TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING CLIENT QUALITY

REQUIREMENTS ON PUBLIC BUILDING PROJECTS

John M. Kakitahi1; Henry Alinaitwe2; Robert Agren and Anne Landin
1,2
Department of Construction Sciences, Lund University, P. O. Box 118, 221 00 Lund
3
Division of Construction Management, Lund University, P.O. Box 118 221 00 Lund
4
School of Built Environment, College of Engineering, Design, Art and Technology, Makerere
University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda

Although well-defined client quality requirements facilitate the production of a good

project design brief and minimize rework, project participants should adequately
understand these requirements. In the absence of sufficiently understanding them,
there are added challenges of inadequate translation of these requirements into
product and process characteristics, a transmuting client and an imprecise procedure
of determining integrity of building product and construction process exist. A case
study comprising both exploratory and descriptive research performed a document
analysis of a donor funded project in Uganda to conceptualize the clients’ quality
requirements. The findings highlight the impact of inadequately communicated and
insufficiently prepared and translated client quality requirements. Furthermore,
compliance to quality requirements is shown to be primarily limited to onsite
inspections and the testing and approval of selected building materials. The paper,
comprising the descriptive research, discusses the use of quality function deployment
in understanding clients’ quality requirements on public building projects. This is
valuable to those involved in public infrastructure development, especially in
countries where the public authority is not only involved in the pre-construction stage,
but in the operation and maintenance of the facilities. It is also particularly useful to
clients who comprise development partners that provide aid or grants to developing
countries such as Uganda.

Keywords: quality function, quality requirement, reworks

INTRODUCTION
Challenges of inadequate quality performance, obsolete regulatory frameworks,
ineffectiveness with enforcing existing regulations and inherent bureaucratic processes
in public projects still abound in the construction industry in developing countries
(Ofori, 2005). Soetanto et al. (2004) contend that public authorities, as clients, are
partly responsible due to lack of clarity and an understanding of client requirements
(CRs). Yet, as Kamara et.al (2000a) point out, CRs are the beginning step of project
development and sufficient understanding of these requirements by project
participants is vital for meeting client expectations. CRs have been defined as the
objectives, needs, wishes and expectations of the client who is the entity responsible
for commissioning the design and construction of a facility (Kamara et al., 2000b).
Research into CRs indicates that minimal processing is done during formulation of

1
John_Muhumuza.Kakitahi@construction.lth.se
2
alinaitwe_h@tech.mak.ac.ug

Kakitahi, J M; Alinaitwe, H, Agren, R and Landin, A (2012) Towards understanding client quality
requirements on public building projects In: Laryea, S., Agyepong, S.A., Leiringer, R. and Hughes, W.
(Eds) Procs 4th West Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) Conference, 24-26 July 2012,
Abuja, Nigeria, 747-757.
747
Kakitahi et al.

project design briefs (Kamara et al., 2000a). A component of CRs is client quality
requirements (CQRs), which can be considered as all the planned purposes, needs and
prospects of the client in as far as quality of building product and construction process
are concerned. Where the CQRs are not well formulated in the design brief and
understood by project participants including end-users, there are negative effects on
the design management process (Love et al., 1999). This subsequently increases the
effects of design related rework which is considered a major quality failure attribute
on building projects (Love et al., 2008). Explicitly defined CQRs should be clearly
understood and well communicated during the briefing process. Shen et.al (2004)
document various studies where failure to understand CQRs has led to inadequate
design briefs that inaccurately reflect the CQRs.
The knock-on effects of an inadequately managed design process in as far as quality is
concerned, whose foundation are the CQRs, leads to waste and value loss of public
finance and buildings with lower than anticipated quality standards (Sommerville,
2007). Reports of quality failure on various public building projects in Uganda
suggest that public authorities as clients have been complacent in effectively
managing quality (Kataike, 2009). Yet, the National Development Plan (NDP)
2010/11 – 14/15 of Uganda has planned increased quantity and improved quality of
public infrastructure (NPA, 2010) without stating how quality management of the
design and construction processes will be managed in order to yield long life facilities.
Reliance on the existing regulatory framework, which the NDP acknowledges as
weak, and the subjective supervision from the technical consultants could result in
unnecessary value loss by quality failure through the life stages of the facilities. There
is a need for rational analysis of project performance in satisfying CQRs on the
project. It is posited that there is insufficient understanding of CQRs, since increased
focus seems to be towards cost and time management. The purpose of the research
was to conceptualise and determine the adequacy of CQRs on public building
projects.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The influence of the client
The achievement of both client satisfaction and continuous improvement in total
quality management (TQM) requires effective and efficient participation of the client
(Burati et al., 1992). This is partly because the client initiates mandatory requirements
for selection of the technical consultant and civil works contractor to a construction
contract (Ryd, 2004a). The client determines and expresses the requirements to all
participants under the project and provides leadership to all participants in
transforming the requirements into a completed facility (Jawaharnesan and Price,
1997). The requirements for the public authorities are distinctive because of specific
client-related factors which include; client type (public authority or entity formed as a
result of an agreed contract with donor agencies or development partners), personnel
experience and resource constraints.
Understanding client quality requirements
Understanding CQRs is considered the most important criterion in formulating a well-
articulated design brief and ensuring integrity of building product and construction
process (Soetanto et al., 2004). Quality of both building product and construction
process is the satisfaction of a whole range of performance criteria owned by a range
of internal stakeholders and mediated by a range of mechanisms from regulations to
market forces (Barrett, 2000, Winch, 2010). The product dimension is the provision of

