Enhancing Architects' Quality Of Work in Building Project Delivery Process
Proceedings of International Conference on Liveable Built Environment 2016
2 - 3 November 2016 Ramada Bintang Bali Resort, Bali, Indonesia Editors Noor Faisal Abas Amin Akhavan Tabassi Faizal Baharom Zul Zakiyuddin Ahmad Rashid
ICLBE Disclaimer
The views and recommendations expressed by the authors are entirely their own and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the editors, the school or the university. While every
attempt has been made to ensure consistency of the format and the layout of the
proceedings, the editors are not responsible for the content of the papers appearing in the
proceedings.Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data International Conference on Liveable Built Environment / Editors Noor Faisal Abas, Amin Akhavan Tabassi Faizal Baharom And Zul Zakiyuddin Ahmad Rashid
,
ISBN 978-967-394-276-3
1. Sustainable Built Environment 2. Construction Materials and Technology 3.
Construction and Property Management I. Noor Faisal Abas II. Amin Akhavan Tabassi II.
Faizal Baharom . IV. Zul Zakiyuddin Ahmad Rashid.All rights reserved. © 2016 School of Housing, Building and Planning, USM
ICLBE
TABLE OF CONTENTS Code Title and Author/s Page
ICLBE1006 The Communal Dwelling of The Rungus Longhouse, Sabah,
1 Malaysian Borneo Azizi Bahauddin & Aldrin Abdullah
ICLBE1007 Performance Measurement Dimensions for Sri Lankan Hotel
12 Industry: An Expert Review Kaluthanthri P C and Osmadi A
ICLBE1008 Effectiveness of Cross-Sectional Ratio to SSTT-Confined High-
20 Strength Concrete Hoong-Pin Lee, Jie-Sheng Lee, Perng-Shen Tai and Abdullah Zawawi Awang Wahid Omar
ICLBE1009 An Overview of Snatch Theft Crime and Physical
26 Environmental Attribute
Anith Nabilah binti Mustafa and Siti Rasidah Md Sakip
ICLBE1010 Bullying Behavior: An Overview of Environmental Design with
32 School Bullying and Future Crime Azna Abd Wahab and Siti Rasidah Md Sakip
ICLBE1011 A Review of Criteria and Indicators for Heritage Trees
38 Recognition ,
Khalilah Hassan Wan Noor Anira Wan Ali and Siti Norlizaiha Harun
ICLBE1015 The Necessities of Having Lighting Designers in Built
44 Environment in Malaysia Safial Aqbar Zakaria and Foong Fu Kai
ICLBE1016
49 Enhancing Architects’ Quality of Work in Building Project Delivery Process
Amy Marisa and Nor’Aini Yusof
ICLBE1017 Cultural Diversity and Conflict in
55 The Construction Industry of Malaysia Teh Jun Ren and Amin Akhavan Tabassi
ICLBE1018 SteFib Column as New Invention to the Liveable Built
61 Environment Nurharniza Abdul Rahman , Amirullah Maat, Najiah Adam Tong and Deepak Tirumishi Jada
ICLBE ICLBE1020 Assessment of Public Procurement Guidelines Compliance
69 towards achieving Construction Project Cost Performance in Nigeria: Mediation Approach Using Process Macro Abdullahi Nafiu Zadawa, Abdul Aziz Hussin, Atasya Osmadi and Aminu Garba Waziri
ICLBE1021 Influencing Factors of Construction and Demolition (C&D)
80 Wastes Generation in Malaysia Mohd Reza Esa, Anthony Halog andLucia Rigamonti
ICLBE1022 Modern Building Services vs Heritage Shophouse Façade in
86 Georgetown/ Penang Omar Adil Sabah and Muna Hanim binti Abdul Samad
ICLBE1023 Clay-PFA Eco-Bricks for Low-Impact Construction
92 Norsalisma Ismail and Mohamad Nidzam Rahmat
ICLBE1024 Materials and Experimental of Concrete Roof Tile Composite
96 as Insulation Material An Nisha Nur Welliana Abd Rased, Noor Faisal Abas and Abdul Malek Abdul Rahman
ICLBE1025 Managing Scaffolding for Safe Working Practices on Site Norhidayah Md Ulang, Ameera Mohd Nordin and Faizal 101 Baharum
ICLBE1027 Strength Properties of Stabilised Marginal Clay- Industrial 106
Waste with Traditional Binder Ani Maslina Saleh and Mohamad Nidzam Rahmat
