Quality management practicein highway construction

Mireille G. BattikhaDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science,

Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

Keywords Construction industry, Quality management, Quality assurance, Quality control

Abstract This paper describes the quality management function as practiced in highwayconstruction. This function is displayed as an interrelated system, which identifies the main qualityactivities. Documents and records used in these activities are also reviewed. A model for multilevelquality management involvement is defined, encompassing contractors, engineers, and managers.The model describes the quality management tasks and the roles assumed in a scheme relatingconstruction quality control, quality assurance, and the interface between them. The scheme can beapplied to any construction domain and quality management organizational structure. The studyadvances the understanding of how quality management is performed and engages participants atseveral management levels.

IntroductionConstruction quality is a critical factor in determining project acceptance andresultant contractual payment levels. Participants in the construction industryhave become notably conscious of the role of quality as an essential means toachieve client satisfaction and gain a competitive advantage. Acceptablequality levels in construction have long been a problem to attain on time andwithin budget in a highly dynamic, complex, and competitive environment.With inefficient or nonexistent quality management procedures, significantexpenditures of time, money, and resources are wasted on construction projects(Rounds and Chi, 1985). This lack of quality due to deficient constructionquality management is detected through nonconformance to establishedrequirements.

In construction, nonconformance occurs when the finished state of aproject, and/or its components, deviates from established requirements, andrequires decisions to be made regarding their acceptance and/or rectification.Quality-related problems during construction can be projected on theoperating life of the finished project. To the contractor, nonconformance canyield penalties, as well as cost and time burdens for rework, which canconvert into productivity loss (Battikha, 2000a). It can also result in clientdissatisfaction, which directly leads to loss of market share and potentialprofit reductions of the construction firm. To the owner/user,nonconformance can translate into problems related to safety, service, andeconomy. With effective quality management, quality-related problems canbe eliminated, and prevented at early stages, prior to nonconforming

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www .emeraldinsight .com/researchregister http:// www.emeraldinsigh t.com/0265-671 X.htm

IJQRM20,5

532

Received February 2002Revised August 2002Accepted August 2002

International Journal of Quality &Reliability ManagementVol. 20 No. 5, 2003pp. 532-550q MCB UP Limited0265-671XDOI 10.1108/02656710310476516

occurrences (Battikha, 2002b, c). This paper describes the qualitymanagement function as practiced in highway construction. A model formultilevel quality management involvement is defined, encompassingcontractors, engineers, and managers. It provides a scheme, which relatesquality control, quality assurance, and the interface between them, and canapply to any construction domain and quality management organizationalstructure. The quality management tasks performed, the roles assumed, andthe documents used are also highlighted. The study will advance theunderstanding of how quality management is performed and engagesparticipants at several management levels.

Defining qualityNumerous expressions have been adopted to define quality in both themanufacturing and the construction industry. Crosby (1979) defined qualityas “conformance to requirements”. Juran’s definition pointed to quality as“fitness for use” in terms of design, conformance, availability, safety, andfield use (Omachonu and Ross, 1994). Other definitions are also availableand include: “customer satisfaction”, as indicated in Burati et al. (1991);“conformance to predetermined requirements”, as defined by the AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers (ASCE); and “the totality of factors andcharacteristics of a product or service that bears on its ability to satisfygiven needs” as defined by the American National Standards Institute(ANSI), the American Society for Quality (ASQ), and the InternationalOrganization for Standardization (ISO) (as listed in Parti, 1996). Issuesregarding the scope and intent of each of these definitions have beendiscussed elsewhere (Davis et al., 1989; Parti, 1996). These definitions areinterdependent and the choice of one depends on the domain and thepurpose of its use. In construction, defining quality as “conformance toestablished requirements” (Construction Industry Institute, 1989) renders itsachievement or lack thereof detectable, and its measurement and assessmentquantifiable.

A general graphical interpretation of the foregoing definitions is depicted inFigure 1. It illustrates, based on a quality level scale, the conformance of theproduct/service to the design requirements and the conformance of theserequirements to the client needs/expectations, in the execution and the designstages respectively. This reflects the quality of each of the product/service andthe requirements (i.e. design output). Client needs/expectations are at the basefor varying the quality of the product/service (i.e. degree of goodness). Thehigher the standards levels to which the needs/expectations conform, thehigher the degree of goodness (i.e. quality). Standards can improve in time withthe advancement of technology and innovation. The advancement process canbenefit from the feedback provided by clients. Their satisfaction in theproduct/service is also a reflection of its quality.

