Barriers to Effective Implementation of Quality Management Systems in

Public Design Projects in Iran

Hamid Abdirad a1 and Ahad Nazari b

a College of Built Environments, University of Washington, Seattle, USA; Email:

habdirad@uw.edu

b College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran; Email:

a_nazari@sbu.ac.ir

Abstract

The goal of this research is to investigate why architectural design practice in the public

domain in Iran has not implemented quality management systems (QMSs) as effectively as

expected. Through an in-depth review of the literature and a set of interviews, a framework of

challenges is identified and validated, and it served as the basis of a survey among high ranked

design firms active in public projects. This study shows there are many barriers to reach design

excellence, rooted in general policies and standards, characteristics of clients’ organizations, and

strategies and organizational factors in design firms. Although many design firms and agencies

in Iran have certification of accredited QMSs, realities of architectural design practice show that

norms in public projects clearly contradict principles of QMSs and make them ineffective. This

study reveals a strong need for developing QMSs that address (1) true definition of design

quality in standards and guidelines, (2) importance of final users and public community as true

customers of public projects, (3) strategies in design firm management and organizational

structures, (4) prerequisites of learning cycle in design projects, and (5) modifications in cultures

and interactions among parties involved in design decision-making.

Keywords: Design Quality, Design Management, Architectural Practice, Quality Management,

Public Buildings

1 Corresponding Author

Accepted Version: Abdirad, H. and Nazari, A. (2015) Barriers to Effective Implementation of Quality Management Systems in Public Design Projects in Iran, Journal of Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Taylor and Francis; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17452007.2015.1049973

Introduction

Quality, in general, is an extent to which characteristics and features of a service or a product

meet requirements (International Organization for Standardization, 2005). Royal Institute of

British Architects (RIBA) uses a similar definition of quality in design practice, indicating that

quality is the ability of a service or product to satisfy ‘needs’ (RIBA, 2006). In this regard,

American Institute of Architects (AIA) introduces the concept of “design excellence” that

addresses ‘needs’ of three major stakeholders, including (1) design practice and industry

participants, (2) project stakeholders and contracting parties, and (3) building users and public

communities (AIA, 1989). In design management literature, needs and requirements of these

stakeholders have been defined in two complementary forms, including (1) qualities of design

processes and (2) qualities of design products (Blyth & Worthington, 2000; Prasad, 2004;

Sebastian, 2005; Volker, 2010). Quality of design processes focuses on structure of tasks, and

efficiency and integration of information flows during design, while quality of a design product

should address functional needs as well as intangible requirements (e.g. character, innovation,

and sense of place; Sebastian, 2005; Whyte, Gann, & Salter, 2004; Volker, 2010). For evaluating

these qualities, according to the literature, quantitative metrics can directly measure process

performance and tangible outcomes, while for intangible criteria, stakeholder judgments are

usually scaled statistically (PMI, 2003). Prior research suggests that an integrated approach for

maximizing quality in both paradigms is required in architectural practice (Prasad, 2004;

Giddings et al., 2013).

Providing such definitions of quality in design practice is essential, especially for design

products, because architecture impacts different elements at the center of quality of life from the

standpoints of individual and social comfort, feelings, behaviors, and well-being (CABE, 2006b;

MacMillan, 2006). Poor design quality imposes tangible and intangible costs that are usually

paid by users and communities, and not by decision makers who underrate intangible values of

design (CABE, 2006a). This impact can become more important in public projects that are more

significant from the standpoints of scale, type, size, stakeholders, and local factors (CABE,

2006b). Although reports in many countries stress the urgency of valuing quality in architectural

practice, design excellence still seems hard to achieve. For instance, The Scottish Executive

reported that there is “a general acceptance of the need to raise public awareness and debate

about [quality of the] built environment” (Hope, Cumming, & King, 2005, p. 5). Evaluating U.S.

federal facilities, Wright (1989) states that the emphasis on cost and budgeting issues in the

public sector negatively impacts design quality of facilities. According to UK National Audit

Office, most public funded projects have focused on capital costs rather than quality and impact

of design. The Dutch Audit Office highlights that public agencies should consider value adding

aspects of architecture for the whole society instead of focusing on capital expenditures (Dewulf

& van Meel, 2004). However, such a transition from a cost oriented design to a value-based

design has been extremely challenging (Keniger, 2004).

So far, many quality assessment tools have been developed to evaluate qualities of design

processes and products (Eley, 2004; Gann, Salter, & Whyte, 2003; Giddings, Sharma, Jones, &

Jensen, 2010, 2013; Swan & Kyng, 2004). Although scholars have documented the potential

advantages of these tools in providing a common language and stimulating discussions about

quality (e.g. Dewulf & van Meel, 2004; Volker, 2010; Whyte & Gann, 2003), they have also

listed many shortcomings in implementation QMSs. Though some shortcomings relate to the

scope and structure of tools (Giddings et al., 2013; Markus, 2003), many challenges in their

implementation originate from organizational strategies and cultures. For instance, lack of

accountability, pitfalls in the organizational learning cycle, and high bargaining power of clients

are some of these challenges (Eley, 2004; Slaughter, 2004; Whyte and Gann, 2003). According

to Project Management Institute (PMI, 2008, 2013), a design project team may not have the

ability or power to effectively address and control such issues located in organizational cultures

and governance.

Quality management systems (QMS) are developed to promote the quality culture in all

organizational levels (Williams and Buswell, 2003). QMSs consist of quality planning, quality

control, quality assurance, and quality improvement processes, which support setting up quality

policies, and defining and providing means, resources, and procedures to assess, improve, and

maintain quality in organizations (International Organization for Standardization, 2005).