ICLBE1028 Integrating Sustainable Construction Approach in Post-Disaster 111
Housing Reconstruction Farrah Zuhaira Ismail, Anthony Halog and Carl Smith
ICLBE1029 Energy Efficiency of Green Highway Assessment for Tropical 118
Climate , ,Asmalia Che Ahmad Nur Illiana Husin Abdul Muhaimin Ab Wahid and Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman
ICLBE1030 Stormwater Management of Green Highway Assessment for 124
Tropical Climate , ,Asmalia Che Ahmad Nur Illiana Husin Abdul Muhaimin Ab Wahid and Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman
ICLBE1032 Influence of Green Campus Application to Quality of Life 130
Hilma Tamiami Fachrudin and Khaira Amalia Fachrudin
ICLBE1033 Influence of Morphological Elements on Visual Privacy of 135
House Facades Hussien Salman and Ahmad SanusiICLBE 2 - 3 November 2016-Ramada Bintang Bali Resort, Bali, Indonesia
ICLBE1034 The Impact of Road Geometry with Respect to The Roadside 140
Trees On Energy Implications of Road Adjacent Residential Buildings in Iran Nasibeh Faghih Mirzaei, Vida Taghvaei and Hossein Taghvaei
ICLBE1036 The Iconography Preferences for the Malay Garden Hardscape 145
Identity Ahmad Zamil Zakaria, Syazwani Ahmad and Mohd Sabrizaa Abd Rashid
ICLBE1037 Color Idea in Therapeutic Garden Design for Pediatric Patient 152
Nor Izana Mohd Shobri
ICLBE1038 Barriers and Drivers of Construction Green Supply Chain 157
Management Heng Yong Ming and Zul Zakiyuddin
ICLBE1039 Developing an Adaptive Reuse Model for Organization 168
Management in Conservation of Heritage Building in Malaysia: A Conceptual Framework, , Mohd. Hanizun Hanafi Zul Zakiyudin A.Rashid Arman Abdul Razak and Mohd Umzarulazijo Umar
ICLBE1040 Pilot Study Questionnaire Analysis on Indoor Environmental 175 Quality (IEQ) and Occupant’s Self-Estimate Productivity in
GBI Rated Office Building: Non Environmental Factors
Muna Hanim Abdul Samad, Asniza Hamimi Abdul Tharim and Mazran Ismail
ICLBE1041 The Windows of Security: Forming A Distinguished 182
Architectural Style Molood Seifi, Aldrin Abdullah and Mina Seifi
ICLBE1042 The Utilization of Electrical Sub-Meter in Accomplishing 186
Effective Power Use: The Study Case of Universiti Sains Malaysia Campus Faizal Baharum, Syamim Bin Sulaiman and Norhidayah Md Ulang
ICLBE1043 Improving Industrialised Building System (IBS) Construction 193
Through The Adoption of Building Information Modelling (BIM) Mariati Taib, Sabreena Shukri, Teo Yu ShanICLBE Obtaining rewards believed to be a motivator for the employees to work harder and deliver better quality in their work. Deliver a high quality of work is one of the ways to ensure architects will remain competitive and survive in the construction industry. Thus, this study aims to analyze the impact of rewards on architect’s quality of work in building project delivery process. The assessment of architect’s quality of work was carried out using the self evaluation through a questionnaire survey of registered architects in Indonesia. There were 222 completed and usable questionnaires received and used for data analysis. Data analysis includes factor analysis, reliability analysis, and regression analysis. The results revealed that rewards can determine 12.9% of architects’ quality of work in building project delivery process. The results can be used as a valuable feedback for the architects, clients and people on the top management of consultant firms to identify the extent of architects’ work quality in building project delivery process. This study also provides useful feedback for the employers and the clients to enhance the quality of work of their key design contributor by providing the appropriate rewards to achieve higher performance in building project delivery process.
