ or
`repeated work’ is costly. It is dif® cult to apply statis-
tical quality measurement programmes in the process
of construction. The outcome of the construction
process is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty.
Construction is more vulnerable than manufacturing
processes to the effects and impacts of external
Ahmad and Sein
factors, such as weather. Construction is one of the
most regulated industries. Facilities must be built
according to code. Proper safety measures must be
followed before, during and after construction accord-
ing to governmental acts and regulations. The industry
is traditionally fragmented, making implementation of
TQM programmes particularly dif® cult. Certain
industry norms, such as the practice of awarding
projects to the low bidder, are also barriers in the way
of implementing effective TQM programmes in
construction (Grif® s, 1992).
Construction project teams are formed with people
from several entities with diversi® ed ± and sometimes
con¯ icting ± goals and interests. Owners, designers
(architects and engineers), general and/or prime
contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and vendors get
involved in the process of construction for a consider-
ably long period of time. As a result, the composition
of the team cannot remain static; it changes as
construction progresses. This instability in project
teams makes the application of TQM particularly
dif® cult.
Premise and organization of the paper
The premise in this paper is that the main determinants
of success or failure of TQM programmes are organi-
zational factors. TQM is not merely implementing
a few procedures, however radical they may be, but
embracing a new philosophy. Hence the characteris-
tics of the organization play a prime role in how well
this philosophy is diffused in an organization. Concepts
from organizational theory are therefore believed to be
germane to a model of TQM adoption.
As stated above, each construction project is
different and unique. Deffenbaugh (1993) states it
succinctly:
In reality, most projects are like a new company being
formed to produce one unique product. The `new
company’ , if it embraces TQM philosophy, needs to
de® ne its mission, and success requires everyone to
work together to accomplish that mission.
Bennett (1985) mentions:
Project organizations consist of teams whose work must
be coordinated so that their combined actions achieve
agreed objectives.
Eccles (1981) uses the term `quasi-® rm’ to describe a
construction project team.
The formation of the construction project team
therefore becomes a critical crucial activity. Essentially
the problem becomes one of organizational design.
In order to gain an understanding of this process, orga-
nization theory is applied.
Project terms for TQM
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the
next section, TQM is brie¯ y discussed in general,
Deming’s and Juran’s TQM models are presented, and
variations of them as applied to projects are discussed.
Based on this examination, the element components of
the model are identi® ed. After this, the organizational
and contextual factor components of the model that
affect TQM success are proposed. The project charac-
teristics that impact success of TQM are then presented.
In the following section, the components discussed in
the previous two sections are integrated, and the factor-
element impact model is presented in the form of a con-
tingency matrix. How the model can be applied is
described, and scenarios are presented to illustrate it. In
the concluding section, research directions are proposed
and implications for practice are discussed.
Elements of TQM
TQM: a brief overview
As mentioned earlier, TQM means different things to
different people. This problem is not endemic to the
construction industry. A complete examination of this
problem is beyond the scope of this paper. For an
excellent commentary, the reader is referred to
Hackman and Wageman (1995).
Hackman and Wageman critically analyse the
current state of knowledge and practice regarding
TQM, and conclude that TQM is a distinctive philos-
ophy, with a core set of shared assumptions, but is
implemented in a wide variety of ways. Practice is often
in con¯ ict with the principles laid down by the
founding fathers of the movement, Deming, Juran and
Ishikawa. These principles are captured quite
succinctly by, among others, Oakland (1993) and
Creech (1994). In his book The Five Pillars of TQM,
Creech de® ned TQM as `a total approach to put
quality in every aspect of management’. He identi-
® ed product, process, organization, leadership and
commitment as the ® ve essential pillars of TQM.
The principles proposed by Deming remain the
inspiration for all implementation models used in
practice. A brief discussion of this model is provided
in the next section.
Deming’s model
The centrepiece of TQM is continuous improvement
represented by the PDCA (plan± do± check± act) cycle.
The cycle is always depicted as a circle to emphasize
a never-ending process. Its components are:
1. Plan what is to be done (e.g. identify top
priority, objectives and quality indicators).
459
2. Do it ± carry out the plan (identify targets, build
control systems, implement on a small scale).
3. Check what you did (what happened? did it
work? what was learnt?).
4. Act to prevent error or improve the process
(adopt change, abandon if need be, run the
cycle again).
Clearly, this model is most relevant to a continuing
process, such as manufacturing. Construction projects
have de® nite lifespans and cannot be characterized as