Although the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry has mandated

implementation of accredited QMSs in design firms and in public agencies in some countries

(Landin, 2000; RIBA, 2010; Samsudin, Ayop, Sahab, & Ismail, 2012), there are still many

barriers at organizational and strategic levels that make QMSs ineffective. Prior research on

QMS applications in the AEC industry has mostly focused on construction firms in the

construction and fabrication stages as quality of construction seems more tangible than design

quality (e.g. Bubshait & Al-Atiq, 1999; Cachadinha, 2009; Hoonakke, Carayon, & Loushine,

2010; Low & Omar, 1997; Pheng & Teo, 2004; Samsudin et al., 2012). Although few

researchers have studied QMSs in architectural design firms (e.g. Bubshait, Farooq, Jannadi, &

Assaf, 1999; Ezeldin & Abu-Ghazala, 2007; Salgado, 2011), their focus is mostly on building

defects initiated by bad design, instead of considering organizational and decision making issues

that impact design excellence. Therefore, there is a gap in research on challenges of

implementing QMSs at strategic levels of design projects. The purpose of this paper is to

investigate why QMSs are not as effective as implementers in design practice intended,

especially in public projects.

Literature Review and Background

Quality and Architectural Design Practice

Many theories on architectural quality of buildings are based on Vitruvius’ definition of quality

(Markus & Cameron, 2002; Prasad, 2004; Talbott, 2007; Volker, 2010). For instance, “Design

Quality Indicator” of UK Construction Industry Council (CIC) considers “Functionality,” “Build

Quality,” and “Impact” as three major criteria for assessing qualities of a building (CIC, 2012).

In that model, different project participants collaboratively determine each criterion’s importance

as (1) fundamental, (2) value adding, or (3) excellence. AIA’s design excellence model has a

slightly different perspective. It considers a hierarchy of needs for a building, consisting six

levels of (1) a simple shelter, (2) meeting codes and standard requirements, (3) meeting project

schedule and budget, (4) functionality and usability, (5) satisfying major stakeholders, and (6)

satisfying users, communities, and the profession. In this model, the first four levels are quality

thresholds, and they do not satisfy intangible requirements that can lead to achieving design

excellence. These models suggest that design excellence is an essential part of the architectural

design profession, because many non-architects can easily follow the codes and meet the tangible

threshold criteria (AIA, 1989). However, managing design excellence is still challenging due to

the strategies of project participants that underrate (1) indispensable qualities of design products

or (2) importance of processes that could lead to such qualities.

Quality Management Systems in Architectural Design Practice

Quality management systems consist of administrative processes that can potentially improve

and maintain quality in accord with objectives (Tang, Ahmed, Aoieong, & Poon, 2005). These

processes generally include quality planning, quality control, quality assurance, and quality

improvement to set up quality policies and support them (International Organization for

Standardization, 2005). Quality planning is for setting quality objectives and planning resources

required for meeting quality requirements. Quality control supports preventing and correcting

defects in pre-production, production, and post-production stages. Quality assurance focuses on

assuring that prerequisites (e.g. workforce, technologies, materials) of providing/creating a high-

quality service or product are available. Finally, quality improvement processes focus on

identifying potential areas of improvement, and execution of improvement tasks on QMSs and

resulting services/products (Atkinson, 2005; Hoyle, 2007; Ireland, 1991; Tang et al., 2005).

According to International Organization for Standardization (2005), underlying principles and

success factors of these processes include customer focus, leadership, involvement of people,

continuous improvement, factual approach to decision-making, and mutual beneficial

relationships with service providers.

A client, in public funded projects, is an agency that initiates procurements and signs off

design-brief, design-outcome, construction, and handover. A project client may either act as a

project sponsor to fund the project or argue cases and negotiate with a sponsor parent agency for

funding. Given this definition, prior research indicates that the first and most important reason

for implementing QMSs in design practice is the external forced by clients. Intentions to gain

momentum in the market, and internal desire to improve productivity and products of design

were ranked as subsequent drivers (Nelson, 2006). QMSs are either non-accredited or accredited

(Williams & Buswell, 2003). In case of public funded projects, governmental agencies in some

countries such as Australia (Nelson, 2006) and the UK (RIBA, 2010) have mandated

implementation of accredited QMSs in design firms. In some countries, accredited QMSs is not

obligatory but would provide design firms with extra points in qualification assessment processes

(Nelson, 2006).

Challenges in Managing Quality in Architectural Practice

In most industries, external pressures for certification, and not quality itself, is the major reason

for service providers to adopt QMSs. The problem with this approach is that organizational

decision makers do not consider quality as a strategic requirement (Hoyle, 2007; Samsudin et al.,

2012). Spillinger (2000) points out quality management certifications just confirm that

organizations have mapped and measured processes, regardless of the quality level they have

achieved. Hence, no QMS certification can guarantee any quality level without strategic

commitments. Nelson (2006) acknowledges such an issue is problematic in architectural

practice, because established “personality” of design firms and their perceptions of quality would

be hard to change without strategic commitments. Hence, for addressing quality issues in

projects, characteristics of clients, design teams, and project organizations should be taken into

account (CABE, 2006b). The context of architectural design projects has both internal and

external forces that may impede well-implementation of quality management concepts.

Construction industry, as an external force, values less cost and shorter duration of projects as

main objectives (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004). This is problematic because effectiveness of a

QMS is dependent on support of all stakeholders who believe quality is not an obstacle to meet

performance objectives (Keniger, 2004).

Volker (2010) categorizes qualities of a design product into tangible and intangible criteria.

Tangible qualities are quantifiable, and objective evaluation of them is feasible. Intangible

criteria are challenging to quantify because their evaluation is dependent on subjective and

personal preferences of people. However, intangible criteria are the ones that can make a project

architecturally unique and meaningful (Blyth & Worthington, 2000; Volker, 2010). Conventional

design assessment tools aim to mitigate physical defects of buildings, while design quality of an

architecturally excellent building is far from a defect-free building (Eley, 2004). Although

defining objective assessment criteria for intangibles is challenging, this does not mean that

users/communities do not have any expectation of intangibles (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004;

Volker, 2010). To overcome this challenge in evaluating intangible criteria, benchmarking

successful design projects could be beneficial (Whyte & Gann, 2003). Accordingly, researchers

have encouraged the use of systematic approaches to collecting expectations and experiences of

stakeholders. According to CABE (2003), such a learning cycle can be implemented through

different processes, including getting feedback from existing buildings, getting feedback from

on-going design and construction projects, post occupancy evaluation (POE) in completed

projects, and applying learnings to future projects. However, a challenge to conduct these

processes is that project parties are not willing to commit resources for such studies (Volker,

2010).

