3.9 Article

Six-sigma as a strategy for process improvement on construction projects: a case study

Journal

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 339-348

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01446190500521082

Keywords

Six-sigma; process improvement; total quality management

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Significant expenditures of time, money and resources, both human and material, are wasted each year as a result of inefficient or non-existent quality management procedures. In an attempt to improve their market competitiveness, by limiting the extent of non-value-adding activities, some organizations are beginning to monitor the performance of internal and external engineering and construction processes. To achieve these bold aims, these organizations are looking to other industries such as manufacturing to examine the effectiveness of measuring and monitoring tools such as six-sigma. Only in recent years has the six-sigma method been utilized by some of the major players in the construction sector. To familiarize both researchers and practitioners on how to implement the six-sigma method and its potential benefits, the paper describes the outcomes of a six-sigma process improvement project (PIP) conducted for the construction of concrete longitudinal beams on the St Pancras raised railway station in London, UK. The outcome of the six-sigma PIP was the improved productivity of beam construction, enhanced interaction between project teams and reduced project delays. Moreover, interviews with key project participants were conducted to determine the success factors, barriers, suitability and advantages of the six-sigma approach compared with other TQM techniqes. In summary, the six-sigma approach provided the PIP team with a structured process improvement strategy to reduce waste and other non-value adding activities from the construction process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available