REQUIREMENT OF

QLASSIC KNOWLEDGE

MAH SIN YIN

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

 PSZ 19:16
(Pind. 1/07)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT

Author’s full name : MAH SIN YIN

Date of birth : 22th JULY 1993

Title : REQUIREMENT OF QLASSIC KNOWLEDGE

Academic Session : 2016/2017

I declare that this thesis is classified as:

CONFIDENTIAL (Contains confidential information under the

Official Secret Act 1972) *
RESTRICTED (Contains restricted information as specified by the
organization where research was done) *

√OPEN ACCESS I agree that my thesis to be published as online

open access (full text)

I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for
the purpose of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic
exchange.

Certified by:

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR

930722-07-5540 DR. MOHAMADAMIN AZIMI

(NEW IC NO. / PASSPORT NO.) NAME OF SUPERVISOR
Date: Date:

NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.
 iii

"I/We* hereby declare that I/We* have read this thesis and in my/our* opinion this
thesis is sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Science (Construction)

Signature : __________________________________________

Name of Supervisor : DR. MOHAMADAMIN AZIMI________________

Date : __________________________________________

Signature : __________________________________________

Name of Reader : DR. KHERUN NITA ALI_____________________

Date : __________________________________________

* Delete as necessary
REQUIREMENTS OF QLASSIC KNOWLEDGE

MAH SIN YIN

A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the
degree of Bachelor of Science (Construction)

Faculty of Built Environment

University Technology Malaysia

June 2017
 v

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis entitled "REQUIREMENTS OF QLASSIC

KNOWLEDGE" is the result of my own research except as cited in the references. The
thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in
candidature of any other degree.

Signature : ___________________________
Name : MAH SIN YIN______________
Date : ___________________________
 vi

DEDICATION

Thanks for all supports from

My beloved parents…
My family members…
and Friends…
 vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, Dr. Mohamadamin Azimi, for

guiding me along the way to complete this thesis.

I would like to acknowledge my family members especially my parent for

giving be moral support though they are distance away.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge all external parties and individuals that
giving me support to complete this thesis.
 viii

ABSTRACT

Quality Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC) is a system to

measure and evaluate quality performance of construction building in the form of score
based on Construction Industry Standard (CIS 7:2006). The implementation of
QLASSIC is encouraged by the Malaysia government since its development in
November 2006 by Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) Malaysia.
Although it has been awhile that QLASSIC has being introduced to the industry, yet,
its implementation level was still low to achieve government’s goal in enhancing
quality development. Barriers and challenges to implement QLASSIC in building
construction works are identified by previous studies and one of the highlighted
barriers introduced as lack of QLASSIC knowledge among construction industry
personnel. Therefore, the aim of the study is to find out the preference of contractor
firms to recruit personnel with QLASSIC knowledge despite whether their projects are
adopting QLASSIC or not. Further, the study also aims to find out QLASSIC level of
knowledge among students that will become the future forces for the industry. The
study is done by giving out survey questionnaires to contractor firms and UTM
students. For contractor firms, to find out their expectation and for students, to know
how well they are prepared with the knowledge. Data collected are analysed using
descriptive statistic method. The result shows that contractors have similar expectation
for all related QLASSIC items while students understand more about the process flow
of the assessment. Result shown may due to majority of them are still not aware of
the intention of government to mandatory QLASSIC in construction projects as stated
in CITP 2016-2020. Thus, contractors still do not have high expectation while students
show understanding higher on theories which is not practicable enough during actual
practice.
 ix

