Cost of quality versus cost of non-quality in construction: the crucial balance
The research is a pioneering attempt to determine the optimal level of investment in quality by construction companies. The methodology is based on quantifying the four types of quality-related costs in residential construction, and relates them to each other by expressing them all as percentages of the relevant total construction revenues (revenues to the company due to construction, excluding land, etc.). The findings reaffirm, on the one hand, that investing in quality is a worthy strategy and that, in the situations examined, the ratio of the direct benefits to the investment (in terms of savings on internal and external failures) is at least 2:1. On the other hand, the findings also show that an excess of quality costs (prevention and appraisal) is wasteful. Above a certain level of investment, the extra benefits are marginal, and thus do not offset the extra costs. Statistically fitted graphs, based on actual quantitative data, support this hypothesis, and provide approximate boundaries of effective versus ineffective investments in quality. In this study, the optimal range lies between 2% and 4% of the company's revenue. Investing less than 2% in prevention and appraisal will definitely entail higher failure costs, whereas an investment of over 4% most probably will not pay itself back.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 27 (2009)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCME20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RCME20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:conmgt:v:27:y:2009:i:2:p:107-117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.