In the construction industry, quality has been known as one of the indicators to a successful project. Quality provides as the basis for service delivery processes, and it is the responsibility of every participant that involve in the process to achieve the intended quality goals [1], including architect as the key contributor in design project delivery process. Quality in construction industry relates with fulfilling all the requirements needed and gaining satisfaction of all participants involved in the project especially the clients’ satisfaction [2]. Construction firms manage their quality through their people in several practices to achieve competitive advantage [3], because people are very important assets for the firms [4]. Unfortunately, quality management application in architectural profession is likely unknown and architects tend to have poor quality management in their work [5]. However, to be successful in the industry, it is crucial for architects to achieve desired quality that can satisfy their clients.
Design quality has been recognized to have connection with various aspect of performance [6, 7]. Architects’ work is commonly assessed based on design and therefore, their design quality or the outcome will ascertain the project performance achieving success or experiencing failure. Thus, several studies have been devoted to identify on how to enhance the project outcomes to survive and gain competitive advantage in the industry [8, 9, 10]. However, the impact of rewards itself has not been adequately studied to influence the architect’s quality of work in building project delivery process. To fill this gap, this paper attempts to measure the extent of architect’s quality of work as well as to analyze the impact of rewards on the architect’s quality of work in building project delivery process in Indonesia. This study hopes to identify the role of rewards as a determinant to architect’s quality of work and provides valuable feedback on how well architects’s work quality in project delivery process. For construction firms, the results of this study are expected to be used as a conceptual reference for formulating policies to increase the architects’ quality of work as their key employees.
It has been recognized that building that is provided for the community should be designed to the highest quality [6]. In the construction industry, quality refers to the totality of features required in services or products to satisfy the needs which help to convince users and clients [11]. As for the architect, quality of work defines as the eligibility of purposes, meeting all of the requirements for a project such as the client’s needs, aesthetic, function, and conformance with applicable regulations on the building [12]. Architects tend to have poor understanding on quality management theory [5]. Thus, it reflects on how they manage quality in their work which is largely lacking in their professions. Design quality has been recognized to have a connection with various aspect of performance [6]. There are several items that measure the quality of the architect’s work such as aesthetics and quality of design [13], high6quality specification [14], no rework or deficiency in design [15], quality management strategies, assist in the production of quality manuals, design conformance to codes and standard, and assist in production of construction inspection and testing program [16].
The design that the architect produces should have no rework and deficiencies. There are several reasons for reworking such as the client’s needs may evolve, the contractor wants to substitute the materials, and or the architect finds a mistake in the design and comes up with a better solution [17]. Rework sometimes unavoidable and it may happen because of changes made late on the site and because of design errors. Design error is one of the factors that contribute to defects and the building failure [18]. Therefore, architect should give proper attention to all of requirements and details in the process of producing the building design to minimize and eliminate errors and also to prevent reworking and deficiencies in the project.
The architects should also maintain the aesthetics and quality of design produced since architects’ work commonly is judged by the look of their design [17]. Therefore, the first good impression provides by an architect to the public through the look of their design probably is one of the ways that may lead an architect to be hired by other clients. Through the buildings that they designed, the architects express their visions and aesthetic values [13]. The design quality has the effect to the quality performance and is defined as the extent to which quality is designed into the product [7]. The quality of design is achieving its’ best when it meets the functionality, built quality, and impact [19]. It is important to achieve a good quality of design in any construction project [15]. Therefore, the architects’ true excellence in work can be assessed by the way they produce their design to achieve the best design quality by not forgetting about the aesthetic values that should be implemented in their design.