ABSTRAK

Sistem Penilaian Kualiti dalam Pembinaan (QLASSIC) adalah satu sistem

untuk mengukur dan menilai prestasi kualiti pembinaan bangunan dalam bentuk skor
berdasarkan Standard Industri Pembinaan (CIS 7: 2006). Pelaksanaannya digalakkan
oleh kerajaan Malaysia sejak bulan November 2006 oleh Lembaga Pembangunan
Industri Pembinaan (CIDB) Malaysia. Walaupun QLASSIC telah diperkenalkan
kepada industry seketika, namun, tahap pelaksanaannya masih rendah untuk mencapai
matlamat kerajaan dalam meningkatkan pembangunan yang berkualiti. Halangan dan
cabaran dikenal pasti dalam kajian sebelum ini dan didapati bahawa salah satu
daripada halangan yang diserlahkan diperkenalkan sebagai kekurangan pengetahuan
QLASSIC kalangan kakitangan industri pembinaan. Oleh itu, tujuan kajian ini adalah
untuk mengetahui keutamaan syarikat kontraktor untuk mengambil kakitangan dengan
pengetahuan QLASSIC walaupun sama ada projek-projek mereka mengamalkan
QLASSIC atau tidak. Di samping itu, kajian ini juga bertujuan untuk mengetahui
tahap pengetahuan QLASSIC kalangan pelajar yang akan menjadi tenaga kerja masa
depan untuk industri. Kajian ini dilakukan dengan memberi borang kaji selidik kepada
firma kontraktor dan pelajar UTM. Bagi firma-firma kontraktor, untuk mengetahui
jangkaan mereka dan untuk pelajar, untuk mengetahui sejauh mana mereka bersedia
dengan pengetahuan tersebut. Data dianalisis dengan menggunakan kaedah statistic
deskriptif. Hasil menunjukkan kontraktor mempunyai jangkaan yang sama untuk
semua element yang berkaitan manakala pelajar lebih memahami tentang aliran proses
penilaian. Kemungkinan disebabkan kebanyakan daripada mereka masih tidak
menyedari hala tuju kerajaan untuk QLASSIC mandatori dalam projek-projek
pembinaan seperti yang dinyatakan dalam CITP 2016-2020. Dengan itu, kontraktor
masih tidak mempunyai jangkaan yang tinggi manakala pelajar memahami lebih
kepada teori-teori yang tidak cukup untuk amalan sebenar.
 x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of Study 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Research Questions 4
1.4 Objectives of Study 4
1.5 Scope of Study 5
1.6 Significant of Study 5
1.7 Research Methodology 6
1.8 Chapter Organisation 8
1.9 Summary 9
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 Introduction to Quality 10
2.1.1 Quality Management System (QMS) 11
2.1.2 Quality Assessment System 13
2.2 Quality Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC) 15
2.2.1 Construction Industry Standard (CIS: 2006/2014) on
Quality Assessment System for Building Construction
 xi

Work 16
2.2.2 Objective of QLASSIC 17
2.2.3 Scope of QLASSIC 17
2.2.4 Assessment Approach and Sampling Process 18
2.2.5 Advantages of QLASSIC Implementation 23
2.2.6 Barriers of QLASSIC Implementation 24
2.2.7 QLASSIC in Current Malaysia Construction
Industry 25
2.3 Summary 27
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 28
3.1 Introduction 28
3.2 First Phase: Preliminary Phase 29
3.3 Second Phase: Literature Review 29
3.4 Third Phase: Data Collection 30
3.4.1 Questionnaire 30
3.4.2 Questionnaire Design 32
3.4.3 Sampling 34
3.5 Forth Phase: Data Analysis 35
3.5.1 Descriptive Statistic Method 35
3.6 Final Phase: Conclusion 39
3.7 Summary 39
4.0 DATA ANALYSIS 41
4.1 Introduction 41
4.2 Questionnaire Delivered 42
4.2.1 Questionnaire to Contractors 42
4.2.2 Questionnaire to Students 43
4.3 Background of Respondent 44
4.3.1 Contractor Company’s Background 44
4.3.2 Construction Student’s Background 49
4.4 Awareness of Respondent towards QLASSIC 50
4.4.1 Awareness among Contractors 51
4.4.2 Awareness among Students 55
4.5 Perspective of Respondent towards QLASSIC 59
 xii

