From Quality-I to Quality-II: cultivating an error culture to support lean thinking and rework mitigation in infrastructure projects

Abstract

While lean thinking may help tackle waste, rework remains an ongoing problem during the construction of infrastructure projects. Often too much emphasis is placed on applying lean tools rather than harnessing the human factor and establishing a culture to mitigate rework. Thus, this paper proposes the need for construction organisations to transition from the prevailing error prevention culture (i.e. Quality-I) that pervades practice to one based on error management (i.e. Quality-II) if rework is to be contained and reduced. Accordingly, this paper asks: What type of error culture is required to manage errors that result in rework and to support lean thinking during the construction of infrastructure projects? We draw on the case of a program alliance of 129 water infrastructure projects and make sense of how it enacted, in addition to lean thinking, a change initiative to transition from error prevention to an error management culture to address its rework problem. We observed that leadership, psychological safety and coaching were pivotal for cultivating a culture where there was an acceptance that ‘errors happen’ and effort was directed at mitigating their adverse consequences. The contributions of this paper are twofold as we provide: (1) a new theoretical underpinning to mitigate rework and support the use of lean thinking during the construction of infrastructure projects grounded in Quality-II; and (2) practical suggestions, based on actual experiences, which can be readily employed to monitor and anticipate rework at the coalface of construction.

Keywords:

• Culture
• error
• lean
• psychological safety
• quality
• rework

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Defined as “an integrated socio-technical system whose main objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimising supplier, customer and internal variability” (Shah and Ward 2007, 791)

2 The concept of lean thinking aims to remove waste from work processes. In the context of construction these wastes COSTMORE: (1) Capability under-utilised; (2) Over-processing; (3) Stoppage; (4) Transportation; (5) Motion; (6) Overproduction; Rework; (7) and (8) Excess inventory.

3 We define as “redoing work in the field regardless of the initiating cause,” which expressly excludes change orders and errors caused by off-site manufacture (Robinson-Fayek, Dissanayake, and Campero 2004, 1078).

4 The pursuit of any means necessary to achieve a specific end, especially the elimination of waste in the case of lean.

5 Culture has been defined as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by [an organization] as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein 2010, p. 18).

6 Characterised by Van Dyck et al. (2005) as “unintended deviations from plans, goals, or adequate feedback processing as well as an incorrect action that results in a lack of knowledge” (p. 1229). Errors in judgment and decision-making (cognitive biases and heuristics) may result in the performance of rework. However, there have been no studies to date that examined the link between judgement, decision-making errors, and rework. In sum, rework is the consequence of an error or violation. Similarly, a failure is a consequence of an error (Frese and Keith 2015)

7 Violations involve a “conscious intention to break a rule or to be nonconforming to a standard; in contrast, errors are unintentional deviations from goals, rules, and standards” (Frese and Keith 2015, 663)

8 This occurs when management, depending on the use of limited resources or attention, requires more to be done than the resources that are readily available (Gaim et al. 2018).

9 Defined as “being able to show and employ one's self without fear of negative consequences of self-image, status or career” (Kahn 1990, p. 708). Similarly, Edmonson (1999) defines the concept as a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking.

10 Defined as “the shared meaning organisational members attach to the events, policies, practices, and procedures they experience and the behaviours they see being rewarded, supported, and expected” (Ehrhart, Aarons, and Farahnak 2014).

11 “Used for project objectives that have significant downside risk such as a no-harm outcome in the safety or environmental context. If significant adverse events occur under these headings, the entitlement to gainshare is reduced by a fixed percentage. Gainshare modifiers only modify the gainshare” (Hayford 2010).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (DP130103018).

Notes on contributors

Peter E. D. Love

Dr Peter E. D. Love is a John Curtin Distinguished Professor in the School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering at Curtin University. He holds a Higher Doctorate of Science for his contributions in the field of civil and construction engineering and a PhD in Operations Management. His research interests include operations and production management, resilience engineering, infrastructure development and digitisation in construction. He has published over 450 scholarly journal papers, which have appeared in leading journals such as the European Journal of Operations Research, Journal of Management Information Systems, Journal of Management Studies, IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Production Planning and Control, and Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice.

Jane Matthews

Dr Jane Matthews is Professor of Digital Construction in the School of Architecture and Built Environment at Deakin University. She has a wide range of industry experience, much of which she gained working as a product and project manager for the Royal Institute of British Architects. Since returning to academia Jane has specialised in the digitalisation of information within the construction industry. Her publications have appeared in leading scholarly journals such as ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Automation in Construction, Environment and Planning C, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Production Planning and Control, and Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice.

Lavagnon A. Ika

Dr Lavagnon Ika is a Professor of Project Management and Founding Director of the Major Projects Observatory at the Telfer School of Management (Ottawa). His research focuses on how projects work. His work appeared in journals including World Development, Production Planning & Control, the International Journal of Project Management (IJPM) and the Project Management Journal. He is an Associate Editor for the IJPM. He received the Emerald Best Reviewer Award in 2018, Outstanding Paper Award in 2017 and Highly Commended Paper Award in 2011; the IPMA Research Award in 2017 and IPMA Research Contribution of a Young Researcher Award in 2012.

Pauline Teo

Dr Pauline Teo is a Lecturer in the School of Property, Construction and Project Management at RMIT University, Australia. She holds a PhD in Construction Economics from Queensland University of Technology, a Masters in Project Management and Bachelor (Hons) in Building from National University of Singapore. Pauline is a qualified Quantity Surveyor and her research has a strong industry-focus. Her research interests are in the areas of safety, quality, project cost overruns, strategic procurement. Her publications have appeared in leading scholarly journals such as the ASCE Journal of Construction, Engineering and Management, Applied Ergonomics, International Journal of Project Management, Production Planning and Control and Safety Science.

Weili Fang

Dr. Weili Fang is a Post-Doctoral Research in the Department of Building at the National University of Singapore. His research focuses on developing digital solutions to improve quality and safety in construction. He was the recipient of the International CIC Construction Innovation Award in 2017, and National Scholarship for Doctoral Students. His research has been published in leading journals such as Advanced Engineering Informatics, Automation in Construction, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Construction and Building Materials, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management and Production Planning and Control.

John Morrison

John Morrison and his Frontline Coach team deliver Project Leadership Programs which inspire clients and their civil construction partners to achieve elite project outcomes by ‘Leading and Learning Together’. He challenges civil construction leaders and teams to utilise their neural intelligence at Head, Heart and Gut levels to reduce the impact of errors and therefore build high quality assets, enhance profits and save lives. His publications have appeared in leading scholarly journals such as the ASCE Journal of Construction, Engineering and Management, Applied Ergonomics, International Journal of Project Management, Production Planning and Control and Safety Science.