Reward defines as the intentional use of the payment system as an important integrating mechanism through the efforts of individuals that are addressed towards the achievement of organizational objectives [20]. There are two types of rewards; the financial rewards (tangible rewards) and the non6financial rewards (intangible rewards). Previous study differentiates rewards based on the intangibility and divides rewards as tangible rewards and intangible rewards [21]. Nevertheless, whether it is tangible or intangible rewards, both of them have been known to have a strong motivational effect to individuals. The following items measure rewards for project efforts:
! "
It is common that people are generally seeking for high salaried work. The amount of salary a firm offers to their workers is often to be the reason for the workers to stay or move to another firm which provides better salary or payment. Based on Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, salary is one of the basic needs that should be fulfilled and considered as the psychological needs for human to survive [22]. Previous researchers have proposed salary as one of the important work motivation factors among others [23, 24, 25]. Therefore, sufficient salary is necessary to motivate individual to work harder and put more effort to his or her work.
! # $ % & ' Bonus can encourage a high level of performance [20].
Unfortunately, most of the companies or firms probably may not afford to offer high monetary incentives to motivate the broad base of employees [26]. Bonus can be defined as a form of economic motivation through incentives that is given in order to stimulate performance [27]. It is suggested that it is better to give an extra payment or bonus to the employees for their work with outstanding results and their abilities to accomplish challenging tasks [20]. Therefore, providing bonus or extra payment is one of the tangible rewards that is expected to motivate individuals to work even harder in performing their tasks to attain the project objectives.
! (
Perks and other incentives are another forms of tangible rewards that can be used to attract individuals to work harder and put more efforts to their work. In the construction industry, incentives have been acknowledged to affect the project success and performance [10, 27, 28]. Perks and other incentives that may be given for the employees can be in the form such as health insurance, fitness center membership, childcare, unpaid or paid sabbaticals, opportunity to work from home, etc [29]. Therefore, providing perks and other incentives for the individuals in the construction industry are another effective motivational attributes that can be used by the employers to achieve better outcomes from their employees.
!) * $ '
Pension is one part of the total remuneration or compensation package for the employees and defined as a combination of retirement6related payments from various sources such as general and income6related state pension, and employment pension [30]. Pension can be considered as a reward, and an appreciation provides to retired employees for their working days and loyalty to the firms where they have worked.
!+ ( & &
Every firms need to retain their key employees to be able to survive in the industry filled with competition and constant changes. It requires retention policies and strategies with consideration of the employees’ real expectations to retain the talented staff [31]. The way to manage employees toward the employees’ retention is not an easy task for the management [32, 33]. The contributions given by employees, whether it is small or big needs to be appreciated. Thus, retaining the employees for their contributions and efforts is another form of appreciation from the employers to their employees other than monetary that can motivate them to work as well as giving the chance for the firm’s survival.
!,
All workers need to be recognized for their good work and contributions [34]. Recognition is a non6monetary reward as an appreciation that is given to selected individuals because of their high level of accomplishment [20]. Individuals that are highly educated and have steady jobs perceive non6monetary rewards such as recognition as a far greater motive than monetary rewards [35]. Subordinates seek recognition from the people in higher management level. Therefore, architects as leaders in design team strive to gain recognition from people in top management level that their contributions are important and vital to organization success [36].
!- (
Praise is defined as an act that attributes to others for the skills and other characteristics that is valued positively by an individual that gives feedback [37]. Praise is important especially to motivate individuals in learning to improve to generate better performances [38, 39]. If the recipient believes that there is a positive relationship between effort and ability, the praise that is given based on efforts can be motivational [40]. Therefore, it is important to consider giving praise according to the individuals’ needs, in appropriate situations to make effective praise resulted in motivational effects to the individuals.
!. /
Feeling valued is defined as a positive affective response that focuses on the confirmation of the individual’s possession of the qualities on which desirability or worth depends [41]. It is the feeling of usefulness or worth to someone [42]. The individuals’ thriving at work describes the individuals who have the feeling of valued and are being energised because of what they do in their work is valued by others [43]. This implies that individuals with the feelings of valued have positive affective responses, and they are the ones who thrive at work because of what they do are valued by others. Therefore, they are more motivated in their work and more energetic, which can improve work performance.