Highwayconstruction

533

Quality management systemsProperly implemented, formal quality management systems provide a vehiclefor achieving quality (i.e. conformance to established requirements). As definedby ANSI, a quality system is “the organizational structure, responsibilities,procedures, processes, and resources for implementing quality management”(Arnold, 1994). Quality management refers to the set of quality activitiesinvolved in producing a product, process, or service, and encompassesprevention and appraisal (Burati et al., 1992). It is “a management disciplineconcerned with preventing problems from occurring by creating the attitudesand controls that make prevention possible” (Crosby, 1979). Quality activitiesinclude the determination of the quality policy, objectives, and responsibilitiesand implementing them through quality planning, quality control, qualityassurance, and quality improvement, within the quality system (ASQC, 1997).Quality control (QC) denotes the sum of activities performed by the contractor tomake sure that the product or service meets established requirements(AASHTO, 1995, cited in Weigel et al., 1996). Quality assurance (QA) refers tothe activities performed to provide adequate confidence that a product or servicewill meet established requirements (AASHTO, 1995, cited in Weigel et al., 1996).

ISO 9000 series standards furnish conceptual guidelines with which tostructure and implement the elements of a quality system (Arnold, 1994). Theyprovide guidance on quality management, and present models for qualityassurance by fostering the structure through which to implement the totalquality management (TQM) business philosophy (Arnold, 1994). TQM meansthinking about quality as a system approach using all functions of theenterprise as a process, and integrating them at all levels (Omachonu and Ross,1994). This management approach is geared towards engaging the entireorganization in a system, for the purpose of satisfying customers through

Figure 1.Interpreting qualitydefinitions

IJQRM20,5

534

continuous improvement (Drummond, 1992). Quality is a product of thesystem, thus the system must be designed to guarantee that requirements willbe met. Figure 2 displays the system approach to quality management forachieving quality.

In construction, achieving conformance to established requirements consistsof a series of quality management activities during the various phases of aproject. In the design phase, quality requirements for the end products and/ortheir performance are specified to meet the user’s needs. Depending on whetherthe specifications are method-type, end-result or performance-related,construction methods and materials are specified by the owner’s agent, ordefined later by the contractor, to permit achievement of these requirements,and quality management procedures are developed to ensure compliance withthe specifications. During construction, nonconformance in terms of endproducts (the finished state of the constructed product), output products ofactivities (the states through which the end-product passes during itsconstruction), and/or in-process characteristics may be detected. Appropriateactions must then be taken to rectify nonconforming situations and, if possible,diagnosis and elimination of the reasons causing nonconformance, in order toavoid similar situations during the remainder of the project and on futureprojects (Battikha and Russell, 1998).

System approach in highway constructionA model of the quality assurance system that the highway constructionindustry has been applying for the last 50 years (Chamberlin, 1995) is presentedin Figure 3. The nomenclature of this management system in terms of qualityassurance refers to the quality management system encompassing all qualityactivities.

From the model shown in Figure 3, the process is as follows. The owner, orhighway agency, specifies the required product using drawings and

Figure 2.System approach toquality management

Highwayconstruction

535

specifications, which contain quality characteristics, quality levels and rangesof tolerances, acceptance sampling and testing plans, and acceptance criteria.The contractor executes the product following establishedconstruction/manufacturing processes and quality control procedures. Thecontract considers a fair allocation of risk between the contractor’s expectationof compensation and the owner’s expectation of quality (Chamberlin, 1995). Inhighway construction management, the trend has been to the contractorassuming responsibilities for controlling quality, and the owner judgingacceptance (Chamberlin, 1995).