4.5.1 Perspective of Contractor towards QLASSIC 59

4.5.2 Perspective of Construction Students towards
QLASSIC 62
4.6 Expectation of Contractors towards QLASSIC knowledge 64
4.7 Understanding of QLASSIC among Construction Students 68
4.8 Summary 74
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 75
5.1 Introduction 75
5.2 Research Conclusion 75
5.2.1 Expectation of Contractors towards QLASSIC
Knowledge 76
5.2.2 Understanding of Construction Students towards
QLASSIC Knowledge 77
5.3 Limitation and Problems Encountered 79
5.4 Recommendations for Future Research 79
REFERENCE 80
 xiii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2.1 Categories of building projects in QLASSIC. 20
2.2 Weightage allocation for components of building construction
works according to building category. 21
3.1 Description for question type. 31
3.2 Population of Grade 7 and 6 registered contractors under CIDB
in Johor Bahru. 34
3.3 Description for descriptive statistic method. 35
4.1 Summary of questionnaire distribution status for contractors. 42
4.2 Summary of questionnaire distribution status for students 43
4.3 Number of respondent by CIDB grade. 44
4.4 Position of respondent in firm 45
4.5 Experience of respondent in QLASSIC. 46
4.6 Mean value for the scale of awareness level. 51
4.7 Awareness of contractors on QLASSIC. 52
4.8 Awareness of QLASSIC among construction students. 56
4.9 Mean value for the scale of expectation level 64
4.10 Level of expectation of contractors towards QLASSIC. 66
4.11 Mean value for the scale of level of understanding. 69
4.12 Understanding of QLASSIC among construction students. 71
 xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

1.1 Process of research method. 6
1.2 Structure of literature review. 7
Total numbers of valid ISO: 9001 certificates in 195 countries in
2.1 12
2015 to sectors.
2.2 QLASSIC assessment process flow. 19
2.3 Assessment standard of QLASSIC in level. 22
2.4 Number of project gone through QLASSIC assessment and
average QLASSIC score from 2007 to 2015. 26
4.1 Questionnaire distribution status for contractors. 42
4.2 Questionnaire distribution status for students. 43
4.3 Number of respondent by CIDB grade. 45
4.4 Experience of respondent in QLASSIC. 47
4.5 Performance among respondent having experience in QLASSIC
implementation. 48
4.6 Reason of contractor not implementing QLASSIC. 48
4.7 Acknowledgement of construction student on QLASSIC 49
4.8 Awareness of QLASSIC among contractors and students. 50
4.9 Mean of awareness of contractors on QLASSIC 54
4.10 Source of Awareness for contractors 54
4.11 Mean of awareness of contractors on QLASSIC. 58
4.12 Source of awareness among students. 58
4.13 Perspective of contractors towards QLASSIC mandatory. 59
4.14 Perspective towards effect of QLASSIC mandatory on firm’s
60
performance.
 xv

4.15 Possibility of firm to adopt QLASSIC in future 61

4.16 Possibility of firm to recruit employees with QLASSIC
knowledge. 61
4.17 Perspective of construction students towards QLASSIC
mandatory. 62
4.18 Perspective towards effect of QLASSIC mandatory on
63
construction students.
4.19 Keenness to Know about QLASSIC in Future 63
4.21 Mean value: Expectation of contractors towards QLASSIC 68
4.23 Mean Value: Understanding of construction students towards
73
QLASSIC
 xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULLNAME
QLASSIC Quality Assessment System in Construction
CIDB Construction Industry Development Board
CIS 7: 2006/2014 Construction Industry Standard on Quality Assessment
System for Building Construction Work
TC Technical Committee
JKR Public Works Department
JPN National Housing Department (Jabatan Perumahan Negara)
REHDA Real Estate and Housing Developers Association
Malaysian Institute of Architects (Pertubuhan Akitek
PAM
Malaysia)
MBAM Master Builders Association Malaysia
HBA National House Buyers Association
TQM Total Quality Management
QMS Quality Management System
UTM University Technology Malaysia
ISO International Organisation for Standardization
CONQUAS Construction Quality Assessment System
BCA Building Construction Authority
 xvii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Quality is recognized by construction industry, together with time and cost, as