) 0
This study employed the quantitative approach using questionnaire survey to collect data and meet the study objectives. Architects registered with the Indonesian Institute of Architect (IAI) were chosen as the respondents for this study. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed, a total of 231 were returned but 9 of them were unusable. Therefore, there were 222 completed questionnaires that were analyzed with the aid of Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) software, version 20.0. Frequency and descriptive statistics are used for data analysis and data presentation.
The questionnaire is divided into four sections. The first section gathers information on the respondent’s background. The second section, which consists of seven questions, identifies the level of architect’s quality of work using Likert’s scale adopted from previous research in ascending order starting from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) [16]. The third section consists of eight questions which identifies rewards for project efforts using Likert’s scale in ascending order starting from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The last section solicits respondents’ comments on architect’s quality of work and rewards motivation.
To achieve the goodness of measures, validity and reliability test should be carried out for all items in the instrument. The validity of the instrument can be established through factor analysis [44]. Therefore, the instrument should be tested through factor analysis. The value of KMO measure of sampling adequacy should be between 0.5 – 1 so that the variable can be predicted and analyzed [45]. In factor analysis, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity should be significant, where < 0.05, to ensure the applicability of the factor analysis to the data [46]. Table 1 presents the results of factor analysis for the dependent variable (quality of work).
Results of factor analysis 6 quality of work 2.962 42.310
4.13 Deliver aesthetics and quality into design .691 Produce clarity and consistency of specification with drawings
.804 Provide assistance in quality management strategies .813 Provide assistance in construction commissioning and testing program
.563 1.340 19.142 Provide assistance in production of quality manuals for construction works
.719 Deliver design with no rework & deficiency .869 Designs are conformed to codes and standards .746 Total Variance Explained 61.452 KMO 0.726 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 0.000
There were 7 (seven) items under quality of work, and factor analysis was performed on 7 items used to operationalize quality of work. All items were submitted to principal component analysis with varimax rotation. First Kaiser6Meyer6Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was checked, the value was 0.726. Then the Bartlett’s Test of Spherecity was checked, it was significant with value of 0.000. The result in Table 1 showed that the data achieved the requirements value of Kaiser6Meyer6Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy of minimum 0.50 and Bartlett’s Test of Spherecity value that should be less than 0.05 [46, 47], allowing the factor analysis to proceed.
The first objective of the study is to assess the extent of architects’ quality of work in building project delivery process. Table 3 presents the extent of the architects’ quality of work.
7.2 Based on Table 3 the score with the highest frequency
16
4.13 Excellent performance
65.3
27.5 Good performance 145
61
6 Satisfactory performance
6
Under performance
The extent of architects’ quality of work ! "#$
)! 1 %
Based on the rotated component matrix, all items were greater than the minimum loading value of 0.5 [47]. Two components with eigenvalues greater than 1 explaining 42.850% and 22.313% of the variance were extracted, this can be seen in Table 1. Two components derived from quality of work were named design quality planning and design quality assurance, the interpretation of the names given to the components are made based on the reflection of the items related within a component [46, 47].
After factor analysis, reliability analysis was performed on the rest of the items. The internal consistency of the questionnaire is tested by calculating the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. Internal consistency indicates the homogeneity of items that form the construct [44]. Cronbach alpha coefficient which is less than 0.6 is not good, 0.6–0.7 is acceptable, above 0.7 is good, and 0.8 is preferable, based on [44]. Quality of work has Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient with a value of 0.766 (α = 0.766) and rewards for project efforts has Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.797 (α = 0.797), which means that all items (questions) in the questionnaire are good and reliable in measuring architect quality of work. The coefficient also indicates an acceptable measure of the questionnaire’s reliability [48].