Even if a design team can assess intangible criteria, a more challenging problem could be

collective decision making on design quality. Wright (1989), in the context of U.S. federal

projects, reported that quality objectives of a project are completely dependent on personal

preference of project leaders. This provides a unique context for architectural design projects,

because a small group of decision makers impose their judgment on a large group of users (Eley,

2004). Even if project participants try to judge quality criteria objectively, they have this

dilemma about how to find the best solution for all stakeholders (Whyte & Gann, 2003). For this

reason, CABE (2009) has proposed conducting external design reviews by inviting independent

and multidisciplinary experts to local and regional review panels for identifying quality issues at

an early stage, and bringing insights and experiences beyond those of the project team or

authorities. According to Volker (2010), however, such judgements may be still different from

preferences of public communities and users. Possible solutions suggested by the literature are to

prioritize stakeholders based on building types (AIA, 1989), and prioritize stakeholders based on

their duration of occupancy and their role in the facility operation stage (Volker, 2010).

However, there is no consensus on this issue among professionals.

As quality is dependent on tight collaboration of all project participants (Spillinger, 2000), the

industry cannot consider architects as the sole responsible party for design quality (Dewulf &

van Meel, 2004). Although it is proven that collaboration and involvement of all parties is

beneficial to reach a consensus on design, creating such a collaborative environment is very

challenging (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004). Slaughter (2004) explains the impact of bargaining

power in design projects, where a client imposes decisions as a result of its ownership on the

project. Consequently, a designer may compromise some issues because of other opportunities

like future potential projects with a client. This is even worse for final users and occupants, who

have the weakest bargaining power in public projects. People may not be in the position to

choose not to use public buildings because buildings are not like generic everyday products from

the standpoints of required resources, functions, and their life-span (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004;

Eley, 2004).

Wirick (2009) lists barriers to meet quality requirements in the public sector, including low bid

purchasing strategies, lack of incentive policies for high-quality works, and instability in

priorities. Wright (1989) acknowledged that extra pressure from public sector on cost reduction

in some U.S. federal projects misled the design and resulted in inferior quality. Public officials

have the duty to keep costs low (CABE, 2006a), and this suppresses a long-term value a good

design can make (Volker, 2010). The extent to which a public agency adheres to cost cutting

policies is dependent on its size, missions, geographical location, and management policies and

design guidelines (Wright, 1989). Building high-quality facilities is not a core mission of most

agencies, and they build facilities to support their core missions that are merely functional

(Spillinger, 2000). Another problem initiated by public agencies is overly extensive design

guidelines that limit designers’ freedom to generate innovative ideas (Wright, 1989). Further,

standards are not applied consistently in different projects and their impact on each other usually

remains unknown. Therefore, to facilitate achieving quality in design, there is need for

developing simpler yet more consistent and comprehensive standards (CABE, 2010).

Challenges to manage design excellence in architectural practice have also roots in strategies of

design firms. AIA (1989) states that success is a long-term performance of a design firm from

the standpoints of industrial relations and recognition. Success does not automatically result in

design excellence in every project, and providing services just as what a client requires will not

assure a high-quality design (AIA, 1989). Coxe et al. (1986) introduce the concept of

“positioning matrix” for design firms. This matrix suggests that values in a client’s organization

impose some directions on the way design firms orient their organizations. These three directions

form (1) strong delivery firms, (2) strong service firms, and (3) strong idea firms. Strong delivery

firms shape themselves to satisfy time and budget requirements, and to save money by using

repetitive design patterns in multiple projects. Strong service firms can meet special functional

requirements of complex projects, for which strong delivery firms do not have enough

experience and expertise to satisfy expectations. Strong idea firms deal with clients who look for

innovative design ideas that make a building architecturally unique in an important public venue

(AIA, 1989). These orientations directly impact several strategic areas in each firm, including (1)

design processes, (2) organizational structure and project decision-making, (3) staffing and

recruitment at the project level, (4) choice of a best market and client types (e.g. building types),

(5) marketing system (6) project pricing and employee reward systems, and (7) organizational

leadership and management style (Coxe et al., 1986). Any design firm can do their business

successfully by implementing any of strategy sets defined in the positioning matrix. However,

prior research showed firms that could regularly reach design excellence in their projects have

had management strategies compatible with “strong idea” firms (AIA, 1989). Hence, design

firms’ strategies are indicators of both internal and external barriers to reach design excellence in

public projects.

Taken together, these views support the fact that both design firms and clients, and their

patterns of interaction and decision making can be a source of quality deficiencies. The authors

classified aforementioned issues in the form of a framework, which is validated and shaped by an

expert panel as illustrated in Table 1. This framework serves as the basis for following steps of

this research.

Table 1 - A Framework of Strategic Challenges to Implement Quality Management in Architectural Design

Practice

A.

Public client general policies:

- External pressures for certification as the major reason to adopt QMSs (Hoyle, 2007; Samsudin et al., 2012)

- Public agencies that set policies and guidelines on design excellence are not among construction clients and

do not seek their contributions (Expert Panel)

- The extent to which policies and guidelines on design excellence are considered mandatory is ambiguous

(Expert Panel)

- Public audits mostly focus on costs rather than on architectural qualities and values a project can make

(Wright, 1989)

B.

Characteristics and norms in a public client organization:

- Focusing on productivity rather than on quality of products (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004)

- Considering criteria that are unable to assess true architectural quality and design excellence (Volker, 2010)

- Agencies’ missions, geographical conditions, and internal management can alter quality of design (Wright,

1989)

- Overly extensive guidelines limit designers’ freedom to create innovative ideas as design options (Wright,

1989)

- Client acts as customers who are willing to pay only for a repetitive and clearly priced product (Volker, 2010)

- Imposing judgments on a large group of users that are not in a position to refuse use public buildings.

- Public clients set thresholds of quality to the lowest acceptable quality in public domain (Eley, 2004)

Staff in public client organization:

- Personal preferences impact judgments and decisions on design quality (Wright, 1989)

- Underrating architectural quality and inability to align goals of final users and clients (Wright, 1989)

- Personnel competencies are not as significant as competencies in private organizations (Wright, 1989)

C.