part of the triangle which are form by the main components in a construction project
(Chan and Chan, 2004, Chini and Valdez, 2003, BCA, 2008). The three components
are to attain a balance to attain construction project success. However, quality was
always being disregarded by construction players when there is a conflict with the
other two elements (Chini and Valdez, 2003). Therefore, the industry is always
enveloping with low quality problem.

In pace with the increase of requirement of clients towards quality, construction

players are to take quality as a serious matter to continuously increase their
competitiveness in the market. Thus, several quality management systems are
introduced into the industry. Common quality management system that are widely
applied in the industry are ISO quality standards, ISO: 9001, and total quality
management (TQM). In Malaysia, CIDB strive to perform their responsible in taking
initiative to promote quality among construction industry players. Thus, besides
promoting the application of ISO and TQM among construction firms, the
 2

Construction Industry Standard (CIS 7: 2006) on Quality Assessment System for

Building Construction Work and Quality Assessment System in Construction
(QLASSIC) were introduced to the industry.

CIS 7: 2006 was first introduce by CIDB in November 2006. The standard was
developed by the CIDB’s Technical Committee (TC) which was formed by
representatives from Public Works Department (JKR), Jabatan Perumahan Negara
(JPN), Real Estate and Housing Developers Association (REHDA), Pertubuhan
Akitek Malaysia (PAM), Master Builders Association Malaysia (MBAM), National
House Buyers Association (HBA) and other relevant organizations. CIS 7: 2006 was
later improved and updated in 2014, namely CIS 7: 2014, by the Technical Committee
with the assistance of CIDB to serve better in assessing quality of building construction
works (CIDB, 2012).

In conjunction with CIS 7: 2006, QLASSIC was introduced as the assessment

system to evaluate quality performance of construction building project according
stipulation stated in CIS 7: 2006. QLASSIC is an assessment system adopted from
Construction Quality Assessment System (CONQUAS), which is the quality
assessment system practiced in Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority
(BCA) (Mukhtar, 2014, Kam and Abdul Hamid, 2015, Norizam and Malek). Thus,
both show similarity in their general assessment structure, using scoring system as key
deliverables. QLASSIC Score as the key deliverables of QLASSIC was introduced to
denote the level of quality in scoring form. The higher score of QLASSIC Score
indicates a higher quality level of product that stipulates the quality standards in CIS:
2006.
 3

1.2 Problem Statement

Malaysia government is encouraging the quality development of building

construction products. QLASSIC was developed by CIDB to assess quality of
construction building project since 2006. It is a standard to assess the quality of
workmanship after the completion of project. Grades will be given to this assessment
where higher grades represent higher quality achieve. Benefits of implementing
QLASSIC are obvious and recognized by contractors, especially in terms of firms’
reputation. Those company who perform well in achieving high marks for their
projects will be awarded a QLASSIC best achievement award certificate. In 2015, P-
Excell Management Sdn. Bhd. was awarded for achieving the best QLASSIC score in
nation level for its projects (Perbadanan Memajukan Iktisad Negeri Terengganu, 2015).

It is reported in QLASSIC Day 2016 banquet that the registration of projects

for QLASSIC assessment is showing an upward trend form 160 projects (2013), 272
projects (2014) to 303 projects (2015). However, the implementation level is still not
satisfied for government to raise up the matter of including QLASSIC Score in
Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) in all building projects (CIDB,
2015b). The barriers of implementing QLASSIC in construction building projects
were studied and one of the barriers found out to be lack of knowledge among
personnel in contractor firm.