continuous processes. Therefore the PDCA cycle may
not apply to construction projects.
Rettig and Simons (1993) have proposed a variation
of the PDCA cycle, which they found to be more
appropriate to managing computer software develop-
ment projects. The principles of this model, called
PADRE (plan, approve, do, review and revise, eval-
uate), can be applied to any project team, such as
construction. There is a great deal of similarity between
software development and construction projects. Both
use multidisciplinary project teams, employ a modular
approach (different system segments in software,
subcontracting in construction), and encompass pro-
jects of varying degrees of risk, uncertainty and size.
However, while PADRE may be applied to manage a
project team for TQM, it does not provide any guide-
line on how to form the project team in the ® rst place.
Elements of a TQM process
For a TQM process to be successful, certain elements
must be present. These elements can be grouped under
the headings environment, knowledge and skill, organi-
zation, and system (Crosby, 1979).
Environment
Establishment of a receptive environment throughout
the project organization is critical to the success of
TQM. The main elements that are necessary for estab-
lishing such an environment are commitment, awareness
and recognition. Management’s commitment towards
quality is not only essential, it must also be clearly
communicated. Every member of the team should be
aware of this commitment and be concerned about
quality. For this to work effectively, management must
introduce motivational activities, such as recognizing
and rewarding team members for their contribution
and extra work for the success of the TQM process.
Knowledge and skill
Every employee must possess the appropriate knowl-
edge and skill. Not only should they be knowledgeable
about their own trade or discipline, they should also
understand the underlying principles of TQM. The
460
main elements grouped under this category are training
and education, quality principles and problem-solving skills.
Every employee should be given the opportunity to
learn and be provided with appropriate training to be
able to participate effectively in the TQM process.
Organization
A key concept of the TQM philosophy is that functional
boundaries are irrelevant, because problems cross func-
tional lines. Committees and teams must be formed,
mainly of the cross-functional variety, to coordinate
activities of various individuals belonging to different
departments, and must be given responsibility and
authority to run the TQM process. The main elements
in this group are quality-steering committees and quality
improvement teams. Plans must be made, priorities
established, resources designated, changes communi-
cated, and progress evaluated. Random execution of
these tasks by various individuals or groups, operating
independently, will result only in con¯ icting objectives,
overlap, missing information, lost time and wasted
effort.
System
Systems are needed to establish methods of measure-
ment, to focus attention on improvement issues, and
to formulate ways to take action. Corrective action,
measurement and goal setting are considered as the main
elements of systems. According to Crosby (1979),
corrective actions should provide systematic methods
of resolving forever problems that are identi® ed;
measurement should provide a display of current and
potential non-conformance problems in a manner that
permits objective evaluation and corrective action;
goal setting should turn pledges and commitments
into action, by encouraging individuals to establish
improvement goals for themselves and their group.
Organizational factors
Principles of organization theory
As has been argued in the introductory section, imple-
mentation of TQM requires an initial step of building
the right construction project team. This problem is
one of organizational design, which is a complex
process. Classical designs, based on functional special-
ization and hierarchical control, no longer meet today’ s
needs; a more ¯ exible and holistic approach, called the
interactionist view, is more appropriate (Robey, 1994).
The latter view proposes that organizational structure
should evolve to respond to changes in the environ-
ment. One way to create an evolving organization is
to ® rst focus on its activities and processes. The struc-
ture should then emerge around those processes.
Ahmad and Sein
The context of a construction project is particularly
amenable to this perspective of organizational design,
because a construction project involves multiple orga-
nizations, all facing varying degrees of uncertainty.
Bennett (1985) states:
Current understanding does not allow best project
organizations to be calculated. It is possible, however,
to identify consistent links between types of project and
three idealized patterns of project organizations.
The three patterns described by Bennett are:
programmed organizations, which relate to standard
construction; professional organizations, which relate
to traditional construction; and problem-solving orga-
nizations, which relate to innovative construction.
While this paper is not concerned primarily with the
speci® c categories of project organization proposed by
Bennett, the idea of having different project organiza-
tions to suit variation in type of projects is a central
theme in this paper.
In the rest of this section, the organizational factors
that are crucial in this perspective are introduced and
described. These factors are grouped under two clus-
