INTRODUCTION consultant fees, incompetent standard of

I. INTRODUCTION consultant fees, incompetent standard of

Building quality has become one a workmanship, lack of focus on quality and very important aspect for construction

inadequate supervision and inspection project success. In the building construction, (Love and Edwards, 2004). In addressing

failures and defects are common. This the issues in Malaysia building quality, problem may reduce the quality of a landed

Construction Industry Board of Malaysia housing, strata‐titled housing, or public

(CIDB) introduced a Quality Assessment building. Building defects can be resulted

System in Construction (QLASSIC) as an from the design error by the architect, a

independent method to assess and evaluate manufacturing flaw, defective materials,

the quality of workmanship of a improper use or installation of materials,

construction work based on approved lack of adherence to the design by the

standard (CIDB, 2006). Hence, the contractor, or any combination of them

introduction of QLASSIC is expected to (Ahzahar, 2011). There are 9 elements

address several of the predominant quality affecting the quality of building construction

issues that prevailed in the construction project which are, design, contract, material,

realm (Mukhtar, 2010).

labor, equipment, subcontractors, site

layout, systems, site staff, and execution

Assessing Building Quality in Malaysian

(Abdul‐Razeq, 2001).

Construction Industry

Quality is an important aspect in the unskilled worker, and less qualified

Moreover, standard

reduction,

construction industry. The quality issues construction technologist contribute to the

are the main concern for all parties building quality problem (Memon, 2010).

especially to the developers in order to Also, the other factors impede the

fulfill the building quality requirement construction quality of buildings are lack of

expected by property purchasers (Abdullah understanding of end‐user requirements,

et al., 2013). Hence, assessing the quality of poor contract documentation and low

construction for compliance with the design construction for compliance with the design

5. Factors that a barrier to QLASSIC AEC (Architecture, Engineering, and

assessment

Construction) industry (Sri Kalyan et al.,

6. Suggestion for improving the 2016).

QLASSIC assessment process The demand for skilled and

The questionnaire was distribute to competence site management team is pre‐

correspondences in the construction prominent because workmanship is one of

industry. The totals are 69 responses from the essential factors for good quality in

the QLASSIC practitioner which comprised building construction work. Moreover,

of 17 clients, 29 contractors, and 23 technical work competency and knowledge

QLASSIC assessors. The data from this is the important aspects for foreman on

research was analyzed using descriptive construction site (Uwakweh, 2005). The

analysis. The demographic part is analyzed incompetent supervisors and lack of skills

using percentage, and the effectiveness of among the workers is one of the factors

QLASSIC assessment is analyzed using mean affecting quality in building construction

value.

(Alinaitwe et al., 2007). Also, the most important factor inhibiting the successful

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

completion of a construction project is the

3.1. The Participants Profile

scarcity of skilled personnel at all levels Part A presented the respondent’s especially supervisors (Ogunlana et al.,

demographic profile. The result in Table 1 2002).

the majority of QLASSIC

determined

that

a respondents in this study is a contractor, 29 construction project shall be carried out by

assessment

on

individuals (42.03%). Most of the competent assessors appointed by CIDB.

respondents’ project that assessed using However, result from previous research

QLASSIC is landed housing project because identified 2 several areas which need

the percentage is 39.63, higher than other further improvement which are, CIDB’s

project. There are 2 highest project values supervision during assessments by the

that assessed using QLASSIC which are the appointed external assessors and the

project between RM 10 million until RM 30 competency of the assessors (Mukhtar et al.,

million and project exceed RM 100 million 2014). In assessing the building quality,

by the contractor grade 7. contractor supervisory staff must possess the skills, knowledge, expertise, and

Table 1 Analysis Demographic Respondent capabilities to administer the construction

Percentage

Demographic

work (Maloney, 2002). (%) Your association/role in the QLASSIC

II. assessment METHODOLOGY

24.64 This study adopted a survey research

Client

design. The instrument that involved is a set

42.03 of QLASSIC assessment questionnaire. The

Contractor

33.33 questionnaire of QLASSIC assessment

QLASSIC Assessor

Type of project assessed by QLASSIC

contained the following parts:

Landed housing

A. Demographic

Strata‐titled housing

B. Effectiveness of QLASSIC Assessment 20.12 Process:

Public building

Hospital/airport

Project Value

1. Appropriateness of the QLASSIC

23.44 assessment process

Below RM10 million

Between RM10‐30 million

2. Appropriateness of the project Between RM30‐50 million

20.31 elements assessed

Exceeding RM 100 million

undertaking the assessment

4. Benefit targeted from the QLASSIC assessment

Table 2 presented that the majority of the respondent project is located around

Table 4.Appropriateness of the QLASSIC Selangor and Kuala Lumpur area. assessment process