Taking in knowledgeable personnel can be a way to enhance company

performance regardless of whether the firm are implementing such knowledge or not.
This situation is applicable to QLASSIC. Instead of sending current employees for
QLASSIC courses, taking in new employees with QLASSIC knowledge maybe one
of the way to actuate the implementation of QLASSIC in contractor firms. Therefore,
expectation from contractors towards QLASSIC knowledge can be studied to
understand the important aspect to allow this system to be fully adopted in the industry.
The study will further find out how much QLASSIC knowledge students, as future
 4

work force to increase quality performance of the industry, should increase their
competitiveness in getting themselves employed.

1.3 Research Questions

The research questions are:

i. What does contractors expect towards QLASSIC knowledge from potential

recruitment candidates?
ii. How much of QLASSIC knowledge does UTM construction students
understand?

1.4 Objectives of Study

i. To identify expectation of contactors towards QLASSIC knowledge on

potential recruitment candidates
ii. To identify the understanding of QLASSIC among UTM construction students.
 5

1.5 Scope of Study

Contractors are the main construction industry players that is given the
responsibilities to perform in promote the usage of QLASSIC. Thus, this study will
focus on employer of contractor firms. Since larger contractor firms had mostly
involve in the implementation of QLASSIC in their projects (Yvonne, 2014),
contractor firm grading G7 and G6 in Johor Bahru will be included in the study.

UTM students studying in construction course are chosen included in this study
as they made up part of the as future work force to increase quality performance of the
industry. However, taking consideration that some of the students are newly exposed
to the industry, only students having acknowledgement to the assessment system will
be included to determine their understanding towards QLASSIC.

1.6 Significant of Study

The study is important to find out the initiative of contractor and what do they
expect to improve their product quality through recruiting personnel competence with
QLASSIC. Besides, the research also inquires the competence of UTM students in
QLASSIC knowledge to increase their competitive in the employment market.

The study may also provide government with some useful information
regarding the current popularity of QLASSIC among present and future work force of
construction industry towards their plan to make QLASSIC a mandatory by 2020.
 6

1.7 Research Methodology

Research methodology is an action plan that will guide the study process
towards a conclusion for the research questions. Research methodology includes
several phases shown in Figure 1.1 below.

Determine Research Topic

• QLASSIC

Identify Issues and Problems about the Topic

• Low knowledge of QLASSIC as barrier for its
implementation
• Will prepare future workforce with the knowledge be a
solution to the challange?

Develop Research Questions, Objectives and

Scope

Literature Review
• Quality
• Quality Assessment System
• QLASSIC

Research Method
• Respondants: Contractor Firms and UTM Students
• Data Collection: Survey Form

Data Analysis
• Frequency Distribution
• Mean and Standard Deviation

Conclusion

Figure 1.1: Process of research method.

 7

The study starts with selecting an interested topic to be research. After

reviewing all subjects and topic that are related to the course, QLASSIC is selected to
be the topic of the study. Issues and problems about the topic are identified to generate
a research questions and objectives that serves as the purpose of the study. Scope for
the study was set considering the limitation of circumstances for the study.

Reviewing the literature will be the next activity after research questions,
objectives and scope of study are set. Literature review process helps to give a deeper
understanding about the study topic. There are three types of literature sources,
primary literature sources, secondary literature sources and reference guide that are
reviewable (Naoum, 2012). Primary resources will include journals, conference
reports and government publications (Naoum, 2012). Textbooks, newspaper and
magazine are secondary literature review while reference guides includes dictionaries
and encyclopedias (Naoum, 2012). This study will require reference from all three
types of resources. The structure of literature review for this study will eventually
written to Figure 1.2 as below.

Quality

Quality Management System

Quality Assessment
System

QLASSIC

Figure 1.2: Structure of literature review.

After doing literature review, a suitable research approach will be selected to

collect data. Survey form or questionnaire is selected to find out result both research
 8

questions. One set of questionnaire will be distributed to contractor firms and the other
among students in UTM. Data collected through survey forms will be properly
organized for the ease during data analysis process. During this phase, challenges to
get respondents, in this study will be the contractors, in filling the survey forms may
be faced. Several accesses may need to be built to assist the respondents to fill in the
survey form, for example e-mail, post, Google Forms etc. When sufficient data are
collected, the process of data analysis will start.