Model for multilevel quality managementDespite the variations in procurement strategies for projects, with respect toQA/QC organization and administration (Hester, 1979), common characteristicsremain apparent for conducting quality management activities. Three mainlevels of control/assurance are noted in most existing programs. Whether the

Figure 3.Ideal quality assurancesystem

IJQRM20,5

536

quality control agent reports to the contractor’s organization or to the owner’sorganization, the production group (foreman, contractor) is the one that cancontrol the quality at a high degree. The interface of control and assurance forreporting deviations to the QA management (QA director) can take placethrough a QC/QA professional, usually an engineer. This is achieved byperforming the tests and inspections formally required by the quality system,and reporting recurring nonconformance to the QA director/manager, who inturn, issues a request for corrective action to the contractor/constructionmanager (MoTH, 1992). QA management starts at the interface level byinspecting the contractor’s work, or asks the contractor for certification in casethe QA is limited to audits and surveillance (i.e. the QA does not performinspection/test activities to verify the conformance of construction processesand products to requirements). A QC/QA engineer who reports to the QAdirector accomplishes this interface. The QA department can be from either thecontractor’s or the owner’s organization. However, the segregation of thecontractor from the management authority, reflecting the QC and QAresponsibilities, needs to be maintained. Figure 4 presents a generic scheme ofthe various roles and responsibilities at the different levels of QA/QC, includingthe tasks normally undertaken and the documents/records involved. Thissynthesis has been derived from quality management practice in highwayconstruction (MoTH, 1992).

The applicability of the multilevel management scheme, depicted in Figure 4,to the different organizational structures in quality management is illustratedin Figures 5-8. The organizational structures for managing quality include fourapproaches for developing and administering a quality assurance program(Hester, 1979):

(1) project designer;

(2) force account (managed by institutional owners);

(3) contractor; and

(4) special consultant (exclusive of project designers and contractors).

Table I outlines how the multilevel management scheme applies to the fourapproaches, and pinpoints examples of some construction domains to whicheach approach is most suitable (Hester, 1979).

Documents and recordsDocuments usually required in quality management include: ISO 9000 seriesstandard guidelines; quality manual referencing or containing qualitymanagement procedures; work instructions; specifications; inspection andtest plans; nonconformance reports; etc. These documents may vary with thequality system established by the organization. Elements of these documentsare elaborated upon in the following subsections.

Highwayconstruction

537

Figure 4.Levels of constructionQA/QC, roles, tasks anddocuments

IJQRM20,5

538

ISO 9000 series standardsISO 9000 standards refer to the guidelines of the standard, and with respect tohighway construction, this applies to ISO 9001 elements (InternationalOrganization for Standardization, 1994, 2000).

Quality manualA quality manual translates the ISO requirements to the organization setting(Pekar, 1995). A quality manual is set to contain or to reference procedures that

Figure 5.Management levelsapplied to projectdesigner approach

Figure 6.Management levels

applied to force accountapproach

Highwayconstruction

539

Figure 7.Management levelsapplied to contractorapproach

Figure 8.Management levelsapplied to specialconsultant approach

IJQRM20,5

540

Project

designer

Force

account

Contractor

Specialconsultant

Production

level

Contractor

Contractor

Contractor

Contractor

Managem

ent

level

Project

designer

developsand

administers

QA

program

and

assignsatrained

staffof

field

personnelwhichprovide

administrativeandsurveillance

services

Governmentagencies,

corporateandinstitutional

ownersestablish

aninternal

QA

program

(e.g.state

highway

departm

ents)

Theow

ner

may

employ

specializedconsultants

for

unusual

construction

conditionsor

shortduration

work

ResponsibilityforQCandQA

isplacedon

thecontractor.

Theprojectow

ner

ordesigner

may

havelimited

administrativerolessuch

asassumingfinal

audits.The

contractormay

assigna

superintendentor

engineeras

anom

inal

QA

representative

Thespecialconsultants

are

responsibleforadministering

theQA

program.They

are

usually

designprofessionals,

constructionmanagem

ent

firm

s,or

sophisticatedtesting

laboratoriesem

ployed

bythe

owner,andareindependentof

boththedesigner

andthe

contractor

Interfacelevel

Thedesigner’sfieldpersonnel

either

perform

selected

QA

tasks(e.g.laboratoryandfield

testing),or

select

andmanage

specializedconsultants

toperform

thesetasks

Trained

andindoctrinated

personnelfrom

theparent

organizationwithdirect

owner

control

during

constructionperform

the

tasksat

thislevel

Thecontractorusually

subcontracts

allor

partof

the

inspection,testingand

engineeringfunctionsto

outsidetestinglaboratories

andconsultingengineers

Personnelfrom

thespecial

consultants

perform

thetasks

atthislevel

Construction

dom

ains

Projectsusingphased

constructiontechniques,

projectsthat

aretechnically

complex,andprojectsthat

requirealotof

design

interpretation

orcoordination

duringconstruction(e.g.water

andwastewater

treatm

ent

facilities,industrial

plants,

pow

ergeneratingstations)