Based upon the eigenvalue, there were two components with eigenvalues greater than 1 explaining 45.703% and 19.177% of the variance respectively as can be seen in Table 2. Two components derived from rewards for project efforts were named tangible rewards and intangible rewards. The names for two generated components under rewards for project efforts follow previous study [21].
Based on the rotated component matrix, there was one item that loaded less than 0.5 to the component, it was project efforts can lead to employees’ retention and firm survival. Therefore, this item was dropped. Then, the factor analysis was rerun. The value of KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.701. The Bartlett’s Test of Spherecity was significant with a value of 0.000, allowing factor analysis to proceed.
.831 Feeling valued .766 Total Variance Explained 64.880 KMO 0.701 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 0.000
.803 contributions Efforts are praised
.720 1.342 19.177 Recognition of individual
.824 Plenty of perks .813 Provide old day security
3.86 High salary .754 Good monetary bonus for project efforts
Results of factor analysis 6 rewards for project efforts 3.199 45.703
Similar tests applied for the independent variable in this study (rewards for project efforts). There were 8 (eight) items under rewards for project efforts, and factor analysis was performed on all items. All items were submitted to principal component analysis with varimax rotation. First KMO measure of sampling adequacy was checked, the value was 0.713. The Bartlett’s Test of Spherecity was significant with a value of 0.000 which allows the factor analysis to proceed.
(145) and the percentage (65.3%) belongs to good performance. Another 61 with the percentage of 27.5% have satisfactory performance, and 16 of them (7.2%) have excellent performance. Based on the total mean scores value for overall performance of 4.13 indicates that the architects in Indonesia have a good quality of work performance.
)! &
Regression analysis was used to obtain the second objective in this study. Regression analysis defines as a study of the relationship between one variable which is called the explained variable (dependent variable) with one or more explanatory variables (independent variables) [45]. Therefore, it is important to perform the regression analysis to analyze the influence and to look at the predictive power of the independent variable (rewards) to the dependent variable (architect’s quality of work). Table 4 shows the result of regression analysis.
% Model summary
The coefficient of determination (R²) is used to determine the percentage of dependent variable that can be predicted with independent variable [45]. Thus, based on Table 4 of the model summary, 12.9% of the architect’s quality of work (dependent variable) can be predicted with rewards for project efforts.The Durbin6 Watson has a value of 1.888 which indicates that there is no autocorrelation in the regression model developed. The autocorrelation exists when the Durbin6Watson value is less than one and or bigger than three [45].
- + 2
From 222 respondents that participated in the survey, 187 (84.2%) were male, and 35 (15.8%) were female. Most of the respondents were at the age of 26640 years old (66.2%), most of them had working experience in the industry for 5610 years (40.5%), then 11615 years (29.7%), less than 5 years (16.7%), 16620 years (11.7%), and three of them (1.4%) had experience of more than 20 years in the industry. The majority of the respondents had 2 or 3 projects in a year (63%). They had finished less than 20 projects (48.6%), 20640 projects (36%), 41660 projects (10.8%), 816100 projects (2.7%), 61680 projects (1.4%), and 0.5% had finished 150 projects. Most of the respondents worked in private firms (96.8%), and most of the firms had been established for 11615 years (50%).
The results of this study showed that architects in Indonesia mostly perceive themselves as having good quality of work in building project delivery process. This finding does not conform to the observation that the architects produce unsuccessful buildings that have many errors [49]. Moreover, the findings do not correspond with the notion that architects are underperforming people as suggested by [12]. The differences in the study area could be a contributing factor because the previous study was conducted in Nigeria [12], which is typified by a problematic construction industry in which cost overruns, delays, and materials price fluctuation often occur [50]. By contrast, the current study was conducted in Indonesia where these issues are seldom encountered. The major problems that challenge construction professionals in Indonesia have been defined by several researchers to include environmental related problems [49, 51]. The results also indicate that rewards determine 12.9% of the architects’ quality of work performance in building project delivery process in Indonesia. The result verifies the findings in previous studies that rewards influence the individual’s work outcome [9, 35]. Giving rewards positively affects the employees’ performance [20]. The finding also supports the previous study that rewards such as incentives directly influence three performance criteria in their study, namely, time management, work quality, and level of attendance [8].