Data analysis is where data that are collected during data collection phase being
processed into information that is deemed to be the result of the study. Using the
advance of current information technology will be one of the way to ease the data
analysis process. Microsoft Excel is one of the program that can assist for statistical
analysis. This will be a good selection of tool to analyze data collected through survey
forms for this study.

Finally, the study will be concluded with the result obtain and suggestion for
further studies will be given.

1.8 Chapter Organisation

In chapter one, the background of QLASSIC in quality performance of

construction industry was discuss. The problem which lead to further study on the
topic was identified. Research questions, objectives, scope, significance and research
methodology were defined according to problem statement identified.

Chapter two focuses on literature review which will discuss briefly about
quality, other quality management and assessment system and will mainly focus on
 9

QLASSIC itself including its advantages, barriers and current situation in Malaysia
construction industry. The related journal articles, books and government publications
will be used to summarise the chapter.

Chapter three will be discussing the research methodology used to achieve the
objectives of the study. The matter discussed are research approach, research sampling,
research instrument, research sources and analysis method. The data will be collected
through survey questionnaires and will be analysed with the aid of Microsoft Excel.

Chapter four will discuss on data analysis where data collected through survey
questionnaires will be analysed. Then, the result from analysis will be discussed with
the aid of graphs and tables.

Lastly, chapter five will be about conclusion and recommendation. This

chapter will summarise all findings and conclusion will be made. Problems faced
during conducting the research and further recommendations will also be made for
future research purpose.

1.9 Summary

This chapter briefly discussed on the initial phase of this research that included
the background of study, problem statement, research questions and objectives, scope,
significant, brief on research methodology chapter organisation. The next chapter will
focus on literature review which would help in a clearer and better understanding to
the topic.
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction to Quality

The term ‘quality’ is being used and takes attention of consumers nowadays
during purchasing activities. Yet, the term has many different meaning and it is
difficult to give an exact meaning to the term. Oxford dictionary define quality
generally as the standard of something when it is compared to other things alike; the
standard of excellent (Hornby, 2005). However, Chini and Valdez (2003) state that
the definition of quality itself is not just as in the dictionary. BusinessDictionary.com
(2016b) defines quality as a measure of excellence or a state of being free from defects,
deficiencies and significant variations in the manufacturing industry. It is brought
about by strict and consistent commitment to certain standards that achieve uniformity
of a product in order to satisfy specific customer or user requirements
(BusinessDictionary.com, 2016b). To suit the context of construction industry,
Ledbetter (1994) define quality as to comply with requirements of the product, process
and service that has been contractually agreed for the particular construction projects.

Different parties involved in construction industry have different perspectives

on the definition of quality. Quality in the industry is normally differentiate to
 3

producer’s perspectives and customer’s perspectives (Song et al.). Construction

industry producers focus to conformance the requirement and specification of products
while customer’s perspective is about meeting or exceeding their own expectations
towards the products (Kärnä, 2004). Construction players are struggling to achieve a
balance point between both perspectives to maintain their competitiveness in terms of
quality while reducing project cost and time. This situation encourages the adoption
of quality concept, standards and manual to boom in the industry.

2.1.1 Quality Management System (QMS)

Quality management system (QMS) is introduced by International

Organisation for Standardization (ISO) in ISO: 9000 family, under ISO: 9001, as a
management system to direct and control organization regarding to quality. It is a
formalized system that documents processes, procedures, and responsibilities for
policies and objectives concern to quality. Although the system is meant for
manufacturing industry at the beginning, the implementation of QMS in construction
industry is found out to be effective in improving company’s operation and products’
quality (Chini and Valdez, 2003).