ters. The ® rst cluster groups project team contingency
factors, i.e. those that offer choices in forming a
construction project team. The second cluster groups
TQM success-impact factors, i.e. those that have
important implications for TQM success, but do not
depend on the alternative choices of the contingency
factors.
Project team contingency factors
While several factors fall under this cluster, four of the
most important ones are considered here: structure,
control systems, leadership style and values.
Structure
Research into complex forms established for the
management of project work has been based upon a
contingency framework for the study of organizational
structures (Bresnen, 1990). Organizations can be
mechanistic or organic. A mechanistic type of organi-
zation is characterized by jobs that are narrow in scope,
® xed and speci® c roles, clear lines of authority, well-
known rules and procedures, a repetitive and program-
mable decision-making and planning process, and an
objective reward system. An organic organization, by
contrast, has broadly de® ned jobs, ¯ exible and dynamic
roles, diffuse channels of authority, few rules and
procedures, a changing, ¯ exible and non-program-
mable decision-making and planning process, and a
subjective reward system (Robey, 1994).
Traditionally, construction project teams have been
mechanistic in nature and have required speci® c and
Project terms for TQM
® xed roles. For example, an electrical contractor
performs a speci® c set of standard tasks and nothing
else. While this fosters specialization and ef® ciency, it
may also lead to a narrow view of the project’s goal.
Creative problem solving may be hampered by such
speci® c and ® xed roles. Both impact negatively on
TQM elements. Therefore, in a construction team that
implements TQM, roles have to evolve and be ¯ ex-
ible. This is especially true for cross-functional teams.
The application of TQM therefore requires a move
away from a mechanistic to a more organic form.
However, organic structures result in a loss of authority
and control (Robey, 1994). Thus a project team is
pulled in two directions, one dictating control and the
other dictating effectiveness in implementing TQM.
Therefore the composition of a project team is crucial.
Robey presents task uncertainty as a contingency in
determining the appropriate type. Citing research ® nd-
ings, he proposes that a more mechanistic structure is
appropriate for low task uncertainty, while under high
task uncertainty, an organic structure is appropriate.
Control systems
To conform to organizational norms and required
behaviour, control systems are implemented by organi-
zations. Such control systems can be formal (with
bureaucratic rules), market (use prices in internal
markets) or clan (use trust and common values).
Construction projects represent internal markets (sub-
contractors are paid by contractors), and market con-
trol may seem to work best (for example, withholding
payment to conform behaviour or output). Within each
sub-unit, formal control systems are employed.
However, to implement TQM, a more shared perspec-
tive is needed between the sub-units, and so a clan
control may be preferable. Because this is the most ¯ ex-
ible control system, careful selection of the project team
and then proper socialization of the team members to
the team’ s goals and values is essential (Robey, 1994).
This is especially true in construction projects, because
team members may change during the life of a project.
Once again, task uncertainty determines which control
system is more appropriate.
Leadership style
Leadership styles can range from autocratic, task-
oriented and driven with desire for certainty at one
extreme to democratic, relationship oriented with a
high degree of tolerance for ambiguity at the other
extreme (Kast and Rosenzweig 1974). This factor
affects the decision-making process, and is particularly
important in con¯ ict resolution. Con¯ ict can easily
arise in a construction project because several different
organizations are involved. These organizations have
different ± and often divergent ± goals, use different
461
technologies, and may have different time orientations,
(short term vs long term). A further cause of con¯ ict
in a construction project is interdependence between
the different organizations. In a building project, for
example, sequential interdependence exists between
the electrical contractor and the structural contractor
because the former cannot begin work until the latter
has completed a signi® cant portion of the work. Any
rework may result in interference with one’s goals by
the other. Even where the tasks are relatively inde-
pendent, such as those of electrical and air conditioning
contractors, pooled interdependence exists, because
the whole work cannot be completed unless each
has completed its part. TQM requires much cross-
functional work, which may result in con¯ ict.
Hence con¯ ict resolution becomes a crucial factor
in the success of TQM. One point needs to be empha-
sized; con¯ ict does not have entirely negative conno-
tation. It provides an opportunity to discuss problems
that may be genuine. An appropriate leadership style
is essential. On the surface, a democratic style may
appear to be more appropriate.
Values
An organization’s value set can range from one extreme
of stability and risk aversion to the other extreme of
innovation and risk taking (Kast and Rosenzweig,
1974). In a construction project, the presence of
multiple organizations results in multiple values. An
architect may be more risk taking than a structural