Characteristics and norms in a design firms:

- The established “personality” of a design firm would typically be hard to change (Nelson, 2006)

- Value system in a design firm (Business oriented vs. Design Practice oriented) (AIA, 1989).

- Choosing strategies that are not fit for ‘design excellence’ due to external pressure (AIA, 1989)

- Choosing a definition of service and success that is not favorable in design projects (AIA, 1989).

Staff in charge of a project in a design firm:

- Conflicts between personal values and employer/client’s value systems (Volker, 2010)

- Design values in a firm will be adopted and retained by team members (AIA, 1989)

D.

Defining quality criteria for design projects:

- Criteria mostly address a defect-free building rather than an excellent design (Eley, 2004).

- Inability of some stakeholder to express their expectations and requirements clearly (Dewulf & van Meel,

2004)

- Challenges in defining and interpreting intangible criteria (Volker, 2010)

Benchmarking and learning-cycle:

- Inability to benchmark and learn from success factors of similar projects (Whyte & Gann, 2003).

- Excluding POE from internal/outsourced processes (Volker, 2010).

E.

Interactions and collaborative decision making:

- Lack of standard procedures for prioritizing stakeholders’ needs and wants (AIA, 1989; Volker, 2010).

- Preferences of designers/decision-makers are different from public community’s preferred options (Volker,

2010).

Prioritizing stakeholders and their requirements:

- Designers think that quality assessment suppresses creative design (Prasad, 2004).

- Designers may compromise some issues because of future potential projects with a client.

- Clients misuse their bargaining power in decision making (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004).

Research Methodology

As Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009) suggest, the authors first determine acceptable

knowledge in this field of study, and how a researcher can gain that knowledge. The dynamic

nature of architectural practice suggests that findings cannot be universally generalized because

participants’ actions, socio-cultural variables, and interactions are too complex to suggest a

universal pattern, and the authors do not intend to generalize findings to all cultures, countries,

and projects. Instead, they aim for an internal generalization in the specific context selected for

this study (Onwuegbuzie & Nancy, 2007). For this reason, as Mack (2010) put it, findings will

“resonate” with people who have similar concerns, and the reader can determine the extent to

which findings are applicable to another context. Further, these dynamics may not be observable

by an outsider. Therefore, gaining knowledge on this topic requires interpretations of actors

actively involved in the practice.

The objective of this research is to investigate why design practice has not implemented QMSs

and tools as effectively as expected, and how realities of architectural practice make QMSs

ineffective. The authors selected Iranian architectural design practice in public sector as the

context of this research for two reasons. First, generic QMSs are trending and implicitly

mandatory in the Iranian public projects, though their effectiveness in quality of design has been

subject to question. Second, the extent to which previous research on this topic can be applicable

in Iran is still unknown, because procedural, political, and cultural issues in public projects in

Iran are not similar to the contexts of prior studies (mostly in the U.K. and U.S.). The authors

conducted a survey research with triangulation of data collection methods (interview and

questionnaire) to validate the framework (Table 1), to identify context-specific issues, to

investigate which issues are more salient in Iran, and where these issues should be addressed in

QMSs.

In the first-stage, authors presented the framework to a group of five experts to determine the

extent to which findings from other countries can be applicable in the Iranian context, and to add

contextual factors to the framework as well. The criteria used for invitation and selection of

experts were having: (1) a leading position and more than 15 years of experience either in a

public client organization (as clients’ representatives) or in a design firm (as design managers)

involved in public projects, and (2) experience in forms of researching/teaching architectural

design management in academia. Through a semi-structured interview, invited experts

categorized, added to, and validated contents of the framework (Table 1).

In the second stage, the framework served as the basis for a survey to investigate experiences

of high-ranked design firms involved in dynamic nature of public projects in Iran. Here, the

authors explain how the government ranks design firms, and why the authors choose Rank-1

firms for the survey. National Management and Planning Organization (MPORG) evaluates

design firms qualifications, and ranks them based on academic education and professional

experience of staff, design experience of firms (in the form of yearly charged design fees), and

management certifications (MPORG, 2006). The government has defined three ranks based on

such criteria, and firms in each rank may participate in projects with a predefined

maximum/minimum budget threshold. The authors invited Rank-1 firms to take the survey based

on following considerations. First, they are the most experienced design firms in the country.

Second, they can participate in largest and highest value public projects, in which architectural

quality and value of design can become nationally important. Third, from the standpoint of

success, as defined by AIA (1989), they have favorable financial status, industrial relations, and

recognition. Lastly, almost all of them have the ISO-9000 certification, and reflection of their

experience can show whether QMSs works effectively in this context or not. Although being

certified is not explicitly mandated by Iranian public clients, it provides design firms with extra

scores in RFQ/RFP processes. Consequently, almost all Rank-1 firms are ISO-9000 certified in

order to keep up their competitiveness. As of 2013, MPORG listed 113 rank-1 design firms as

qualified firms to participate in design projects (MPORG, 2011). The authors sent the survey to

55 randomly selected design firms (from the population size of 113) in forms of paper-based and

online questionnaires, to be filled by design managers. Each respondent was responsible for

design processes, interactions, and decisions within his or her organization. A total of 36 firms

returned the questionnaires, providing a response rate of 65%. Eleven respondents partially

completed the survey, and therefore, twenty five responses (45%) were completely valid and

included in the analysis.

The findings of survey were presented to the expert panel to seek their interpretation of

findings and additional comments around the framework. As questionnaires by their nature are

very structured and they cannot go deep into meanings, the experts added more explanations and

interpretations to the findings. Further, as some experts are owner-representatives, this enabled

this study to include interpretations from a public client’s perspective alongside that of design

firms. The authors coded experts as Interviewee 1 to Interviewee 5 to report their insights in the

findings section. Finally, the experts linked each item of the framework to corresponding quality

management principles and success factors to clarify how these strategic issues make QMSs

ineffective.