QMS emphasise on proper planning, integrate resources to optimize efficacy,

effectively monitor and control performance and encourage continuous improvement
in firms’ quality performance. These will allow firms to have better management in
engaging the firms’ internal operation. As the system takes the priority of customers’
satisfaction, the emphasis ultimately impact is to lead firms’ quality to fulfill customer
satisfaction (Mukhtar, 2014). Construction industry firms that successfully certified
by ISO: 9001 QMS are benefiting themselves both internally and externally.
 4

Firms in construction industry is gradually implementing QMS although there

are still some debates about the validity of the system in nature of construction industry
(Chini and Valdez, 2003). According to ISO (2015), construction industry stands up
to be the top five industry sectors for ISO: 9001 certificates in 2015, comprising 8.5%
form the total of 793,963 certificates in 195 countries from the worldwide. Figure 2.1
shows the top 5 sector attaining ISO: 9001 certificates in 2015. This proves that QMS
is widely accepted by construction industry players. to be an effective management
system assisting in delivering quality projects by attaining cost level as planned,
according to schedule deadlines and reaching the stipulated quality standards (Chini
and Valdez, 2003).
No. of Valid ISO: 9001 Certificates

120000 104,652
100000
75,260
80000 67,354 66,975
56,413
60000
40000
20000
0
Machinery and

Construction
Electrical and optical
Basic metal & fabricated

repairs of motor vehicles,

Wholesale & retail trade;

motorcycles & personal

equipment

& household goods

metal products

equipment

Sectors

Figure 2.1: Total numbers of valid ISO: 9001 certificates in 195 countries in 2015 to
sectors.

Sources: (ISO, 2015)

QMS however does not clarify the quality requirement. Firms adopting are to
first create their own quality specifications that need to be achieve at the end of the
 5

project. Some whom is only concern about the quality of end products will not strive
to implement the system. Thus, quality assessment systems are introduced as a
supplementary tool to implement QMS or assist the manipulation of QMS. Kam and
Tang (1997) believe that construction industry firms will be more receptive to consider
implementing QMS when they understand the quality of end products. The correlation
of between QMS and quality assessment system is strong (Mukhtar, 2014) and should
be acknowledge by construction industry players.

2.1.2 Quality Assessment System

The definition of each word is needed to be defined to understand what is

quality assessment system. The term ‘assessment’ means course of action used by
government assessors to determine or evaluate a situation or person
(BusinessDictionary.com, 2016a). ‘System’ is a systematic and organized procedure
or method created to carry out a specific activity, perform a duty, or solve a problem
(BusinessDictionary.com, 2016c). Thus, quality assessment system can be understood
as a systematic and organized procedure to guide government assessors in to evaluate
quality.

Quality assessment system can be said to be similar as a quality performance

indicator for the industry. While other quality performance indicators such as Quality
Performance Tracking System (QPTS), Quality Performance Management System
(QPMS), Project Management Quality Cost System (PROMQACS) and Project
Performance Monitoring System (PPMS) emphasis on quality cost and management
phase (Song et al.), quality assessment system is purposed for the workmanship quality.
Countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong realize the requirement of quality
assessment system in their construction industry and therefore developed their quality
assessment system earlier before the introduction of QLASSIC in Malaysia. One of
 6

the most known quality assessment system will be the Construction Quality
Assessment System (CONQUAS) that was developed and implemented by Singapore.

2.1.2.1 Construction Quality Assessment System (CONQUAS) in Singapore

CONQUAS is a quality assessment system was developed up by Building

Construction Authority (BCA) Singapore (previously known as CIDB Singapore) in
1989 when realizing the situation of poor quality and low quality awareness in its
construction industry (Kam and Tang, 1997). The designs of CONQUAS allows level
of quality being measured in a systematic way to building components. These
components include structural works, architectural works and external works.
Assessment for civil engineering works will be assess by another similar system which
is Civil Engineering Construction Quality Assessment System (CE CONQUAS) (Kam
and Tang, 1997).