engineer; electrical contractors may value ef® ciency
over effectiveness, while the interior designer may have
the opposite value. Different organizations may have
varying degrees of af® nity to innovation. The compo-
sition of the project team will re¯ ect the team’ s values.
These goals and values will in turn affect the TQM
elements. For example, an innovative and risk-seeking
team is more likely to implement TQM than a risk-
averse team that values stability and tradition.
TQM success-impact factors
These factors ± culture, management beliefs about TQM
and management attitude towards empowerment ± pertain
to construction project teams and have important
implications for the success of TQM. However, they
do not have implications for the formation of project
teams. In other words, whatever choices are made
regarding project teams, these factors will have an
impact on the success of TQM.
Culture
Robey (1994) de® nes culture as `the pattern of shared
assumptions that aid a group in dealing with basic
problems of internal operation and external adaptation’ .
462
For example, the Japanese business culture is charac-
terized by lifetime employment, collective decision
making and responsibility and holistic concern. By con-
trast, the American business culture has the character-
istics of short-term employment, individual decision
making and responsibility and segmented concern.
Culture is re¯ ected in rites, such as enhancement
(recognition of accomplishments) and renewal (learn-
ing programmes). Robey goes on to state that organi-
zational cultures exert profound in¯ uence over their
members and affect other organizational processes. For
example, they affect managerial attempts to alter orga-
nizational climate, regulate behaviour of new members,
facilitate communication, and aid in the integration of
various sub-units. It is apparent that the culture of the
project team will affect the TQM elements. For exam-
ple, certain forms of culture may be more successful in
fostering a climate for applying TQM. A culture that
places importance on enhancement rites is more likely
to implement awards and recognition successfully ± a
key TQM element. On the surface, a culture that incor-
porates the Japanese and American models [Theory Z,
proposed by Ouichi (1981)] may appear to have a more
favourable impact on these elements. Culture cannot be
changed in the relatively short lifespan of a project
team; it will be inherent in the project team. Therefore
it is crucial that attention should be paid to cultural
issues when a project team is formed.
Management beliefs about TQM
Many TQM initiatives have failed, or have failed to
sustain continuous improvement, because top
management never fully embraced or understood the
TQM philosophy (Hayden, 1992). Rather, some prin-
ciples were introduced, teams formed and methods
implemented, only to be abandoned after a measure
of success had been achieved. Hayden (1992) lists
several `false starts’ used by well-meaning senior
managers, which led to the failure of TQM initiatives.
TQM requires continuous change, and is an unending
process. It is possible only through top management
commitment. Similarly, middle management has to
embrace TQM principles as well. If they do not buy
into it, implementation of such radical concepts as
cross-functional teams is impossible. Construction
projects are known for compartmentalized sub-units.
The necessity of spanning the boundary between, say,
subcontractors, is often not considered by top and
middle management of the various sub-units.
Management attitude towards employee empowerment
Employee empowerment, which stems from the TQM
principle of `respect for people’ , has been identi® ed as
the most important element in TQM (Juran, 1988;
Ahmad and Sein
Shrednick et al., 1992). Changing the way tasks are
accomplished and focusing on customer needs requires
enhancement of employee roles and responsibilities.
This dictates that employees be empowered to make
decisions and have access to information not available
before. Many members of management may feel that
employees are not prepared to handle these additional
responsibilities. They may also feel threatened by
empowered subordinates. For example, in a construc-
tion project, a contractor’s employee may require a
minor change in the layout and request the engineer’s
representative, who is technically quali® ed, to do so.
Without TQM, this individual may not have the
authority to make this change, and must wait for the
approval of the request to come through from the engi-
neer’s of® ce. With TQM, this representative may have
been empowered to make the required change. Will
the subcontractor and the project management team
feel that there is a need for such empowerment, and
that the employees are knowledgeable enough to
handle this responsibility? The success or failure of
TQM depends on a positive answer.
Summary
In the sections above, two groups of project team
factors that determine whether TQM can be successful
in a construction project were discussed. The ® rst
group, contingency factors, offers alternative choices
that can be made in forming a project team. These
choices are not categorical, but may fall along a
continuum. The extreme choices and possibilities are
shown in Figure 1.
Extreme Possibilities
Factors
Continua
Structure Mechanistic Organic
Control System Formal/Market Clan (trust)
Leadership
Style Autocratic Democratic
Stability Innovative
Values Risk Averse Risk Taking
Figure 1 Project team contingency factors with extreme
possibilities
Project terms for TQM 463