748
 Client quality requirements

public buildings while the process dimension relates to the conversion of CQRs into
technical specifications, control mechanisms and types of procurement and contract
choices. Suffice it to note however that a clients’ understanding of quality, among
various other requirements, is multi-dimensional and incorporating these into design
specifications is challenging, later on satisfying all the requirements. Nevertheless,
appropriate quality management activities should be incorporated in the design and
construction processes of public building projects. Ledbetter (1994) lists some of these
as supplier qualification and expediting, constructability and operability review,
internal and external examination and personnel abilities. For purposes of the
research, quality was defined as “conformance to established requirements” (Burati et
al., 1992). Determination of conformance suggests need for measurement. For quality
attainment, it is preferably by measuring compliance to CQRs (Crosby, 1979). Yet
CQRs in particular are often neglected, especially with provision of public buildings,
because of requisite organizational structures and difficulties in defining CQRs
(Aaltonen, 1999).
It is the parties to a construction contract and professional services agreement that
convert the CQRs into quality characteristics during design management by
translating the CQRs into accurate drawings, contract clauses, technical specifications
and maintenance manuals. The project participants should consider that for CQRs,
there is a link to the public value system and the expectations of those they are
delivering services to, the end users and public generally. Developing the project
definition therefore requires converting some of the CQRs into expected quality
characteristics (Jawaharnesan and Price, 1997). Appropriately defining the project is
essential to meeting end user needs, while achieving the optimum combination of
whole life cost and quality to meet CQRs (Kelly and Male, 1999).
The transmuting client
Public authorities, particularly in developing countries such as Uganda, are involved
normally through the design, construction and the operation and maintenance stages of
the building facilities. Due to insufficient capacity to finance national programs such
as universal education and health services, development partners mainly from Europe
and USA provide counterpart funding for infrastructure development. This however
requires specific financing agreements that require establishment of unique “client
structures” for monitoring and evaluation of the design and construction processes
only. Following handover of the facilities, public authorities with the end-users and
administrators of the facilities then operate and maintain these facilities through the
national budget. Considering the whole life of the buildings, the client can be
considered “transmuting” through the design, construction and operation, maintenance
and rehabilitation (OMR) processes. An example is the case study discussed under
section 6. Power (authority) structures “transmute” with the involvement of various
development partners through the whole life of the facilities because of assigning
requisite responsibilities to entities to ensure compliance with requirements from the
financing parties. Knowledge management and responsibilities are not synergistically
utilised by the public authorities. This is not ideal, because public authorities have key
obligations through the life of the facilities. As Ryd (2004b) points out, they are not
only involved in initiating and financing the project but they are also responsible for
ensuring consideration of end-user preferences and compliance to national regulations
and international conventions.