Table 2 Project Location

following

QLASSIC

Mean Description

application

and

Project Location

Percentage (%)

assessment process

Selangor/Kuala

54.43 1. Application method

Lumpur and the processing 3.7258 Appropriate Perak

6.33 time

3.80 2. Selection of sample 3.9524 Appropriate Kelantan

Kedah

13.92 and location

Terengganu

1.27 3. Assessment at the 4.0167 Appropriate Johor

8.86 project site

Negeri Sembilan

1.27 4. Fairness of the

Sarawak

3.9355 Appropriate Pulau Pinang

6.33 assessment

1.27 marking scheme

Pahang

2.53 5. Time taken to

the 3.6935 Appropriate Table 3 shows, the number of the

undertake

assessment

project audited by QLASSIC among 6. Time taken to get

assessment 3.0484 Moderately Malaysian contractor increased from 2007

Table 3. Project audited using QLASSIC among From the results, it found that the

Malaysian contractor (2007‐2015) entire respondents agreed that most of the No. of

application and assessment process in project

1 2 3 QLASSIC is appropriate. However, it project than 4 project project

More

indicated that all the respondent agreed

Year time taken to get assessment result is 2007

project

moderately appropriate. 2008

3.3. Appropriateness of the project

elements assessed

3.38 % 1.45 % 1.45 % 1.93 % Table 5 shows; there are 3 types of 2012

6.76 % 3.38 % 0.97 % 2.90 % works that assessed in a QLASSIC which are 2013

4.83 % 5.31 % 3.87 % 3.87 % architectural works, mechanical and

6.76 % 5.80 % 1.93 % 4.35 % electrical works, and external works. The results discovered that all the assessment in

From the results, the percentage value QLASSIC for each type of work is of contractor firms which have 2 and more

appropriate. The mean value of the items is than 4 project that have been audited by

around 3.6842 until 4.344. QLASSIC increased from 2007 until

From this finding, the suitability of the 2015.Meanwhile, the percentage value of

internal finishes contractor firms which have 1 and 3 project

scope/element

in

assessment is very appropriate with the that have been audited are fluctuated.

QLASSIC assessment. Internal finishes cover the major part in the building included

3.2. Appropriateness or suitability of floors, internal walls, ceiling, doors,

the QLASSIC application and

windows and fixtures (internal). Because of

assessment process.

that, the weightage (%) of the internal finished in QLASSIC assessment is high

The result in Table 4 shows the which is 56% (CIDB, 2006). appropriateness or suitability of the Based on the CIS: 7 (2006), the QLASSIC application and assessment location of internal finishes assessment was process. categorized into 3 types, which are The result in Table 4 shows the which is 56% (CIDB, 2006). appropriateness or suitability of the Based on the CIS: 7 (2006), the QLASSIC application and assessment location of internal finishes assessment was process. categorized into 3 types, which are

areas such as toilets, kitchens, balconies, locations include lift lobbies, corridors and

and yards.

Table 5 Appropriateness of the project elements assessed Appropriateness of the project elements assessed

Mean Description

Suitability of the Architectural Works assessed:

1. Suitability of the sample chosen to be assessed 3.8571 Appropriate

2. Suitability of the number of sample assessed 3.8852 Appropriate

3. Suitability of the scope/elements of the following Architectural Works assessed Very

a. Internal Finishes 4.3443 Appropriate

b. Roof 3.8814 Appropriate

c. External Wall 4.1207 Appropriate

d. Apron & Perimeter Drain 3.8644 Appropriate

e. Material & Functionality test 3.8475 Appropriate

Suitability of the Mechanical & Electrical Works assessed:

1. Suitability of the sample chosen to be assessed 3.9298 Appropriate

2. Suitability of the number of sample assessed 3.8596 Appropriate Appropriate

3. Suitability of the Mechanical & Electrical (M&E) elements 3.7857 assessed

Suitability of the External Works assessed:

1. Suitability of the sample chosen to be assessed 3.8772 Appropriate

2. Suitability of the number of sample assessed 3.8103 Appropriate

3. Suitability of the Mechanical & Electrical (M&E) elements assessed

a. Link‐way/ Shelter 3.6842 Appropriate

b. External Drain 3.6842 Appropriate

c. Roadwork and Car Park 3.7069 Appropriate

d. Footpath and Turfing 3.7018 Appropriate

e. Playground 3.7719 Appropriate

f. Court/Sports facilities 3.8246 Appropriate

g. Fence and gate 3.8070 Appropriate

h. Swimming pool 3.8246 Appropriate i.