These choices depend on project characteristics. One

such contingency ± task uncertainty ± has already been Project Characteristics Parent AEC
• Degree of Uncertainty
Organizational
identi® ed. In the next section, additional project char- Factors
• Type of Owner
acteristics will be identi® ed. These characteristics will • Type of Contract • Characteristics
moderate the impact of the project team factors on the • Size • Structure
• Beliefs
TQM elements. The second group of factors discussed
CH
above also impacts on the success of TQM. However, O
IC INFLUENCE
E
the alternative values of these factors will always impact
on TQM elements in the same manner, irrespective of

IMPACT
project characteristics. For example, to implement
Project Team
TQM successfully, management must have a positive ACTION Contingency Factors
attitude towards employee empowerment, no matter For desired TQM impacts • Structure
what type of project it is. appropriate choices • Control Systems
must be made • Leadership Styles
• Values
T
AC
I MP
Project characteristics

Each construction project has different character- Elements of TQM

istics, determined mainly by four factors: degree of • Environment
• Knowledge and Skills
uncertainty, type of owner, type of contract and size of • Organization
project. • Systems

Degree of uncertainty Figure 2 Factor-element impact model for forming TQM-

The degree of uncertainty associated with a construc-
tion project is a function of the type of project. For
example, a government-owned highway project will
typically have a lower degree of uncertainty than a dam
construction project. As a consequence, the knowledge
and skill requirement of the members of the project
team is dependent on the type of project and associ-
ated uncertainties. Construction of a nuclear plant
or an oil re® nery, for instance, would require more
specialized knowledge than a hospital or a hotel-
building project. Bennett (1985) points out: `As teams
are faced with growing uncertainty their productivity
reduces, slowly at low levels of uncertainty and much
more quickly at high levels.’
Type of owner
Construction projects can have different characteristics
depending on whether the owner is public or private.
Contract negotiations and other procedures, such as
change order processing, tend to be more formal when
the owner is public. Authority of the project team
members can be very limited in public projects.
Deviations from established rules and procedures are
not encouraged. When such deviations are absolutely
necessary they must be approved through lengthy and
bureaucratic processes for satisfying legal requirements.
While it may be easier for private owners to establish
long-term relationships with design and construction
® rms, it is not a permissible government practice under
normal circumstances.
oriented construction project teams
Type of contract
Construction projects are characterized by the type of
contract. The two extreme types are ® xed price (or
lump sum) and cost reimbursable (or cost plus). Other
types of contracts, such as guaranteed maximum price,
cost plus variable fee, or unit price, fall in between
the two extreme types in terms of risk sharing.
Allocation of risk is determined primarily by the choice
of the type of contract. Under a ® xed-price contract,
most of the project risk is carried by the general
contractor, while under a cost-reimbursable project,
most of the risk is assumed by the owner. The choice
of the type of contract determines risk allocation and,
as a consequence, implies variations in responsibilities
of the owner and the contractor regarding adherence
to speci® cations, progress measurement and cost
control
Size of project
The size of the project is also an important factor that
in¯ uences project characteristics. The composition of
project teams will be different because of the size of
the project. There would be a need for more rules and
procedures if the size was larger. Communications
would take less time and would be more direct for
smaller projects. Superintendents would be required to
focus on narrower areas when project size is large.
464 Ahmad and Sein

Factor-element impact model

Project Team Factors

Structure Control Leadership Values

The model Project Characteristics Systems Style
Degre of

Formal/Market
In this section, the concepts discussed in the previous

Risk Averse
Uncertainty: Low

Democratic
Mechanism

Risk Taking
Clan (trust)

Innovative
Autocratic
Organic

Stability
Type of Owner: Public
sections are integrated to synthesize the normative Type of Contract: Fixed Price
Size: Medium
factor-element impact model. It is proposed that it can
be used to formulate principles to build construction

Environment
Commitment 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0
project teams. Shown in Figure 2, it is based on the
Awareness 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0
interactionist view of organizational design, and is
Recognition 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0
essentially a contingency model. The choices made are
Training &
pertaining to the team factors impact on TQM ele- Education
0 0 0 0 0 + 0 +

Knowledge
and skill
Quality
ments in a positive, negative or neutral manner. These

TQM Elements
0 0 0 0 0 + 0 +
Principles
choices are primarily made depending on project char- Problem
0 0 0 0 0 + 0 +
Solving Skills
acteristics that themselves impact on TQM elements. Quality

Organization
Steering 0 + 0 + – ++ 0 ++
Thus the impact on a speci® c TQM element is jointly Committee
determined by project team factors and project char- Quality Teams – ++ – ++ – ++ 0 ++

acteristics; an impact of a particular project team factor Corrective

0 ++ 0 ++ – ++ 0 ++
Action
on a TQM element may be negative for one type of

System
Measurement ++ 0 ++ 0 0 0 ++ 0
project, but may be neutral or positive for another type.
Finally, enveloping these two categories are the parent Goal Setting ++ – ++ – 0 0 ++ 0

(AEC) organizations, whose characteristics in¯ uence Impact Scale: ++, Positive; +, Weak Positive; 0, Neutral; –, Weak Negative; ––, Negative.

the degree of freedom in designing the project team.