, 3
In terms of theoretical contribution, the results of the study do not correspond to previous studies’ findings [12, 49, 51]. On the contrary, this study finds that architects mostly (65.3%) have good quality of work in building project delivery process. This study demonstrates that rewards are positively and significantly related to architect’s quality of work in building project delivery process which in previous studies the impact of rewards has not been studied to influence architect’s quality of work. The results of this study showed that 12.9% of architects’ quality of work can be determined with rewards, consistent with the previous results [8, 9, 10] that rewards influence individual’s work performance. In practice, the results of this study provide valuable feedback for the clients and employers in the industry that architects in Indonesia generally have good quality of work in project delivery process. This study has succeeded in revealing that rewards is a determinant to architects’ quality of work, implying that the work quality of registered architects in project delivery process in Indonesia can be enhanced drastically by providing rewards that suit to their preferences.
Though this study has achieved its objectives, there are several limitations exist in the study. First, this study relies upon the architects’ own perspectives since this study tries to analyze the predictive power of rewards to architect’s quality of work. Even so, for future research to achieve a more thorough quality assessment it should comprise of both clients’ perspectives and architects’ perspectives as well as other professionals that work together in the project delivery process with architects. The result of the study confirms that rewards do play a
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin Watson
1 .359 a .129 .121 .40781 1.870
a. Predictors: (Constant), Mean_Tangible, Mean_Intangible
b. Dependent Variable: Mean_Quality
51. L. L. G. Tanuwidjaja, L. Leonardo, J. Rev. of Urbanism & Arch. Studies, ) (2), 28636 (2011)
A. M. Grant, Org. Sci., * (5), 537–549 (2005)
31. L. R. Yang, K. S. Wu, F. K. Wang, P. C. Chin, Qual.
& Quan., %* (1), 2076219 (2012)
32. E. Kennedy, T. U. Daim, Ev. & Prog. Plan., (4), 4686476 (2010)
33. M. Longo, M. Mura, Inf. & Mngt., %& (7), 2786287 (2011)
34. D. Johnson, ISHN, ) (5), 163 (2005)
35. G. Markova, C. Ford, Int. J. of Pro. & Perf. Mngt.,
36. W. F. Peck, Civ. Eng., * (4), 68669 (1993)
37. F. Hyland, K. Hyland, J. of Sec. Lang. Wri., + (3), 1856212 (2001)
38. S. R. Zentall, B. J. Morris, J. of Exp. C. Psych., +' (2), 556163 (2010)
39. J. Mumm, B. Mutlu, Comp. in Hum. Behav., ' (5), 164361650. (2011) 40. S. F. Lam, P. S. Yim, Y. L. Ng, Contemp. Edu.
Psych., (4), 6946710 (2008)
41. M. White, K. M. Davey, Career Dev. Int., & (5), 2286 234 (2003)
42. T. Chippendale, Clinical Geront., * (2), p. 1626169 (2013)
43. G. Spreitzer, K. Sutcliffe, J. Dutton, S. Sonenshein,
44. U. Sekaran, % " & '(
29. Human Resource Management International Digest,
, 4th ed. (New Delhi, India: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006)
45. J. Sarwono, ( ) " (
' '' (Jakarta: Penerbit PT Elex Media
Komputindo, 2012)
46. J. Pallant, ' '' ' ! ! " & ' ' * ' '', 4th ed.
(Australia: Allen and Unwin, 2011)
47. J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson,
" ! & ! ,
7th ed. (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc., 2010)
48. A. M. Jarkas, J. of Financ. Mngt of Prop. & Cons.,
& (1) (2013)
49. W. Katarina, J. Ilmiah Ars. UPH, (2), 1536159 (2013)
50. A. A. Aibinu, G. O. Jagboro, Int. J. of Project Mngt.,
30. A. M. Danzer, P. J. Dolton, Labour Eco., ) (4), 5846 594 (2012)
28. T. Rose, K. Manley, Eng., Cons. & Arch. Mngt., ' (3), 2526267 (2010)
of Fin. Mngt. of Prop. & Cons., * (1), 42651 (2011)
" (New York: Crown Business, 2003) 27. J. W. Darrington, G. A. Howell, G.A. Motivation J.