Findings

The analysis on profiles of respondents revealed that 68% of design managers in design firms

have degrees in architectural engineering (44% M.Sc., 12% Ph.D., and 12% B.Sc.). This was

followed by civil engineering and project management (CEPM) majors (20% M.Sc. and 12%

B.Sc.), and urban design (M.Sc.) with 4%. The age of design firms in this study ranged between

9 to 32 years, with the average of 24 years. All firms had at least one rank-1 qualification, 92%

with for designing residential, commercial, military, and industrial buildings, and 60% for

designing educational, medical, and sporting facilities. This warranted that design firms have had

long experience of working with public agencies in different project types.

The questionnaire had three sections. The first set of questions investigated organizational

strategies in design firms (based on section C in Table 1). The second section addressed the

status of POE studies in the public projects (based on section D in Table 1). The third section

focused on design firms’ experiences and observations of organizational policies, strategies, and

interactions in public clients (based on sections A, B, and E in Table 1).

For the first section, the authors used concepts from the super-positioning model developed by

Coxe et al. (1986), because, to the authors’ knowledge, it is the sole model that interweaves

organizational strategies to architectural design quality (AIA, 1989). Considering the realities of

public projects in Iran and strategies firms can adopt in this context, the authors designed this

section by reviewing and modifying the original model and two modified versions of it (Cheung

G, 1994; Coxe et al., 1987; Fanek, 1993). This approach facilitated attaining unbiased responses

because the authors did not express in the survey that some strategies are indicators of strong

idea firms that are more likely to achieve design excellence.

Respondents were required to give information on 13 strategic areas in order to reflect whether

they are strong delivery, strong service, or strong idea firms. First, each strategic area was

individually analyzed to show how firms collectively oriented themselves in each area (Figure

1). In seven strategic areas, strong-delivery indicators were dominant. This includes strategies on

(1) project organizational structure, (2) staffing and recruitment criteria, (3) project pricing

system, (4) clients’ priorities and expectations from the firm, (5) firms’ constitution and

ownership status, (6) firm-wide decision making, and (7) benefit-increasing strategies. In four

strategic areas including (1) firms’ advantage in attracting clients, (2) range of charged fees, (3)

executives’ participation in projects, and (4) salaries and rewards, strong-service indicators were

dominant. Only in two areas strong-idea indicators were prevailing among design firms,

including experience of the employees and project decision-making style. It is apparent that

except for these two strategic areas, the majority of firms have not implemented strong-idea

strategies that potentially can lead to design excellence. For eight strategic areas, less than 20%

of the firms showed indications of being strong-idea firms. This analysis shows which strategic

issues are more salient and can potentially be addressed in QMSs of design firms (e.g. project

organizational structure, and staffing). Further, it shows public clients’ priorities and

expectations of services and products have impacted strategies of design firms, and this should

be mitigated in QMSs of public clients.

The authors also analyzed how chosen strategies in each firm collectively shape its dominant

direction. This analysis is based on the number of indicators each firm selected in the three

strategy sets (Figure 2). This analysis showed that for 60% of firms, the strong-service approach

was dominant, followed by the strong-delivery approach with 16% and the strong-idea approach

with 4%. Some firms have shown a similar inclination towards two approaches; 12% showed the

same number of indicators for strong-delivery and strong-service approaches. Mixed-directions

of idea-service and idea-delivery approaches each did not exceed 4% of design firms (Figure 3).

This analysis shows although strategies most design firms have implemented may satisfy

requirements of functionally complex projects, they may not stimulate innovation and excellence

in design. Interviewee #2 said in this regard: “After all, owners get what they expect, and it is not

very inspirational usually, and does not need participatory interactions [among all stakeholders];

for designers [in this culture] it is a matter of profit, smooth transaction, and marketing for

similar projects, and I think everything is structured as both sides expect.”

Figure 1 – Internal organization and project management strategies applied by design firms

Figure 2 - Number of indicators each firm has selected in each of three strategy sets

Figure 3 - Dominant directions design firms

In the second section, respondents were asked whether they conduct POE studies in their scope

of services, and what their motive for conducting such a study is. As shown in Figure 4, only

twenty percent of firms conduct POE studies. Of these, only 20% of firms reported that clients

expect POE from them, while 80% indicated their internal interest is the motive to conduct POE.

The expert panel emphasized this issue is problematic even for tangible design qualities.

“Obligatory design codes have rarely been updated for functional [e.g. movement, ergonomic,

psychological effects, etc.] and social aspects. Although many countries incorporate their lessons

learned into their codes and standards, we have not implemented a systematic learning cycle

throughout the country” (Interviewee #4).

Figure 4 - Conducting POE studies and the motivation

The third section of the survey focused on experience of design firms regarding quality

management issues initiated by organizational issues in public clients. The authors used five-

point scale questions on 22 statements extracted from the framework (Figure 5). This type of

question provides the respondents freedom to express their experience, and to determine to what

degree they agree with each identified challenge (Jolley & Mitchell, 2012). To increase

reliability of responses, the questionnaire contained “control questions” to avoid repetitive

patterns in the responses (Kothari, 2004). Figure 5 presents descriptive statistics of the agreement

level of respondents on each statement. In addition, to assess quantitative internal

generalizability in the selected context, the authors performed one-sample t-test (test value = 3)

to determine whether the mean values are significantly different from the neutral value (which is

3), followed by analyzing whether that difference strongly supports the framework (Table 2).