The role of the parent organization needs to be elab-
orated. The factors identi® ed for the project team also
apply to the parent organization. A parent organiza-
tion that has a mechanistic structure is less likely to
form a project team that has an organic structure. This
happens because the hierarchical, rule-based organiza-
tion is not conducive to implementing a ¯ exible
dynamic structure in a team that is under its control.
Similarly, a parent organization that is led in an auto-
cratic manner is less likely to form a project team that
will have a democratic leadership style. In general, the
factors of the project team are more likely to mirror
its parent organization. However, this may not always
be the case. Even a mechanistic parent organization
with an autocratic leadership style can form an organic
project team with democratic leadership. It would
simply be more dif® cult, and would require a realiza-
tion on the part of the parent organization of the need
for a more open perspective. Possibly the goal of imple-
menting TQM may provide the necessary impetus.
Model applied
In this section, the use of the model to make choices
on project team contingency factors is demonstrated.
It is important to understand that project characteris-
tics affect project team factors as well as TQM
elements. The role of the proposed TQM factor-
element impact model would be to provide guidance
in choosing an optimum combination of options from
project team contingency factors that would foster a
positive TQM atmosphere for a given set of project
Figure 3 TQM factor-element impact matrix: Scenario 1
characteristics. In the following, two sets of analyses
are presented. These are based on the application of
the model to two distinct scenarios with different
project characteristics.
Scenario 1
The construction project was building a medium-sized
multistorey facility for the US Federal government in
a large metropolitan area. One of the authors served
as a consultant for the project. This kind of project is
not typically characterized with a high degree of uncer-
tainty. As is typical for this type of project, the contract
type was lump-sum ® xed price. Consequently, the
appropriate project team factor choices were a mech-
anistic structure and a formal control system. Impacts
of project team factor choices on the TQM elements
for this scenario are shown in Figure 3.
The analysis proceeds with the `traditional choices’
(mechanistic structure, formal control system, auto-
cratic leadership style, and risk-averse values) shown
on the left-hand side of the team factors columns
being changed to the other end of the continuum i.e.
the `non-traditional choices’ (organic structure, clan
control, democratic leadership style, and risk-taking,
innovative values) shown on the right.
Environment. It can be seen that the elements of TQM
environment (commitment, awareness and recognition
activities) are not affected at all by the choices in con-
trol system, leadership style and values. This is because,
Project terms for TQM 465

in this type of project, improvement or deterioration of
the TQM environment is not dependent on the choices
of project team factors. However, a slight improvement
in the environment can be expected if an organic struc-
ture is chosen over a mechanistic one. The improve-
ment is slight because of the restraining effects imposed
by the project characteristics.
Knowledge and skill. The impacts of project team
factors, structure and control system on knowledge
and skill are neutral for this type of project. The
impacts of leadership style and values are, however,
expected to turn to positive with a switch from
traditional to non-traditional choices, although the
traditional choices do not necessarily impact negatively.
With a democratic leadership style, knowledge and skill
is expected to improve slightly. Again, project charac-
teristics will not allow a signi® cant improvement. If,
however, values of the project team can be character-
ized as risk-taking and innovative as opposed to risk-
averse and stability-seeking, signi® cant improvement in
knowledge and skill can be expected despite unsuit-
able project characteristics.
Organization. Establishment and functioning of
quality steering committees and teams will be posi-
tively affected with non-traditional team characteris-
tics. Note, however, that for this kind of project,
negative impacts on TQM organizational elements are
rather weak with traditional team factor choices.
choices can adversely impact on the TQM elements
for this kind of project.
Environment. Leadership style and values do not have
any impact on the TQM elements grouped under envi-
ronment. This is not different from what we have found
in Scenario 1. It can be concluded that these two team
factor choices cannot have any impact on the TQM
environment regardless of the type of project. (Note
that leadership style and values are not really options
that can be chosen, but can be imposed or introduced
in a team by choosing team members with appropriate
inclinations.) The other two project team factor choices
± structure and control system ± are important, how-
ever, and can have signi® cant impacts on the TQM
environment. Non-traditional choices of these two fac-
tors are expected to have strong positive impacts on the
TQM environment for this kind of project.
Knowledge and skill, organization and systems. Here,
non-traditional team factor choices are essential for
improved knowledge and skill, an effective TQM
organization and an ef® cient system. For Scenario 2
type projects, characterized by a high degree of uncer-
tainty, freedom from excessive rules and procedures
promotes effective TQM. It is important to recognize
that, for this kind of project, a mechanistic structure
or a formal control system does not provide a matching
combination. A mismatch is likely to result in nega-
tive impacts on the TQM elements.

Systems. Corrective action is affected in the same

manner as the elements under organization, from weak
Project Team Factors
negative and neutral with traditional choices to strong
Structure Control Leadership Values
positive with non-traditional choices. Measurement Project Characteristics Systems Style
and goal-setting, however, are affected in an opposite Degre of
Formal/Market

Risk Averse
Uncertainty: High
Democratic
Mechanism

Risk Taking
Clan (trust)

Innovative
Autocratic

manner. This is because, for the kinds of project exem-

Organic

Type of Owner: Private Stability

Type of Contract: Cost Plus
pli® ed by scenario 1 (low degree of uncertainty and Size: Large

abundance of rules and procedures), measurement and

goal-setting would be straightforward tasks with tradi-
Environment

Commitment –– ++ –– ++ 0 0 0 0

tional team factor choices. Choice in leadership style, Awareness –– ++ –– ++ 0 0 0 0

however, is not expected to have any impact. Note Recognition –– ++ –– ++ 0 0 0 0

that, in this scenario, non-traditional team factor Training &

–– ++ –– ++ –– ++ –– ++
Education
Knowledge

choices do not turn impacts on these two elements to

and skill

Quality
TQM Elements

–– ++ –– ++ –– ++ –– ++
Principles
strong negatives; the impacts are either neutral or weak Problem
–– ++ –– ++ –– ++ –– ++
negative. Solving Skills
Quality
Organization