749
Kakitahi et al.

Quality Function Deployment

To facilitate both product and process integrity and ensure CQRs are understood and
communicated well, it is posited that quality function deployment (QFD) be
considered ideal. Delgado-Hernandez et al. (2007) cite various studies that have
shown QFD to be effective in qualitative aspects such as early identification of CRs,
avoidance of rework and improved stakeholder communication. Among the
quantitative aspects are reduction in engineering changes, shorter design cycles and
fewer warranty claims. QFD and the House of Quality (HoQ), in particular, improve
the process of product definition and integration of CRs into the construction planning
process. QFD is broadly a TQM technique that requires a clear assessment of CQRs
besides the basic project needs to convert them into design targets (Dikmen et al.,
2005). It has various definitions (Akao and Mazur, 2003) but is essentially a set of
planning and communication techniques that focus and coordinate skills first to
design, then production and finally through OMR (Hauser and Clausing, 1996). For
this research, however, QFD has been defined as a system for translating CQRs into
suitable technical characteristics and ensuring that important ones are prioritized in the
design (Delgado-Hernandez et al., 2007). The CQRs to be translated are those
particularly related to government regulations, end user operating conditions and
expectations. This need is similar to that which led to the creation of QFD which was
the need to improve design quality and provide planned quality management criteria
(Chan and Wu, 2002).
Together with life cycle assessment and life cycle costing, QFD is part of the
integrated life cycle design process (Atkin et al., 2003) and it is acknowledged though,
that much as it improves communication among parties, it requires considerable
paperwork. A modified version of the QFD process is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The Quality Function Deployment process (Adapted from CIRI (2010)).
Product Phase 1: Client requirements clearly stipulated in the project design brief
Planning
Warranty data related to the whole life of the building and components
Information of related service competitors from the private sector
Technical abilities of organizational staff to execute their duties
Phase 2: Design concepts formulated from the design brief and whole life analysis
Design Comprehensive technical specifications of building materials to be used
Process Phase 3: Construction activity detailed with requisite resources and project schedule
Planning Target values for all milestones to be achieved during project management
Phase 4: Indicators for evaluation of project performance
Control Project management activities for quality, time, cost and scope
Personnel training during design, construction and facilities management

The House of Quality

The House of Quality (HoQ) is the philosophy that products be designed incorporating
CQRs however challenging this maybe. It is the basic design management tool for
QFD (Hauser and Clausing, 1996) and particularly facilitates stakeholder interactions
through rigorous communication channels. Dikmen et al., (2005) discuss the six basic
sections of the HoQ as; CRs, technical measures, planning matrix, relationship matrix,
correlation matrix and the weights, benchmarks and targets. Considering these basic
sections and the research by Akao (1997), proposed questions to aid HoQ formulation
for public infrastructure development are presented with a view of understanding
CQRs.

750
 Client quality requirements

How do we formulate the CQRs?

Where the client is the public authority, CQRs should be developed through well-
established communication channels of all project participants including end users and
adequately translated into characteristics. This is because aspects of the life of the
facilities will ideally be considered. The CRs will include CQRs among other aspects
of project management and should be clearly presented in the design brief for further
consultation and approval from project participants and related internal stakeholders.
Each CQR should comply with national regulations. The design brief should state the
desired product characteristics and sub-divide them into bundles such as expected
indoor environmental quality, whole life and operational criteria. This also applies to
the construction process characteristics such as environmental, health and safety
standards and waste management procedures.
What CQRs require prioritization?
The subsequent exercise should involve assigning relative importance to each stated
requirement in the design brief through use of a clearly defined weighting process
with the participation of internal stakeholders, as categorized by Winch (2010). As
with the HoQ formulation process, weights of relative importance should be
aggregated and add up to 100%. The prioritization of CQRs or assigning weights
involves a tradeoff exercise by the design team that involves internal stakeholders
through rigorous communication channels. The weightings should be based on well
documented client experiences, national research surveys or computer aided
techniques.
Is there competitiveness with the private sector?
The private sector in Uganda is considered to be providing better quality facilities for
social services (MoH, 2010), for example, and the public authorities should consider
them as competitors primarily for the purpose of setting matching or better standards.
Therefore, in evaluating appropriateness of CQRs, expected performance criteria and
design specifications for the public facilities should be matched with those specified
for use by the private sector. This is ideal in situations where the private sector is
deemed to have a competitive edge over the public sector in public infrastructure
development. This competitiveness with the private sector facilitates the TQM
philosophy of continued process of improvement. This part of the process should be
based on extensive national research surveys.
How do we convert CRs to product design and technical specifications?
To minimise challenges related to interpretation and translation of CQRs, the use of
terminologies and phrasing directly from the design brief becomes important. Product
design, description and technical specifications involve relating the CQRs to standard
Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) characteristics. For example, CRs
related to expected indoor environmental quality could lead to design options
involving use of acoustic ceilings and paneled walls. These design options and how
the construction process would take place would ideally be agreed upon by the project
participants. This exercise is limited to showing those that affect one or more CQRs to
avoid redundancy of AEC characteristics in the HoQ. Where the CQRs are unaffected
by any AEC characteristic, the design team can improve the product properties. AEC
characteristics should be in measurable terms such as maximum noise levels in rooms
and minimum ventilation area per room of the facilities and they should be consistent
with the applicable regulatory framework. The design team completes the relationship
matrix and the HoQ, ensuring consensus from project participants and affirmation
from the national research surveys. The HoQ thereby sets the ideal quality standards