Usedforpublicworks

construction,andby

contractors,andpublicand

privateow

nerswhereaseries

ofprojectshavingarepetitive

typeof

constructionis

anticipated

(e.g.highways,

bridges)

Military,corporateand

institutional

organizations

requirethistypeof

approach

Mainly

usedon

projectswith

complexor

highly

specialized

QArequirem

ents,andwherea

cleardeterminationof

liability

isrequired.Applicationsof

thisapproachinclude

contracts

forsoilsand

foundationinspections,

concreteplacements

andfield

welding

Table I.Model applicability

in constructionpractice

Highwayconstruction

541

form the quality system. It should define policies, goals, and objectives of theorganization and its interfaces (ASQC, 1997).

Quality management proceduresQuality management procedures address the where, who, what, and when ofimportant quality activities (Hayden, 1996). They translate the requirements ofthe quality manual into procedures needed for the department to comply withquality requirements (Pekar, 1995). Samples from quality managementprocedures on equipment calibration are presented as follows (Pekar, 1995):

Test equipment will be certified in accordance with Quality Assurance Work Instructions,and shall be tested against devices certified and traceable to the National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST).

Test equipment determined to be accurate and reliable through examination by Metrologywill be certified and the results of the examination recorded on the computer throughapplication of the calibration software.

Work instructionsThese contain instructional details on how to execute work, so that therequirements of the quality management procedures can be achieved. Theyspell out the scope of work, responsibilities, method statement, inspectionplans, and forms to record results (Pekar, 1995; ASQC, 1997). A sample workinstruction for a calibration procedure is provided below (Pekar, 1995):

Readings are taken in three random locations along the measurement range for inside anddepth measurements using the calibration test stand.

SpecificationsAASHTO (1968) (cited in Gendell and Masuda, 1988) defined specifications as“the compilation of provisions and requirements for the performance ofprescribed work”. Specifications may contain elements of more than onespecification form, usually related to materials of construction, techniques ofconstruction, equipment used during construction, or performance of thefinished product as well as its plans of acceptance and payment. Given thechange in size and complexity of the highway construction industry,specifications for highway construction have been evolving with thedevelopment of improved performance predictors and methods of measuringcompliance (Chamberlin, 1995). Traditional specifications, known as methodspecifications or prescription (materials and methods) specifications, were theearliest form used. They are specified by the highway agency and include exactmaterials, proportioning and mixing limits, and procedures for the contractorto follow (Chamberlin, 1995). Variability in material property and constructiontechniques is not considered, while full pay can be granted as long as thecontractor complies with the methods assigned. The major shortcoming of

IJQRM20,5

542

traditional specifications is that “even when properly followed, thespecifications may not always produce the desired end result” (Chamberlin,1995). This is because they are based on past conditions that may not be similarto the current situation. Moreover, they do inhibit potential innovations inconstruction initiated by the contractor. Method specifications require that aninspector be present on the site at all times, in order to determine whether thecontractor complied with the specification requirements (Roberts et al., 1996).An example of typical statements included in a method specification forcompaction is as follows (Roberts et al., 1996):

The air temperature at the time of placement shall be at least 408F (4.48C) and rising or shallbe above 458F (7.28C) if falling. Initial rolling shall include at least 2 coverages with a 10-tonvibratory roller. Intermediate rolling shall be performed with 6 coverages of a rubber-tiredroller. The minimum roller weight shall be 15 tons (13Mg) and the tire pressure shall be atleast 90psi (621kPa). Intermediate rolling shall be completed before the mixture cools below1758F (79.48C). The final rolling shall be accomplished with a tandem steel-wheeled roller.Sufficient passes shall be made with the final roller to remove all roller marks and otherpavement irregularities. All rollers shall be operated at a speed not to exceed 3 miles per hour(4.8km/hour). All rollers shall stay as close as practical behind the paver or roller in front of it.