Steering –– ++ –– ++ –– ++ –– ++
Scenario 2 Committee

Quality Teams –– ++ –– ++ –– ++ –– ++
In this scenario, a hypothetical but realistic project for
Corrective
construction of a large privately-owned oil-re® nery Action
–– ++ –– ++ –– ++ –– ++
System

plant is considered. The project is characterized by a Measurement –– ++ –– ++ –– ++ –– ++

high degree of uncertainty. The contract is cost-reim- Goal Setting –– ++ –– ++ –– ++ –– ++

bursable type. Impacts of project team factor choices
Impact Scale: ++, Positive; +, Weak Positive; 0, Neutral; –, Weak Negative; – –, Negative.
on the TQM elements for this scenario are shown in
Figure 4. It can be shown that traditional team factor Figure 4 TQM factor-element impact matrix: Scenario 2
466
Analysis of model application
Based on the two scenarios examined, some conclu-
sions can be drawn:
1. For projects similar to Scenario 1 (medium-sized
publicly owned projects with a low degree of
uncertainty), success of TQM is less dependent on
project team factors. They are more in¯ uenced by
the project characteristics. In this type of project,
the ® nal team choice may leave some negative
impacts, but they are weak. However, success-
impact factors such as culture and attitude will
have great in¯ uence on the TQM elements.
2. For projects similar to Scenario 2 (large, pri-
vately owned, with high uncertainty), project
team choice is crucial. Fortunately, the appro-
priate project team choices are also more obvi-
ous (organic structure, democratic leadership
style and clan control).
3. The project team’ s structure need not be the
same as that of quality teams. Quality teams
should almost always be organic with clan
control. Close attention must be paid to them.
Conclusions can also be drawn about the impact of
each project team factor on each TQM element:
1. Structure impacts heavily on environment and
system. Its impact on the other two elements
depends on the project type.
2. The impact of control system has to be examined
in conjunction with the impact of structure.
Patterns are identical, because structure implies
the control system: formal for mechanistic struc-
ture and clan for organic structure. A mismatch
adversely impacts on the TQM elements.
3. Leadership style has a similar impact on the
TQM environment and organization regardless
of the type of project. Its impact on other TQM
elements ranges from moderate to heavy
depending on project characteristics.
4. Value has no impact on environment for any type
of project. Its impact on organization is similar
regardless of the type of project. Its impact on the
other TQM elements depends on project types.
Guideline for using the model
Based on the above discussion, the following guide-
lines can be suggested for using the model.
Step 1
Determine the project characteristics. Resolve such
questions as what type it is, whether the owner is public
or private, whether the contract is ® xed price or cost
reimbursable.
Ahmad and Sein
Step 2
Form the project team based on the project charac-
teristics identi® ed in step 1. Make choices of project
team factors as outlined in our model (`organizational
factors’). The design choices are the team type (mech-
anistic or organic), control system (formal or clan) and
leadership style (autocratic or democratic, based on the
leader selected). The values of the team, while a
contingency factor, will be determined by the team
members and the leadership style exercised.
Step 3
Apply the model by using the process described in
`Model applied’. Construct the factor-element impact
matrix (Figures 3 and 4 are examples) to determine
the impact of the contingency factors on TQM
elements.
Step 4
Examine the matrix to see which of these impacts are
negative. Keep project characteristics in mind. If none
of the impacts is negative, then the team choices are
appropriate for TQM.
Step 5
If there are negative impacts, then they have to be
minimized (turned to positive or at least neutral by
changing choices on team contingency factors). Repeat
steps 2± 4 until a feasible solution is found. A feasible
solution would ideally be a matrix without any nega-
tive impact. However, some negative impacts may
remain. Remember that some negative impacts are not
very strong. Moreover, a change made in a contin-
gency factor to turn a negative to a positive for one
TQM element may result in the opposite effect on
another TQM element. In that case, management
tactics such as partnering and alternate dispute reso-
lution will have to be used to minimize them.
Conclusion
Discussion of the model
While the model presented in this paper was developed
with the speci® c objective of providing guidelines to
form construction project teams for implementing
TQM it also identi® es factors that affect TQM in gen-
eral. It has been argued here that the success of TQM
cannot be assured by simply applying some principles,
nor by following generic guidelines to form project
teams. Rather, a contingency approach was taken,
where the project characteristics represent the primary
contingencies that moderate the effects of a speci® c pro-
ject team design on the success or failure of TQM.
Project terms for TQM
This model can also be used to develop general team