751
Kakitahi et al.

and targets to be achieved. It is noteworthy to state that working towards realising

CQRs involves the use of client specific values and minimal use of tolerances (Hauser
and Clausing, 1996).
RESEARCH METHOD
A case study comprising both exploratory and descriptive research performed a
document analysis of a donor funded project in Uganda to conceptualize the CQRs.
The research was specifically qualitative and conducted through a descriptive study.
The case study approach was selected in order to provide insight into whether CQRs
are well understood and if not, does it lead to rework. The exploratory study was
conducted to determine causality of rework while the descriptive study has been
conducted to understand CQRs and their influence on quality management. These
preliminary investigations are part of research into quality failures in public building
projects.
The researchers were granted access to documentation and archival records in order to
gain insight into how CQRs for public authorities were captured and translated into
design attributes by project participants. The contract documentation included the
project design brief, civil works contracts, bills of quantities and the 8th European
Development Fund (EDF) “Procurement Guidelines and Contract Management for
European Community (EC) funded projects in Uganda”. The archival records
provided included minutes of site meetings, design change orders, Value For Money
(VFM) adjusted final account statements and progress reports from the project
management unit and technical consultants. These records provided information on
rework partially arising from failure to clearly understand CQRs. CRs were
categorised into quality, cost, time and scope related data and since particular
emphasis was on CQRs, these were re-sorted into product and process requirements.
Process requirements were documented in the contract documentation together with
the product requirements.
THE CASE STUDY PROJECT
The Developing Human Resources for Health (DHRH) project was a Euro 17 million
project with seven components, one of which was the infrastructure development and
supply of equipment at 15 nursing schools across Uganda, which component was
approximately Euros 11 million of the entire project. This project mission was
developed from the Health sector Strategic Investment Plan (HSSIP) 2010/11 – 14/15
(MoH, 2010), which provided for the Uganda Minimum Health Care Package that
proposed increased infrastructure for training of health care personnel. The
rehabilitation and construction of building infrastructure across carefully selected
nursing schools became the intervention from the EU as a development partner. The
need was to provide additional infrastructure for the three year enrolled
comprehensive nursing (ECN) course and two year laboratory assistants training
program in order to increase annual student training by 1,816 students. The financing
agreement between the EU and the Government of Uganda (GoU) mandated the
National Authorising Officer (NAO) for the EDF in the Ministry of Finance, Planning
and Economic Development (MoFPED) with management of the funds under the
project, procurement procedures and contracting, approval of tender documentation,
evaluation reports and contracts. The procurement methods were in accordance with
the 8th EDF “Procurement Guidelines and Contract Management for European
Community (EC) funded projects in Uganda” and the preference was for the project
approach. Subsequently, the EC procurement and grant award procedures were