26. J. R. Katzenbach, $ " "
25. F. Yang, Work, Chi. Mngt. Studies 5 (3), p. 2726297 (2011)
24. S. Ritchie, P. Martin, " ! " # (Great Britain: Gower, 1999).
23. A. Marisa, N. Yusof, Int. J. of Acad. R., * (2), 17622 (2014)
major role in determining architects’ quality of work in building project delivery process. There are other factors (87.1%) that weighted more to determine the architects’ quality of work; implying that rewards such as high salary, money (bonus), recognition, and praise are not the only things that matter for architects. Therefore, future study should identify other new variables that may act as the predictors for architect’s work quality that can be identified through interviews before conducting a quantitative study to achieve higher explanatory power of regression equation for predicting architect’s quality of work in building project delivery process.
- * (3), 28631 (2008)
1. P. R. Jackson, Int. J. of Qual. & Reli. Mngt., (7), 7146730 (2004)
2. R. Soetanto, D. D. Proverbs, G. D. Holt, The Int. J. of Qual. & Reli. Mngt, & (4), 5286548 (2001) 3.
E. M. Kamal, N. Yusof, M. Iranmanesh, J. of Sci. & Tech. Pol. Mngt, ' (1), 43 – 57 (2016)
4. N. Yusof, Z. Abidin, M. Iranmanesh, , %(, 2426249 (2016)
5. P. Munting, H. Cruywagen, Build. & Env., 43(4), 4446452 (2008)
- *+ (8), 8136823 (2011)
Mngt, (1), 52669 (2005)
15. C. S. Ping, C. N. Y. Keung, M. Ramanathan, , %, 119061196 (2011) 16. L. O. Oyedele, K. W. Tham, Eng., Cons. and Arch.
22. R. Kreitner, ! (New York: McGraw Hill, 2003)
21. A. Dzuranin, N. Stuart, Mngt. Acc. Quart., (4), 16 9 (2012)
20. P. Milne, J. of Know. Mngt (6), 28638 (2007)
19. L. Volker, K. Lauche, J. L. Heintz, H. D. Jonge, Des. Stu., ) (4), 3876409 (2008)
18. N. Ahzahar, N. A. Karim, S. H. Hassan, J. Eman, , +, 2496255 (2011)
London: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd, 2006)
6. P. Cardellino, R. Leiringer, D. C. Croome, Arch.
Eng. & Des. Mngt., ( (4), 2496262 (2009) 7.
B. Fynes, S. D. B[rca, Int. J. of Pro. Eco., )* (1), 16 14 (2005)
8. A. N. Aisha, P. Hardjomidjojo, Yassierli, Int. J. of Innov., Mngt. & Tech., % (6), 6056609 (2013)
9. J. F. Manzoni, S. in Mng and Fin. Acc., +, 19663 (2011)
10. X. Meng, B. Gallagher, Int. J. of P. Mngt., + (3), 3526362 (2012)
11. A. P. C. Chan, A. P. L. Chan, Bench.: An Int. J., (2), 2036221 (2004)
12. L. O. Oyedele, K. W. Tham, Build. & Env., % (5), 209062099 (2007)
17. P. Segal FAIA , (Wells Street,
Cons. Proc. (2), 69682 (1996)
13. J. Schummer, B. MacLennan, N. Taylor, Phil. of Tech. & Eng. Sci., 103161068 (2009) 14. A. D. Songer, K. R. Molenaar, G. D. Robinson, J.
- + (8), 59369 (2002)