In order to meet the complexity of construction, specifications continue toevolve and reflect the development of highway technology in which the qualityof the end product is assessed using “specific measurable attributes, and can bedetermined by controlling selected materials and construction (M&C) variablesthrough the processes of design, inspection, and testing at the time ofconstruction” (Chamberlin, 1995). These specifications are standardized withsome variations between different places and are called end-resultspecifications (e.g. soil density). This type of specification holds thecontractor responsible for production, and allows the use of innovativeconstruction equipment and/or methods. However, variability and measuringcompliance to specifications remains problematic given the difficulty ofachieving 100 percent compliance to specification limits, even under tightcontrol (Chamberlin, 1995).

Statistical specifications for highway construction began in the 1960s andare usually part of a statistical quality control. They sought a method tomeasure the attributes and their compliance, which accounts for the inherentvariability in the M&C variables (i.e. by adjusting tolerances, andacknowledging the difficulty of obtaining 100 percent compliance) and whichemploys statistically-based acceptance sampling (Chamberlin, 1995). End-result acceptance criteria have been combined with statistically-basedsampling procedures and have been referred to as statistical end-resultspecifications (ERS). Setting quality levels and acceptance procedures remainswith the accepting agency, while the QC is the contractor’s responsibility.Payment adjustments in these specifications reflect the amount of reductionand the optimized risk distributed between owner and contractor, however thisamount does not relate to any loss of performance of the product/pavement

Highwayconstruction

543

(Chamberlin, 1995). Therefore, evidence of compliance cannot guarantee thefinished product performance given that the relation between the end productcharacteristics and its performance remains unidentified.

In response to the previously stated deficiencies, research on specificationshas focused on performance-related features since the early 1980s. Essentially,performance-related specifications (PRS) for highway construction aim atimproving specifications “to reflect the best understanding of what determinesquality and to create a contractual framework that maximizes costeffectiveness” (Chamberlin, 1995). Consequently, relationships between testresults and expected performance were sought. PRS are “specifications for keyM&C factors that have been demonstrated to correlate significantly with long-term performance of the finished work. These specifications are based onquantified relationships (models) between M&C characteristics measured atthe time of construction and subsequent performance. They include samplingand testing procedures, quality levels and tolerances, and acceptance (orrejection) criteria. Typically, PRS also include payment schedules with positiveand/or negative adjustments that are directly related through the performancemodels to changes anticipated in the worth of the finished work as a result ofdeparture from the acceptable quality level” (Chamberlin, 1995). Recentadvances in PRS development and research can be found in Chamberlin (1995).Trends in specifications reflecting warranty on pavement performance havealso been reported in Shober et al. (1996) and Schmitt et al. (1996). A distinctionneeds to be made between different specifications associated with the termperformance. These specifications are defined as follows (Chamberlin, 1995):

. Performance specification: defines how the end product should performover time (e.g. descriptions in terms of alterations in the physicalcondition of pavement surface, response to load, or in terms of cumulativetraffic needed to drive the pavement into failure, etc.).

. Performance-based specification: defines required levels of fundamentalengineering properties: (e.g. resilient modulus, fatigue properties) whichare predictors of performance and usually not amenable to acceptancetesting during construction.

. Performance-related specification: defines required level of M&C factorsthat correlate with fundamental engineering properties, which predictperformance. These factors are amenable to acceptance testing duringconstruction.

Acceptance plansAn acceptance plan is defined as “an agreed-upon method of taking andmaking measurements on a sample for the purpose of determining theacceptability of a lot of material or construction” (AASHTO, 1986, cited inO’Connell, 1991). It is agreed upon by the contractor and the highway agency,and defines the characteristic(s) which forms the basis for acceptance, the

IJQRM20,5

544

sample size (the part of work to be accepted at a time), the sampling procedure,the frequency of testing, the method of testing, and the adjusted paymentschedule. It also includes the way in which the test results will be treated for thepurpose of judging the acceptability of the portion tested (Erickson, 1989). Anacceptance plan is usually part of a statistical ERS and can be of two types(AASHTO, 1986, cited in O’Connell, 1991):

(1) it is based on attributes to which statistical procedures are applied andthe characteristics evaluated are checked as to whether they are presentor absent, hence reflecting acceptance or rejection;

(2) it is based on variables, which relies on a statistical procedure based onmeasuring quantitatively the characteristics rather than counting them.