752
 Client quality requirements

applicable. The project scope for civil works included construction of laboratory and
demonstration blocks, classrooms, student hostels and library and administration
buildings.
FINDINGS
The project design brief documents spatial requirements for the schools but it was
deficient in communicating aspects such as the expected life of the facilities,
environment, safety and health design requirements and others. These were left to the
technical design team to formulate and ensure regulatory compliance within the
contract documentation. The technical design team incorporated various standards,
codes of practice, national regulations and international conventions as the translation
of CQRs into product characteristics. A summary is shown in table 2. With regard to
process characteristics, there was reliance on the contractor’s method of statement
submitted during the bidding stage. The documents reveal non-compliance to CQRs
even with inclusion of standards, codes of practice, national regulations and
international conventions in the contract documentation. The requisite environmental
impact assessment was not undertaken and the processes for dealing with disposal of
asbestos in the ILO convention (R172) were not complied with.
CQRs, particularly from end-users, were inadequately captured in the design brief and
this manifested in part through rework. Technical consultants ordered rework during
the development process and the factors leading to design-related rework were
insufficient information related to structural engineering works and revision of
technical specifications. Construction-related rework was primarily related to
unacceptable cement screed floor finishes and sanitary fixtures and fittings sourced
from countries other than EU-ACP states.
Table 2: Product standards from contract technical specifications
Technical Specification Section Type of Standard or Specific documented article, standard or regulation
Convention
B: Demolitions ILO Convention on Asbestos R172
National Environment Statute Environment Act 1998, Environment Impact
Assessment (EIA) regulations 1998, Waste
management regulations 1998
E: Structural concrete specification British Standards 12, 882, 1881, 3148, 8110; 3382, 4449, 4461, 4466,
4482, 4483
F: Walling 743, 890, 2028
G: Roofing 1494
H and I: Carpentry and Joinery 4978, 1186, 4471, 4978, 5286, 4072, 5707, 1202, 1210,
1494, 4933, 4190, 4320, 1579, 1186
J: Structural steelwork British Standards and Codes 4, 449, 639, 936, 938, 1856, 2994, 3189, 3294, 4390,
of Practice CP 113 and CP 2008
K: Welding 538, 1470, 1474, 4315, 4842, 4873, 1615, 15, 916,
1494, 729, 1202 and CP 153
L: Plumbing 417, 1010, 1952, 3505, 4346, 2782, 5163, 5150, 5572,
CP 342, CP 310, CP 305, CP 301, CP 8301
M: Electrical works IEE regulations for Electrical 16th Edition
Installations
British Standards 5420, 5486, 3817, 5861, 214, 3871, 4606, 4607, 6004,
2484, 1363, 3676, 4782, 4360, 5424, 88
N: Floor, wall and ceiling finishes British Standards and Codes 12, 146, 915, 1370, 890, 1281, 1369 and CP 204
of Practice
O: Ordinary glazing British Standards 952
Q and R: Drainage, Roads and 340, 882, 1377, 3505, 4346, 4660
pavements
S: Bitumen, macadam and premix 1621, 4987
paving

The contractual provisions stated strict compliance to the Lome Convention that
requires goods sourced under the 8th EDF to originate from EU or African Caribbean
Pacific (ACP) states. Much as the financing entity has prerogative over where supplies

753
Kakitahi et al.

are sourced are from, the documentation reveals that the post-election crisis in Kenya
that restricted import flow and scarcity of materials on the market led to construction
delays and rework. Rework also occurred following fire safety regulatory amendments
after fire outbreaks in educational institutions during 2008 and 2009 (UHRC, 2008).
Monthly inspections of civil works were conducted by the client, technical consultants
and representatives of the end users to assess compliance. The requirement to have
contractors submit samples to the design team for approval was insufficient to ensure
compliance to CQRs during the civil works because during commissioning and
testing, items such as ironmongery and sanitary fittings were deemed unacceptable
and rework ordered.
It was also noted that a VFM exercise deducted sums owed to the contractors at final
account stage due to quality failures at hand-over. These were attended to by the end
users during the operational stage.
DISCUSSION
As Crosby (1979) aptly stated, “the way to measure quality is to measure compliance
to requirements”. How do we, however, measure compliance to requirements if they
are not well communicated and understood? Relatedly, how do we ensure that what
has been communicated is adequately translated into quality characteristics of both
building product and construction process? These are fundamental questions in
ensuring understanding of CQRs and related compliance to them. From the case study,
it is uncertain that the client entity was able to clearly communicate the expected
requirements in as far as quality was concerned and the end-users were not actively
involved during design management. The project design brief was inadequate and yet
the client entity relied on the technical consultants to translate insufficiently
communicated CQRs into design specifications and drawings, a scenario presently
occurring on public building projects in developed countries too (Yu et al., 2010).
Being cognizant of the high repute the British standards for building products have,
and the requirement to comply with international conventions, it was insufficient to
incorporate them in contract documentation without knowledge of their relevance and
how to measure compliance to them. Studies have shown that the adoption of
standards from developed countries tend to diminish expected quality, hinder use of
appropriate low-cost indigenous technology and lead to high cost of works (Smit,
1978, Maskus et al., 2005, Kataike, 2009).
This is compounded by the lack of skill and personnel capacity within the public
authorities to assess whether quality control and quality assurance has been attained
(Kataike, 2009). This is probably why the only documented way of ascertaining
compliance to CQRs on the case study was through monthly site inspections and
materials testing of selected materials such as concrete from selected public
laboratories. This increases uncertainty of whether quality management on public
building projects is being achieved. It is acknowledged that ensuring consistency
within the regulatory and contract framework is difficult since it involves a review of
applicable national and international standards and conventions, civil works contract
documentation, construction drawings and technical specifications.
Understanding CQRs on public building projects improves the design management
process and internal stakeholder communication leading to clarity of quality
expectations on the projects (Nwachukwu and Nzotta, 2010). End-user involvement
during design management and adequate communication of CQRs to the technical
consultants and their related translation into expected design, construction and OMR