Figure 5 - Reflection of design firms on their experience in public projects

The results show that 19 out of 22 statements are strongly supported by the respondents and

achieved statistical significance. Statements that questioned whether architects have freedom to

express their interests and ideas, whether respondents are aware of binding codes on design

excellence, and whether geographical location impact on clients’ perspective on design quality

did not receive significant support. One expert argued that “at this rank of projects, both design

firms and public clients completely know each other [because a limited number of owners, and a

limited number of design firms can participate in such large projects], and a long-term

relationship has been established. So, they know what binding codes [from the owners’

perspective] are, and they [are free to] discuss many issues, though obviously owners have more

bargaining power.” (Interviewee #2)

Table 2 - Results from t-test and level of support and significance

Statement

Number

Mean Significance

Level

Mean Difference

(test value = 3)

Rank Strongly

Supports the

Framework

S1 2.2000 <0.001** -.80000 9 Yes

S2 2.4800 <0.020* -.52000 18 Yes

S3 2.5200 <0.031* -.48000 19 Yes

S4 2.6250 <0.175 -.37500 20 Not Statistically

S5 2.4167 <0.005** -.58333 14 Yes

S6 2.1200 <0.000** -.88000 5 Yes

S7 3.5600 <0.013* .56000 16 Yes

S8 3.8400 <0.004** .84000 8 Yes

S9 3.5600 <0.024* .56000 15 Yes

S10 3.6800 <0.003** .68000 11 Yes

S11 3.9200 <0.000** .92000 4 Yes

S12 3.8400 <0.000** .84000 7 Yes

S13 3.2800 <0.230 .28000 21 Not Statistically

S14 3.6000 <0.010* .60000 13 Yes

S15 1.6000 <0.000** -1.40000 1 Yes

S16 3.5600 <0.032* .56000 17 Yes

S17 3.6250 <0.025* .62500 12 Yes

S18 3.8800 <0.000** .88000 6 Yes

S19 3.0417 <0.862 .04167 22 No

S20 3.9600 <0.000** .96000 3 Yes

S21 2.2800 <0.002** -.72000 10 Yes

S22 4.0000 <0.000** 1.00000 2 Yes

* Significance Level <0.05

** Significance Level < 0.005

Statements #15 and # 22 achieved the strongest agreement level; they highlight that clients

underrate design excellence in projects in which they are not a user/occupant, and they do not

seek opinions and expectations of future users and occupants. These were followed by the

statements #20, #11, #6, and #18, which respectively confirm that Iranian public design suffers

from limiting design quality to defect-free buildings, lack of competencies in public officials,

lack of strict audits over design quality, and inappropriate understanding of design service in

public projects. These findings are also confirmed by the expert panel:

“Design fees, determined by the public sector, do not match the risks, responsibilities, and

services designers are expected to bear for an innovative design idea. As a result, public projects

usually end up with conventional design solutions, which are only functional structures, not

architectural buildings… exceptions are open design competitions, in which a series of ideas is

acquired with a relatively small award.” (Interviewee #2)

In regard to competencies, the expert panel argued that one should not blame owner

representatives as though a series of substitution and re-hires would resolve all issues.

“Owner representatives at the project level do not have much freedom to ask for value adding

services, post-occupancy evaluation for example, as they need to follow the standard guidelines

for architectural design services in all projects…” (Interviewee #3)

“… [they] are very distant from design processes, their comments rarely go beyond project

budget, timeliness, and facilitation of coordination issues between designers and contractors, so

it feels like some of them are not aware what it takes to architecturally design a building…”

(Interviewee #5) “[…] this might be due to their involvement in several projects at a given time.”

(Interviewee #1)

Standard deviations (SD), as presented in Figure 5, range from 0.64 to 1.31. This shows that

responses are not polarized in some statements. This could be interpreted as saying that some

public agencies may completely differ from others in certain standpoints. For instance, results on

statement #4 suggest that the government’s binding codes do not address design excellence in

many project types. However, the SD highlights that different experiences were also observed

among design firms. The results for statements #8 and #17 suggest that although decision

making challenges exist in the industry, some firms have not regularly experienced such

challenges in their practice. Interviewee #1 confirmed that “few projects become salient and

nationally important, and clients would not easily disregard their image […] this happens for

certain public agencies with more power [and influence in the nation] and in certain building

types” (emphasis added). The strongest consensus view in the survey (lowest SD) was observed

for statement #15, in which respondents acknowledged that public clients do not seek opinions

and expectations of final users. This was followed by statement #6, in which the results confirm

that public audits do not hold strict controls on design excellence. These suggest that the most

serious challenge in this context is the way most public agencies underrate the impact of design

on public community and the built environment. Taken together, findings of the survey and

interviews provide important insights into the quality management issues design practice has

faced in Iran.

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of this study show that although all design firms in this research and many public

agencies, with whom these firms often work, have certification of an accredited QMS, realities

of architectural design practice clearly contradict the principles and success factors of QMSs. As

presented in Table 3, the expert panel attempted to link the identified issues to quality

management principles to show where identified challenges should be addressed in QMSs of

design firms and public agencies. These findings suggest that conventional quality management

language and requirements have shortcomings in considering implications of quality

management in public design projects. A possible explanation for these results may be the

dissimilarities of architectural practice to other industries from the standpoint of fitness for

implementation of generic QMSs. As Eley (2004) explained, construction industry has a unique

context for defining customers and interpreting quality; it requires more expensive resources,

incorporates different types of services, and has unique processes for interacting and decision-

making over quality of design in public projects. Additionally, due to underlying economic,

social, and cultural factors, quality management in public design may not be a strategic concern,

neither in public agencies nor in design firms (Hoyle, 2007). Some issues this study raises have

also been observed in best-practices as well. For instance, Roaf, Crichton, and Nicol (2009)

reported despite of conducting POE studies regularly in the U.K., little efforts have been made to

effectively improve building standards in order to avoid repeating same mistakes. They also

reported some concerns regarding biased views of design review panels and issues of power in

public works (pp. 322-323). Findings of this study assert that public design requires a serious

attention towards strategic commitments to quality among all project participants and responsible

agencies.

Table 3 - Linking Challenges in Managing Quality of Design Projects to Principles of Quality Management

Systems

Quality Management Principles

(International Organization for

Standardization, 2005)

Realities in Architectural Practice in Public Domain

(summarized from the validated framework and surveys)

Customer Focus Public

clients

They underrate design excellence criteria that could

benefit public communities and people as the first and

most important customers of public facilities.

Design

Firms

Inappropriate perception of “Architectural Service”

and “Architectural Practice.” They have a dilemma in

prioritizing stakeholders.

Leadership

Public

clients

Focusing on cost cutting policies to enhance

efficiency and schedule optimization. Quality

standards for design excellence are sometimes non-

binding.

Design

Firms

Adopting organizational strategies that may not lead

to design excellence at the project level.