An example of an acceptance plan used by the New Mexico State HighwayDepartment, as cited in O’Connell (1991), is presented below:

The bituminous pavement structure course shall be divided into acceptance sections or lotsapproximately 1,500 tons each for the purpose of defining areas represented by each series ofacceptance tests. The density of each acceptance section or lot will be evaluated by aminimum of five tests with a portable nuclear density test device, in conformity with ASTMD 2950, performed at randomly selected sites within the test section or by cut pavementsamples in conformity with AASHTO T-166. The mean density obtained for the five tests ineach acceptance section or lot shall be at least 93 percent of the established voidless density asdetermined by the Rice procedure. In addition, each individual test value obtained within anacceptance section or lot shall be at least 90 percent of the established voidless density andshall not exceed 98 percent of voidless density.

The payment schedule is as follows:

The payment of a unit price will be adjusted for roadway density as outlined in the following[Table II. Price adjustment for roadway density]. The adjustment will be applied on a lot bylot basis for each lift. The adjustment will be based on the average of five density tests. Theprice adjustment will be applied only to the pay item for Plant Mix Bituminous Pavement.

Adjustable payment plansThe purpose of the pay schedule is to define relationships between qualitylevels and payment levels. It is a critical element in the acceptance plan, thepurpose of which is to define a way to handle the payment of a product that isneither clearly acceptable nor rejectable (O’Connell, 1991). In traditionalspecifications, payment terms were based on pass-fail with little considerationto variability (Chamberlin, 1995). Defective work was either removed oraccepted at full price or accepted at reduced price. Negotiations for pricereductions were performed based on the case in question and reflectedarbitrary and inconsistent judgments. In statistical ERS where variability wastolerated and compliance to specification could be measured accurately, itbecame convenient to incorporate adjustable payment schedules intoconstruction specification as an additional tool to support the contractagreement (Chamberlin, 1995).

Highwayconstruction

545

There are two basic types of adjusted payment schedules namely: the stepped(tabular) and the continuous (O’Connell, 1991). In the stepped pay schedule thepay factor is assigned to different discrete ranges of quality. An example of astepped pay schedule has been shown in Table II. The continuous pay schedulerelies on the percent pay reduction or percent of contract price to be reimbursedin a form of an equation, which is a function of the quality level of the inspectedcharacteristic (O’Connell, 1991). Approaches to address adjustment paymentschedules development rely on two main concepts: plans built on judgment,and plans considering a rational relationship between quality and performance(Chamberlin, 1995). Judgment plans consider price reductions in accordancewith either the average of the quality characteristic under investigation, thefrequency of deviations, or the percent of work within tolerance determinedfrom the mean and standard deviation of inspected results (NCHRP, 1976, citedin Chamberlin, 1995). “Judgment plans are not considered to be rationalbecause they are not supported by a relationship that quantitatively links thepayment schedule to the anticipated performance of the finished work”(Chamberlin, 1995). Rational plans have been developed, since the 1980s, with aconsideration to the predicted cost associated with decreased or improvedperformance (e.g. life cycle costs), rather than on the variation in theperformance itself (Chamberlin, 1995). As such M&C variables correlating withperformance and which fall under the contractor’s control, need to be identifiedand segregated from variables which do not fall under the contractor’s control,and be formulated in some mathematical algorithm relating them to pavementperformance (Chamberlin, 1995).

Inspection and test planAn inspection and test plan is a plan prepared by quality managementpersonnel, in conjunction with contractors, and includes the acceptance criteria

Average density% of maximum density

Percent of contractprice to be paid

Above 98 a

97 to 97.99 8596 to 96.99 91Between 93 and 96 10092 to 92.99 9691 to 91.99 9190 to 90.99 85Less than 90 a

Note: a This lot shall be removed and replaced to meet specification requirements as ordered bythe project manager. In lieu thereof, the contractor and the project manager may agree in writingthat for practical purposes, the lot shall not be removed and will be paid for at 50 percent of thecontract priceSouce: New Mexico State Highway Department, cited in O’Connell (1991)

Table II.Price adjustment forroadway density

IJQRM20,5

546

of the product/process to be tested/inspected, and the responsibility, timing,frequency, scope, and method of inspection or testing. This document forms thebasis of quality verification, and describes the inspection and tests to beundertaken in order to provide evidence of conformance to establishedrequirements (MoTH, 1992).