754
 Client quality requirements

characteristics could have minimized rework on the project. Public authorities need to
utilise experts that can demand and measure compliance to CQR while demanding an
effective and efficient construction process. Otherwise, the preferences of the
technical consultants will prevail over those of the client and the end-users (Lindahl
and Ryd, 2007).
The study has identified four primary patterns that contribute to understanding CQRs
throughout the design, construction and OMR stages of public building construction.
These are effective client communication, adequate design brief formulation, capacity
to measure non-compliance to CQRs and end-user inputs during design management.
CONCLUSION
This research was done to gain initial insight into CRs on public building projects and
how constituent CQRs were conceptualized and understood. The study finds that the
CQRs were inadequately formulated and communicated and some of the resultant
effects were rework and construction delays. It is posited that the use of QFD and the
HoQ particularly, could substantially aid the process of CQR formulation in
consultation with project participants. QFD is a useful tool that public authority
administrators can use with end users and other stakeholders to determine CQRs. This
tool requires extensive paperwork and consumes substantial time during design
management. The benefits however, could outweigh the negative effects of rework,
cost and time overruns and other resources which public authorities cannot afford to
waste. Therefore, public infrastructure development in developing countries should
prioritize sustainability through consideration of whole life analysis and TQM
philosophy and tools such as QFD become pertinent. Govers (1996), however,
cautions that the initial use of QFD should be broadly appealing, simplistic without
being trivial, and be able to present an opportunity for continuous improvement. The
sustained use of TQM philosophy which includes QFD use and whole life analysis
will lead to long life facilities and efficient monitoring of public infrastructure
developments since the authorities will be involved in regularly determining ways of
improving the use of sustainable building products and construction processes.
REFERENCES
Aaltonen, E. S. 1999. Client-oriented Quality Assessment within Municipal Social Services.
International Journal of Social Welfare, 8, 131-142.
Akao, Y. QFD: Past, present, and future. 1997. 1-12.
Akao, Y. and Mazur, G. H. 2003. The leading edge in QFD: past, present and future.
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20, 20-35.
Atkin, B., Borgbrant, J. and Josephson, P. E. (eds.) 2003. Construction process improvement,
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Limited.
Barrett, P. 2000. Systems and relationships for construction quality. International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, 17, 377-392.
Burati, J. L., Farrington, J. J. and Ledbetter, W. B. 1992. Causes of quality deviations in
design and construction. Construction Engineering and Management, 118.
Chan, L.-K. and Wu, M.-L. 2002. Quality function deployment: A literature review. European
Journal of Operational Research, 143, 463-497.