Electrical Substation 3.8621 Appropriate

3.4. Competency

of assessor in IV. Benefit targeted from the QLASSIC

undertaking the assessment

assessment

The results in Table 6 shows, that the The result in Table 7 found that all the level of assessor competency in assessing

respondents have a positive expectation architectural work, mechanical & electrical

that QLASSIC assessment will give high works and external works is high.

benefit for the Malaysian construction industry because building quality can be

Table 6 Competency of assessor in undertaking measured by the customer satisfaction. The the assessment

importance of quality has expended to Competency of assessor in

concentrate on the clients or customers’ undertaking the assessment

Mean Descri

satisfaction (Adnan et al., 2000) and Level of competency of

ption

QLASSIC assessment can help to increase Architectural Work

1. Assessor in assessing

High

the clients/customer satisfaction. The Level of competency of

implementation of QLASSIC assessment also Assessor in assessing

can help to build the reputation of the

Mechanical & Electrical contracting firm and build the project Works

High

personnel capacity in Level of competency of

management

managing projects in the future. Moreover,

3. Assessor in assessing

the QLASSIC rating score ca help companies External Works

High

to obtain for the sole purpose of being to obtain for the sole purpose of being

other researcher stated that the causes of assessment can be regarded as an effort of a

the decline of construction productivity company to improve its total quality

directly or indirectly involved poor management by addressing issues such as

management practices Business Roundtable cost efficiency, company productivity,

(1983). Another important barrier factor to company

QLASSIC assessment is the architects do not satisfaction which directly enhance the

possess adequate competency to manage related company as whole (Hwang et al.,

the quality of work at the project site. 2013).

Architect is expected to visit the site from time to time to familiarize himself with the

Table 7.Benefit targeted from the QLASSIC progress and quality of the work being assessment

performed by the construction team Benefit targeted from

(Sapers, 2009). Therefore, a professional the QLASSIC assessment

Mean Descrip

consultant is more knowledgeable about Customer/user

construction quality than the developers

1 satisfaction Building the project

because they determine the construction management personnel

specifications (Adi et al., 2014).

High

2 capacity in managing

projects in future Table 8.Factors that be a barrier to QLASSIC Building the reputation

assessment

of the company as a 4.180

High

Factors that be a barrier to

good contractor Mean Description

QLASSIC assessment

The high cost of

3.5. Factors that be a barrier to

2.833 Moderately

1. QLASSIC audit

Important

QLASSIC assessment

Managing projects to

Table 8 was illustrated the result to

achieve quality such as

3.217 Moderately Important toward the factors that be a barrier to

examine the QLASSIC practitioner response

2. QLASSIC is not the

company policy

QLASSIC assessment. The result found that

Difficulty in getting the

there are 4 important barrier factors to the

right skilled sub‐

3.767 Important QLASSIC assessment. First, difficulty in

3. contractors/tradesmen

to carry out the works

getting the right

skilled

sub‐

Absence/weakness of

contractors/tradesmen to carry out the

works. Most of the available skill workers 3.650 Important

effective quality

4. management system

are still lack of appropriate technical skills

within the project

and knowledge (Pan et al., 2007).

Contractors lack

Moreover, Hoonakker et al. (2010) study

3.729 Important found that skilled workforce is an important

competent quality

5. supervisors to control

aspects for improving quality. Secondly,

the project quality

contractors are lack of competent quality The following consultant teams do not possess supervisors in controlling the project adequate competency to manage the quality of

6. work at the project site

quality. The supervision of the contractor is

3.610 one of the factors that affect quality in

a. Architects

Important

2 construction phase (Arditi et al., 1998).

3.066 Moderately Also, the contractor skills and experience is

b. Civil & Structural

7 Important the highest factors among the sub‐factors

Engineers

3.100 Moderately that influenced quality. (Rifat and Amer,

c. Mechanical &

0 Important 2001)

Electrical Engineers

Lack of training to

3.116 Moderately absence/weakness of an effective quality

This finding also showed that

implement quality

7 Important management system within the project is

7. management according

to QLASSIC standards

one of the important barrier factors to the

3.6. Suggestions for improving the

assessment as one of the methods to

QLASSIC assessment process

assessing the building construction project. The result in Table 9 shows the

All the QLASSIC practitioners and QLASSIC training is very important to

participants in this study agreed that the ensure that the project can achieve a good

QLASSIC assessment giving a high benefit QLASSIC rating. It is suggested for the sub‐

for their future project and all the elements contractors, consultants and Superintending

in QLASSIC assessment is appropriate to be Officer (S.O) participate in the QLASSIC

implemented in the assessment process. training because it can give a positive

However, there are 4 important barrier impact to their performance in quality

factors in implementing the QLASSIC assessment. Education and training are the

assessment need to be highlighted. most important elements affecting the

competence and quality and a quality ongoing training

Therefore,

the

knowledgeable workers in the construction program has an important quality strategy

industry is important to improve the project (Jraisat et al. (2006); Sharmma and

quality. Meanwhile, training is one of the Gudanne, (2002)). Furthermore, employee

important factors to improve the site training is one of the factors that affect

management team competency in assessing quality in construction phase (Arditi et al.,

the project and ensure the project can 1998).QLASSIC training is one of the

achieve good QLASSIC rating. Based on the opportunity

result in this study, the future study will be practitioner to expand the knowledge and

conducted to identify the training and skill in quality assessment. Also, skills of

competency of site management team issues workers can be demonstrated once the

in QLASSIC assessment. training complete Ling et al., 2007).