Involvement of people

Public

clients

Leaning towards personal judgments of clients’

representatives in decision making over intangibles.

Competencies, roles, and responsibilities of clients’

representatives should be re-defined.

Design

Firms

Project team members are not involved in decision

making over design trends, processes, and products.

Process Approach Public

clients

&

Design

Firms

Deficiencies in (1) defining quality, (2) assessing

quality, (3) leading decision-making processes, and

(4) improving quality are all showing that quality

management processes, including quality planning,

quality assurance, quality control, and quality

improvement, are not implemented effectively.

Continuous Improvement Public

clients

Underrating the value of POE studies in quality

assessment and improvement. No systematic approach

for using POE studies and updating standards.

Design

Firms

Deficiencies in the learning cycle (projects to

projects). Excluding POE from the scope of works

and services.

Factual approach to decision-making Public

clients

Suspecting that intangible aspects of design could be

value adding to the public comfort (Value vs. Cost).

Design

Firms

Strategic actions in interactive processes of design

decision making. Repeating a set of decisions as

permanent guidelines for all projects.

Mutual beneficial relationships with suppliers Public

clients

Due to their high-bargaining power and other

organizational issues, public clients may disregard

other stakeholders and impose decisions.

System Approach to Management Public

clients

Extensive inflexible guidelines that result in repetitive

management and product patterns in design projects.

Design

Firms

Oversimplifying management of design projects, as

though a generic product going to be manufactured.

The design management structure is not stimulating

design excellence throughout the whole organization.

The present study makes some noteworthy contributions to the existing knowledge. This is the

first study that attempts to link and translate multilateral organizational issues in architectural

design practice to standard quality management language by developing and validating a

framework of challenges in managing quality in public design projects. This research is also the

first study that interweaves strategic challenges of design firms with those of public agencies,

and shows how each side should approach principles and success factors of QMSs (Table 3).

In conclusion, this study reveals a strong need for developing QMSs that deal with realities of

practice in public projects in Iran. Such a system should address (1) true definition of quality in

setting design criteria, (2) importance of final users and communities as true customers of public

projects, and allocating resources to engage them and address their expectations, (3) strategies in

design management and shaping organizational structures in public projects, (4) learning cycles

in design projects, and (5) modifications in processes and cultures of interactions among parties

involved in decision-making. Although QMSs themselves are not the objective, and they are

possible means to an end, this study emphasizes that quality requirements and language in QMSs

must be continuously improved to be effective in the practice.

Although some executive reports even in developed countries have criticized some similar

issues in public design practice regarding policies on design quality and valuing good design

(e.g. Hope et al., 2005 in Scotland), the current study has examined and validated the framework

only in Iranian public projects. As a result, there is a limitation in generalizability of findings,

and they might not be applicable to other countries, though the goal is to raise an international

awareness on higher-level organizational issues. As most studies on this topic are conducted on

best-practices in the U.K and the U.S., further research should explore strategies different

countries have adopted to mitigate issues this study brings up regarding quality management in

public design projects.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge valuable suggestions by the expert panel, and give special

thanks to design managers and senior architects of design firms who completed the survey. The

authors also wish to acknowledge two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.

References

AIA. (1989). In Search of Design Excellence. New York, US: American Institute of Architects.

Atkinson, G. (2005). Construction Quality and Quality Standards. London, UK: Taylor &

Francis.

Blyth, A., & Worthington, J. (2000). Managing the Brief for Better Design. London, UK: Taylor

& Francis.

Bubshait, A. A., & Al-Atiq, T. H. (1999). ISO 9000 Quality Standards in Construction.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING, 15(6), 41-46. doi:

10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1999)15:6(41)

Bubshait, A. A., Farooq, G., Jannadi, O., & Assaf, S. A. (1999). Quality Practices in Design

Organizations. Construction Management and Economics, 17, 799-809. doi:

10.1080/014461999371132

CABE. (2003). Creating Excellent Buildings: A Guide for Clients. UK: Commission for

Architecture and the Built Environment.

CABE. (2006a). The Cost of Bad Design. London, UK: Commission for Architecture and the

Built Environment.

CABE. (2006b). Design Review; How CABE Evaluates Quality in Architecture and Urban

Design. London, UK: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

CABE. (2009). Design Review Principles and practice. UK: Commission for Architecture and

the Built Environment.

CABE. (2010). Improving the design of new housing: What role for standards? UK: Commission

for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Cachadinha, N. M. (2009). Implementing Quality Management Systems in Small and Medium

Construction Companies: A Contribution to a Road Map for Success. Leadership and

Management in Engineering, 9(1), 32-39. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2009)9:1(32)

Cheung G, S.-H. (1994). The Applicability of Superpositioning To American Architectural

Firms. Texas Tech University, U.S.

CIC. (2012). DQI (Design Quality Indicator). Retrieved August, 11, 2012, from

http://www.dqi.org.uk/

Coxe, W., Hartung, N., Hochberg, H., Lewif, B., Maister, D., Mattox, R., & Piven, P. (1986).

Charting Your Course; Master Strategies for Organizing and managing architecture

firms. Architectural Technology, May/June, 52-58.

Coxe, W., Hartung, N., Hochberg, H., Lewif, B., Maister, D., Mattox, R., & Piven, P. (1987).

Success Strategies for Design Professionals: Super-positioning for Architecture &

Engineering Firms. U.S: McGraw-Hill.

Dewulf, G., & van Meel, J. (2004). Sense and Nonsense of Measuring Design Quality.

BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 32(3), 247-250. doi:

10.1080/0961321042000189662

Eley, J. (2004). Design Quality in Buildings. BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 32(3),

255-260. doi: 10.1080/09613210410001689649

Ezeldin, A. S., & Abu-Ghazala, H. (2007). Quality Management System for Design Consultants:

Development and Application on Projects in the Middle East. JOURNAL OF

MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING, 23(2), 75-87. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-

597X(2007)23:2(75)

Fanek, M. F. (1993). The Positioning and Success of Jordanian Architectural and Engineering

Firms. Texas Tech University, U.S.

