Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS and FUTURE RESEARCH 6.1 Conclusions Quality management systems in the United States transportation industry are evolving. Innovations in QAOs and other features of quality programs are being used by STAs across the country on projects with both traditional DBB delivery and alternative delivery methods. However, these alternative quality management systems are being applied on a project-by- project basis due to the lack of national guidance to promote standard approaches. For highway agencies, this lack of guidance is resulting in significant investment to develop individual programs and minimizing the ability to capture and utilize knowledge across agencies. For consulting engineers and contractors, this lack of guidance is resulting in significant investment in response to project solicitations which require unique QMSs for different agencies. The objective of this research was to address the needs for QMS guidance for evolving alternative project delivery methods. This research has provided guidance through the following accomplishments: ⢠Documentation of practices as found in quality management literature, surveys and case studies; ⢠Analysis of the benefits and challenges of the alternative QMS through rigorous and scientific case study means; ⢠Identification and definition of five fundamental QAOs for highway design and construction projects; ⢠Identification and definition of ten factors influencing the selection of a QAO for highway design and construction projects; ⢠Development of a selection model for matching these systems to alternative project delivery methods; ⢠Increasing industry understanding of the impacts that alternative QAOs have on highway design and construction projects; and ⢠Providing agencies with a roadmap of changes to the baseline QMS to accommodate alternative delivery methods. The research defines the roles and responsibilities of all project stakeholders (agency, contractor, designer and consultants) in a clear and understandable manner. The research also describes each of the fundamental QAOs through a description of the stakeholderâs roles and responsibilities, and the applicable project delivery methods. The results provide a better understanding of the impact that a particular QAO has on a project. With this information, an 137
agency can better anticipate the consequences of using a particular QAO on the management of a highway project. 6.2 Challenges to Implementation The research team believes that the guidance in this research will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of overall project delivery and the end product. Continued advancement will take a willingness of STAs to implement alternative QMSs and measure their effectiveness. It has taken decades to establish the baseline QMS. It will take highly motivated individuals and champions of change before the industry can truly realize the impacts of these advances. The challenges of implementing alternative QMS processes are similar any process changes in large public or private organizations. State highway agencies must consider several challenges when deploying this research. Challenging the status quo and creating a cultural change requires leadership and mentoring to ensure that alternative QMSs are thoughtfully applied. The dedication of sufficient time to changing agency attitudes toward incorporating alternative QAOs and incremental changes to the baseline systems will be required. It will be necessary to assign champions within the organization to implement the models, methods and tools in this guidebook. These champions will need to educate their peers and serve as resources for implementation. 6.3 Limitations of the Research Due to the nature of the research questions and the limited use of alternative QMSs in the United States, this research was based on largely qualitative research methods. The survey conducted in this research did not, for the most part, yield statistically significant results. Rather, the survey led the team to a sample of diverse case studies from which to draw conclusions. While the case studies were rigorously conducted and validated, the results are limited by the case study sample size. As a result, the fundamental QAOs identified by the research are based on QAOs that currently exist in the industry. It is possible that additional QAOs not identified in this research may develop in the future as the industry becomes more comfortable with alternative project delivery methods and more comfortable with the contractor taking on more responsibility for quality. The development of additional fundamental QAOs implies that the industry is embracing not only alternative project delivery, project management and quality methods, but also developing relationships with contractors that are built up trust, the contractorâs expertise, and a willingness to shift more quality responsibility to the contractor. While there is historical data pertaining to material specifications and material quality in every SHA, there is a lack of data and consistent measures of quality assurance organizations within the industry. It can be speculated that the reason for this is the industry focus on âhow to implement alternative quality systemsâ at this point, rather than evaluating the effectiveness of quality assurance organizations. The development of measures to assess the performance of QAOs is a topic for future research. The complexity of the topic was evident by a variety of conditions within the industry. This complexity created barriers for the research. For example, there is widespread inconsistent use 138
of quality terminology throughout the industry. The complexity of the topic has resulted in SHAs have differing opinions about the transfer of quality responsibility to the contracting community. Furthermore, during the structured interviews SHAs expressed a need for further guidance regarding quality on a highway project with shifting project roles and responsibilities. 6.4 Future Research The limitations of this research point towards topics to be addressed in the future. Quality management systems in the United States will continue to evolve. Quality management research should strive to lead this change. The following are a few areas for future research. ⢠What levels of quality performance result from each QAO variation? ⢠What additional tools are available to assist with incremental changes to the baseline systems? ⢠Do the need and/or amount of agency staff reduce as the amount of quality responsibility shifts to the industry? ⢠How can QAOs be assigned on a programmatic basis rather than a project-by-project basis? 139