Inspection form and test reportInspection forms and test reports are used to document inspection and testresults based on the agreement filed in the inspection and test plans. Otherinspection related reports are also used to keep a diary of activities (e.g. dailydiary report, daily summary report). Dates, routine weather comments,inspection personnel, and unusual events affecting the activity are usuallynoted (The Asphalt Institute, 1989). A daily summary report also summarizesthe results of all tests performed during the day and a list of all amounts ofmaterials received and used.

Non-conformance reportNonconforming items are identified and reported on a nonconformance report,which is reported by the QA/QC engineer/inspector to the QA manager. Thenonconformance is described and accordingly a disposition is prescribed forremedial action as being either (MoTH, 1992):

. “Do”: requires that the contractor will accomplish unachieved work.

. “Re-do”: requires that all deficient work be removed and redone.

. “Rework”: requires that the deficient item be repaired to make itconforming.

. “Use-as-is”: is filed when work is accepted as-is with somenonconformance.

A corrective action is requested in case of repetitive nonconformances toeliminate the root cause of the problem and avoid its recurrence. Time allocatedand verification of completion is also reported. In some cases the QA managerfiles a corrective action request to the contractor as a separate document.

Corrective action requestThis document contains a description of the proposed corrective action andrelevant completion and verification dates as well as approval sources (Arnold,1994).

Construction deficiency reportNonconforming items that do not exhibit a serious deficiency and can beremedied by regular work practice are not reported on a nonconformancereport, but on a construction deficiency report and may be discarded aftercompletion of remedial work.

Highwayconstruction

547

Defect noticeIn case a deficiency is noticed to be a safety hazard, which requires immediateattention, the contractor must be notified immediately through a fastcommunication medium (e.g. phone) (MoTH, 1992). Following the verbalnotification a “defect notice” is filed to confirm it. If corrective action is notperformed within specified time limits, a nonconformance report is filed to thecontractor.

ConclusionsThis paper has described the quality management function as practiced inhighway construction. A system approach to quality management, whichhighlights the main quality activities, has been presented. Documents andrecords used in these activities have also been reviewed. A model for managingquality has been defined and shown to apply to any construction domain andorganizational structure for developing and administering a quality assuranceprogram. The model involves multilevel quality management participation,encompassing contractors, engineers, and managers. It describes the qualitymanagement tasks and the roles assumed in a scheme relating constructionquality control, quality assurance, and the interface between them. This studyadvances the understanding of how quality management is performed andengages participants at several management levels.

References

AASHTO (1968), Highway Definitions, American Association of State Highway andTransportation Officials, Washington, DC.

AASHTO (1986), Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Samplingand Testing, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,Washington, DC.

AASHTO (1995), YACHT Quality Assurance Guide Specification, YACHT JointConstruction/Materials Quality Assurance Task Force 6/21/95 ed., AmericanAssociation of Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

Arnold, K.L. (1994), The Manager’s Guide to ISO 9000, The Free Press, New York, NY.

(The) Asphalt Institute (1989), The Asphalt Handbook, Manual Series No. 4 (MS-4), The AsphaltInstitute, Lexington, KY.

ASQC (1997), Interpretive Guidelines for the Application of ANSI/ISO/ASQC Q9001-1994 orQ9002-1994 for Owner’s, Designer’s, and Constructor’s Quality Management Systems,ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Battikha, M. (2000a), “Integrating construction productivity and quality management”,Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference, CSCE, London, Ontario, pp. 150-7.

Battikha, M.G. (2002b), “QUALICON: computer-based system for construction qualitymanagement”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 2,pp. 164-73.

Battikha, M. (2002c), “Problem patterns for infrastructure construction quality management”,Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Applications of Advanced Technology inTransportation, ASCE, Cambridge, MA, pp. 545-52.