design guidelines, which can be applied outside the
TQM context. For example, in general, a project with
high uncertainty is better served by an organic team
employing clan control. By contrast, a mechanistic
organization with a formal control system is suitable
for projects with a low degree of uncertainty. It has
also been argued here that the degree to which such
choices can be made depends to a great extent on the
nature and attitude of the top management of the
parent organization itself. Therefore this model is
useful in identifying the organizational changes that
may have to be made in the parent organizations.
Research directions
The arguments made in this paper are based on sound
theoretical premises, backed by some anecdotal
evidence from the ® eld and the authors’ own experi-
ences. Clearly, there is a need to validate the model
through empirical research to determine whether
appropriately forming a construction project team, as
outlined here, leads to success in implementing TQM.
Given the nature and scope of the problem, adopting
a positivist research strategy is clearly not feasible. An
appropriate methodology is to use a qualitative (ethno-
graphic) approach. Initially a detailed case study can
be conducted. Multiple case studies of TQM initia-
tives in construction projects can then be undertaken
to examine more aspects of our model.
Some other speci® c avenues of research can also be
identi® ed. They are captured in the following research
questions:
1. Are there general team design principles that are
not contingent upon project characteristics?
2. Are all the team design factors controllable in
a construction project team?
3. Is team design ® xed, or does it need to evolve
into different forms during the project?
4. Can implementing TQM cause changes in
project team factors?
The factor-element impact model identi® ed attitudes
and beliefs of both the project team members and the
parent organization as playing important roles in the suc-
cess of TQM. Speci® c methods that can be used to fos-
ter appropriate attitudes need to be developed. Two
team-building approaches that lead to improvement
in quality indicators have recently been proposed.
Abudayyeh (1994) has described partnering as a process
to reduce con¯ ict among project team sub-units.
Albanese (1994) described how a team-building process
led to signi® cant improvement in project results. How
can untoward attitudes be corrected? The answers to the
questions raised in this section will go a long way towards
providing guidelines to implement TQM successfully.
467
References
Abudayyeh, O. (1994) Partnering: a team building approach
to quality construction management. Journal of Manage-
ment in Engineering, 10(6), 26± 9.
Albanese, R. (1994) Team-building process: key to better
project results. Journal of Management in Engineering,
10(6), 36± 44.
Anon (1993) TQM is under-utilized, according to a poll.
Engineering News Record, 230(5), 14.
Barrie, D. S. and Paulson, B. C. (1984) Professional Con-
struction Management. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bennett, J. (1985) Construction Project Management. Butter-
worths, London.
Bresnen, M. (1990) Organizing Construction: Project Organiz-
ation and Matrix Management. Routledge, London.
Burati, J. L., Matthews, M. F. and Kalidindi, S. N. (1992)
Quality management organizations and techniques.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118,
112± 28.
Creech, B. (1994) The Five Pillars of TQM. Truman Talley
Books, Plume, NY.
Crosby, P. B. (1979) Quality is Free. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Deffenbaugh, R. L. (1993) Total quality management at
construction jobsites. Journal of Management in Engineering,
9(4), 382± 9.
Eccles, R. (1981) The quasi® rm in construction. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, 2(3), 335± 57.
Grif® s, F. H. (1992) ADR, TQM, partnering and other
management fantasies. Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, 118(4), 331± 44.
Hackman, J. R. and Wageman, R. (1995) Total quality
management: empirical, conceptual, and practical issues.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 309± 42.
Hayden, W. M. (1992) Management’s fatal ¯ aw: TQM
obstacle. Journal of Management in Engineering, 8(2),
122± 8.
Juran, J. M. (1988) Juran on Planning for Quality. The Free
Press, New York.
Kast, F. E. and Rosenzweig, J. E. (1974) Organization and
Management: A systems Approach, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Oakland, J. S. (1993) Total Quality Management, 2nd edn.
Butterworth-Heinemann, London.
Ouichi, W. G. (1981) Theory Z, Avon Books, New York.
Rettig, M. and Simons, G. (1993) A project planning and
development process for small teams. Communications of
the ACM, 36(10), 45± 55.
Robey, D. (1994) Designing Organizations, 4th edn. Irwin,
Homewood, IL.
Shrednick, H. R., Shutt, R. and Weiss, M. (1992)
Empowerment: key to IS world-class quality. MIS
Quarterly, 16(4), 491± 505.
Stevens, J. D., Glagola, C. and Ledbetter, W. B. (1994)
Quality-measurement matrix. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 10(6), 30± 5.
Copyright of Construction Management & Economics is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.