Gann, D. M., Salter, A. J., & Whyte, J. K. (2003). Design Quality Indicator as a Tool For

Thinking. BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 31(5), 318-333. doi:

10.1080/0961321032000107564

Giddings, B., Sharma, M., Jones, P., & Jensen, P. (2010). Architectural Design Quality in Local

Authority Private Finance Initiative Projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the

CIB World Congress: Building a Better World, 10-13 May 2010, Salford Quays, UK.

Giddings, B., Sharma, M., Jones, P., & Jensen, P. (2013). An Evaluation Tool for Design

Quality: PFI Sheltered Housing. BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 41(6). doi:

10.1080/09613218.2013.775895

Hoonakke, P., Carayon, P., & Loushine, T. (2010). Barriers and Benefits of Quality Management

in the Construction Industry: An Empirical Study. Total Quality Management, 21(9),

953-969. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2010.487673

Hope, S., Cumming, R., & King, S. (2005). Survey of the Building Design Professions’ Attitudes

to the Policy on Architecture. Scotland: Scottish Executive.

Hoyle, D. (2007). Quality Management Essentials. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

International Organization for Standardization. (2005). ISO 9000 - Quality management systems

- Fundamentals and Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for

Standardization.

Ireland, L. R. (1991). Quality Management for Projects and Programs. PA, U.S: Project

Management Institute.

Jolley, J. M., & Mitchell, M. L. (2012). Research Design Explained. U.S: Cengage Learning.

Keniger, M. (2004). Achieving Design Quality: from Intent to Implementation. BUILDING

RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 32(3), 251-254. doi: 10.1080/09613210410001679866

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi, India: New

Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers.

Landin, A. (2000). Impact of Quality Management in the Swedish Construction Process. Lund,

Sweden: Lund University.

Low, S. P., & Omar, H. F. (1997). The Effective Maintenance of Quality Management Systems

in the Construction Industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,

14(8), 768-790. doi: 10.1108/02656719710181303

Mack, L. (2010). The philosophical underpinnings of educational research. Polyglossia, 19, 5-11.

MacMillan, S. (2006). Added Value of Good Design. BUILDING RESEARCH &

INFORMATION, 34(3), 257-271. doi: 10.1080/09613210600590074

Markus, T. A. (2003). Lessons From the Design Quality Indicator. BUILDING RESEARCH &

INFORMATION, 31(5), 399-405. doi: 10.1080/0961321032000088016

Markus , T. A., & Cameron, D. (2002). The Words Between the Spaces: Buildings and

Language. London, UK: Routledge.

MPORG. (2006). The Guideline for Qualification Assesssment of Consultant Firms. Tehran,

Iran: Vice-Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision (in Farsi) Retrieved from

http://www.mdhc.ir/portal/File/ShowFile.aspx?ID=d75e497f-d050-4a75-9770-

e8220a7204e3.

MPORG. (2011). List of Rank-1 Qualified Design Consultants. Tehran, Iran: Vice-Presidency

for Strategic Planning and Supervision (in Farsi).

Nelson, C. (2006). Managing Quality in Architecture. London, UK: Architectural Press.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Nancy, L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualitative research: Making the

sampling process more public. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 238-254.

Pheng, L. S., & Teo, J. A. (2004). Implementing Total Quality Management in Construction

Firms. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING, 20(1), 8-15. doi:

10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)20:1(8)

PMI. (2003). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model: Knowledge Foundation. PA,

U.S: Project Management Institute.

PMI. (2008). Project Management Body of Knowledge. PA, U.S: Project Management Institute.

PMI. (2013). Project Management Body of Knowledge. PA, U.S: Project Management Institute.

Prasad, S. (2004). Inclusive maps. In S. Macmillan (Ed.), Designing Better Buildings. London,

UK: Spon Press.

RIBA. (2006). RIBA Quality Management Toolkit: Quality Manual. UK: Royal Institute of

British Architects.

RIBA. (2010). RIBA Chartered Practice Manual. UK: Royal Institute of British Architects.

Roaf, S., Crichton, D., & Nicol, F. (2009). Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change

(Second Edition). Oxford, U.K.: Architectural Press.

Salgado, M. S. (2011). Implementation of Quality Management System on architecture offices as

a requirement for sustainable design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the CIB-

W096 Architectural Management in the Digital Arena, Vienna, Austria.

Samsudin, N. S., Ayop, S. M., Sahab, S., & Ismail, Z. (2012). Problems and Issues on The

Implementation of Quality Management System in Construction Projects. Paper presented

at the IEEE Symposium on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students (5th

ed.): Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Sebastian, R. (2005). The Interface between Design and Management. Design Issues, 21(1), 81-

93.

Slaughter, E. S. (2004). DQI: The Dynamics of Design Values and Assessment. BUILDING

RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 32(3), 245-246. doi: 10.1080/0961321042000209461

Spillinger, R. S. (2000). Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: Best Practices for

Reviewing Facility Designs. U.S: National Academy Press.

Swan, W., & Kyng, E. (2004). An Introduction to Key Performance Indicators. Manchester ,

UK: Centre for Construction Innovation.

Talbott, J. M. (2007). Expanding on Architucture: A New School of Architecture Planning and

Preservation. University of Maryland, U.S.

Tang, S. L., Ahmed, M., Aoieong, R. T., & Poon, S. W. (2005). Construction Quality

Management. Aberdeen, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Volker, L. (2010). Deciding about Design Quality. Leiden, Holland: Sidestone Press,.

Whyte, J., & Gann, D. (2003). Design Quality Indicators: Work in Progress. BUILDING

RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 31(5), 387-398. doi: 10.1080/0961321032000107537

Whyte, J., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2004). Building Indicators of Design Quality Designing Better

Buildings (pp. 195-205). London, UK: Spon Press.

Williams, C., & Buswell, J. (2003). Service Quality in Leisure and Tourism. U.K: CABI.

Wirick, D. (2009). Public-Sector Project Management: Meeting the Challenges and Achieving

Results. U.S: John Wiley & Sons.

Wright, C. D. (1989). Improving the Design Quality of Federal Buildings. U.S: National

Academies Press: Building Research Board.