IJQRM20,5

548

Battikha, M.G. and Russell, A.D. (1998), “Construction quality management – present andfuture”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 401-11.

Burati, J.L. Jr, Farrington, J.J. and Ledbetter, W.B. (1992), “Causes of quality deviations in designand construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118 No. 1,pp. 34-49.

Burati, J.L., Matthews, M.F. and Kalindindi, S.N. (1991), “Quality management in constructionindustry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 117 No. 2,pp. 341-59.

Chamberlin, W.P. (1968), “Report on workshop sessions for Portland Cement Concrete”,Proceedings of the Statistical Quality Assurance Workshop, Federal HighwayAdministration, Washington, DC, October 22-24, pp. 11-14.

Chamberlin, W.P. (1995), Performance-Related Specifications for Highway Construction andRehabilitation, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 212, Transportation ResearchBoard, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Construction Industry Institute (1989),Measuring the Cost of Quality in Design and Construction,Publication 10-2, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX.

Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, McGraw-Hill BookCompany, New York, NY.

Davis, K., Ledbetter, W.B. and Burati, J.L. Jr (1989), “Measuring design and construction qualitycosts”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 115 No. 3, pp. 385-400.

Drummond, H. (1992), The Quality Movement: What Total Quality Management is All About,Kogan Page/Nichols Publishing, London/East Brunswick, NJ.

Erickson, J. (1989), “Meeting the quality management issue on highway construction”, Journal ofProfessional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 162-7.

Gendell, D.S. and Masuda, A. (1988), “Highway specifications: link to quality”, Journal ofProfessional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 16-27.

Hayden, W.M. Jr (1996), “Connecting random acts of quality: global system standard”, Journal ofManagement in Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 34-44.

Hester, W.T. (1979), “Alternative construction quality assurance programs”, Journal of theConstruction Division, Vol. 105 No. CO3, pp. 187-99.

International Organization for Standardization (1994), ISO 9001:1994 Quality Systems – Modelfor Quality Assurance in Design, Development, Production, Installation and Servicing, ISO,Geneva.

International Organization for Standardization (2000), ISO 9001:2000 Quality ManagementSystems – Requirements, ISO, Geneva.

MoTH (1992), Quality Assurance Program Manual, Province of British Columbia Ministry ofTransportation and Highways, Maintenance Branch, Maintenance of Provincial Roadsand Bridges, Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data, Victoria.

NCHRP (1976), Statistically Oriented End-Result Specifications, Synthesis of Highway Practice 38,Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

O’Connell, K.J. (1991), “Risk analysis of statistically based acceptance plans for the constructionof highway pavement with application to density of bituminous concrete”, PhDdissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Omachonu, V.K. and Ross, J.E. (1994), Principles of Total Quality, St Lucie Press, St Lucie, FL.

Parti, E.W. (1996), “Issues in pursuing quality in faculty program development”, Journal ofArchitectural Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 32-40.

Highwayconstruction

549

Pekar, J.P. (1995), Total Quality Management: Guiding Principles for Application, ASTM ManualSeries: MNL 22, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.

Roberts, F.L., Kandhal, P.S., Brown, E.R., Lee, D.-Y. and Kennedy, T.W. (1996), Hot Mix AsphaltMaterials, Mixture Design, and Construction, 2nd ed., NAPA Education Foundation,Lanham, MD.

Rounds, J.L. and Chi, N.Y. (1985), “Total quality management for construction”, Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 117-28.

Schmitt, R.L., Whited, G.C., Waelti, G.J., Hanna, A.S., Russell, J.S. and Bahia, H.U. (1996), “Currentinitiatives in quality asphaltic pavement construction: the Wisconsin experience”,Transportation Research Record, No. 1543, Transportation Research Board, NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC, pp. 120-4.

Shober, S.F., Whited, G.C. and McMullen, K.W. (1996), “Wisconsin Departement ofTransportation’s asphaltic pavement warranties”, Transportation Research Record,No. 1543, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC,pp. 113-19.

Weigel, J.J. Jr, Cominsky, R.J. and Moulthrop, J.S. (1996), “Design and implementation of adynamic quality management system for HMA: a case study”, in Decker, D.S. (Ed.),Quality Management of Hot Mix Asphalt, STP 1229, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA,pp. 46-55.

IJQRM20,5

550