755
Kakitahi et al.

CIRI. 2010. Quality Function Deployment [Online]. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland
University of Technology. Available:
http://www.ciri.org.nz/downloads/Quality%20Function%20Deployment.pdf
[Accessed 14th December 2011].
Crosby, P. B. 1979. Quality is free, New American Library.
Delgado-Hernandez, D. J., Bampton, K. E. and Aspinwall, E. 2007. Quality function
deployment in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 25, 597-609.
Dikmen, I., Talat Birgonul, M. and Kiziltas, S. 2005. Strategic use of quality function
deployment (QFD) in the construction industry. Building and Environment, 40, 245-
255.
Govers, C. P. M. 1996. What and how about quality function deployment (QFD).
International Journal of Production Economics, 46, 575-585.
Hauser, J. R. and Clausing, D. 1996. The house of quality. IEEE Engineering Management
Review, 24, 24-32.
Jawaharnesan, L. and Price, A. D. F. 1997. Assessment of the role of the client's
representative for quality improvement. Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, 8, 375-390.
Kamara, J. M., Anumba, C. J. and Evbuomwan, N. F. O. 2000a. Establishing and processing
client requirements : a key aspect of concurrent engineering in construction.
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 7, 15-28.
Kamara, J. M., Anumba, C. J. and Evbuomwan, N. F. O. 2000b. Process model for client
requirements processing in construction. Business Process Management Journal, 6,
251-279.
Kataike, S. 2009. Uganda's construction industry needs facelift [Online]. Kampala: The
Observer Available:
http://www.observer.ug/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5132
&Itemid=66 [Accessed 20th October 2011].
Kelly, J. R. and Male, S. The implementation of value management in the public sector: A
value for money approach. 1999. 333-339.
Ledbetter, W. B. 1994. Quality performance highlights on a major hydrocarbon project. Cost
Engineering (Morgantown, West Virginia), 36, 25-31.
Lindahl, G. and Ryd, N. 2007. Clients' goals and the construction project management
process. Facilities, 25, 147-156.
Love, P. E. D., Edwards, D. J. and Irani, Z. 2008. Forensic project management: An
explanatory examination of the causal behaviour of design-induced rework. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 55.
Love, P. E. D., Mandal, P. and Li, H. 1999. Determining the causal structure of rework
influences in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 17, 505-517.
Maskus, K. E., Otsuki, T., Wilson, J. S. and Trade, W. B. D. R. G. 2005. The cost of
compliance with product standards for firms in developing countries: An econometric
study, World Bank, Development Research Group, Trade Team.
MoH. 2010. The Health Sector Strategic Plan (HSSP) 2010/11 - 14/15 [Online]. Kampala:
Ministry of Health (MoH). Available:
http://www.health.go.ug/docs/HSSP_III_2010.pdf [Accessed 11th February
2011].

756
 Client quality requirements

NPA. 2010. The National Development Plan, Uganda 2010/11 - 14/15 [Online]. Kampala:
National Planning Authority (NPA) Uganda. Available:
http://www.finance.go.ug/docs/NDP_April_2010-Prot.pdf [Accessed 11th
February 2011].
Nwachukwu, C. C. and Nzotta, S. M. 2010. Quality Factor Indexes; A Measure To Project
Success Constraints In A Developing Economy. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 2, 505-518.
Ofori, G. 2005. Revaluing Construction in Developing Countries. Synopsis paper, CIB
Revaluing Construction.
Ryd, N. 2004a. The design brief as carrier of client information during the construction
process. Design Studies, 25, 231-249.
Ryd, N. 2004b. Facilitating Construction Briefing – From the Client’s Perspective Facilitating
Construction Briefing – From the Client’s Perspective. Nordic Journal of Surveying
and Real Estate Research, 1, 86 - 101.
Shen, Q., Li, H., Chung, J. and Hui, P. Y. 2004. A framework for identification and
representation of client requirements in the briefing process. Construction
Management and Economics, 22, 213-221.
Smit, J. 1978. Planning standards in developing countries. Geoforum, 9, 381-395.
Soetanto, R., Proverbs, D. G. and Holt, G. D. 2004. A Conceptual Tool For Assessing Client
Performance In The Construction Project Coalition. Civil Engineering Dimension, 4,
60-68.
Sommerville, J. 2007. Defects and rework in new build: An analysis of the phenomenon and
drivers. Structural Survey, 25, 391-407.
UHRC 2008. 11th Annual Report of the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) to the
Parliament of the Republic of Uganda. In: COMMISSION, U. H. R. (ed.). Kampala,
Uganda.
Winch, G. W. 2010. Managing construction projects: An information processing approach,
West Sussex, Wiley Blackwell.
Yu, A. T. W., Chan, E. H. W., Chan, D. W. M., Lam, P. T. I. and Tang, P. W. L. 2010.
Management of client requirements for design and build projects in the construction
industry of Hong Kong. Facilities, 28, 657-672.

757