There are three objectives designed to be achieve by CONQUAS, that are:

a) To make a standard quality assessment system for construction
projects.
b) To make quality assessment objective by:
 Measuring construction works against workmanship standards and
specification.
 Using a sampling approach to suitably represent the whole project.
c) To enable quality assessment to be carried out systematically within
a reasonable cost and time.
(BCA, 2008)
 7

Realizing the important of the system as a yardstick to grade quality in the

industry, Singapore government came up a premium scheme that provide tendering
advantages to contractors in order to promote CONQUAS (Kam and Tang, 1997).
This scheme becomes an effective incentive for contractors to continuously maintain
their CONQUAS performance while pushing Singapore’s construction industry
towards continuous quality improvement (Kam and Tang, 1997). The system become
a trigger for Singapore construction industry to adopt quality management standards
later when QMS was introduced to the industry (Kam and Tang, 1997).

2.2 Quality Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC)

QLASSIC is an independent assessment system adopted from CONQUAS,

which is the quality assessment system practiced in BCA (Mukhtar, 2014, Kam and
Abdul Hamid, 2015, Norizam and Malek). It was introduced by CIDB Malaysia in
2006 serves the same function as CONQUAS (UK Essays, 2013) as a quality indicator
in order to improve quality performance of Malaysia construction industry. QLASSIC
act as a quality measurement system to evaluate and standardize construction project
workmanship quality using scoring system as its key deliverables.

QLASSIC Score as the key deliverables of QLASSIC was introduced to denote

the level of quality in scoring form. The higher score of QLASSIC Score indicates a
higher quality level of product that stipulates the quality standards in CIS: 2006
(Mukhtar, 2014). Thus, customers whom mostly does not equip much with
construction knowledge may take QLASSIC Score as a yardstick to qualitatively
compare quality level among construction projects (UK Essays, 2013).

Quality standards for QLASSIC is strictly based on quality standard stated in

CIS 7: 2006 (currently the improved version, CIS 7: 2014). CIS 7: 2006 is the quality
 8

standard that was developed also by CIDB Malaysia in conjunction with the
introduction of QLASSIC. It sets out standards and method to carry out QLASSIC in
a systematic way, providing a guideline for construction players on how QLASSIC
site inspection will carry out and how QLASSIC Scores are being given out. The latest
version, referenced as CIS 7: 2014, updates and improves several elements in its older
version to better servers as quality standards to carry out QLASSIC.

2.2.1 Construction Industry Standard (CIS 7: 2006/2014) on Quality

Assessment System for Building Construction Work

CIS 7: 2006 is a quality standard developed by CIDB Malaysia in 2006 with

the commitment of CIDB’s Technical Committee (TC) and representatives from other
construction industry related organisations in Malaysia such as Public Works
Department (JKR), Jabatan Perumahan Negara (JPN), Real Estate and Housing
Developers Association (REHDA), Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM), Master
Builders Association Malaysia (MBAM) and National House Buyers Association
(HBA) (CIDB, 2012). It is developed to state a standard and independant method to
assess and evaluate quality of workmanship in construction building projects.

In 2014, CIDB further update and improve CIS 7: 2006 to CIS 7: 2014 by
adopting new components in CONQUAS (eighth edition 2012) to perform its function
better in assisting the improvement of product quality in Malaysia construction
industry.
 9

2.2.2 Objective of QLASSIC

Several objectives are to be achieve by QLASSIC users to improve quality

performance. The objectives are:
 To benchmark the quality of workmanship of the construction industry
in Malaysia
 To have a standard quality assessment system for quality of
workmanship of building projects
 To assess quality of workmanship of a building project based on CIS 7
standard
 To evaluate the performance of contractors based on quality of
workmanship
 To compile data for statistics analysis
(CIDB, 2014)

2.2.3 Scope of QLASSIC

QLASSIC set out quality of workmanship for several construction elements

for general building works. Four major components in construction building projects
are to be assess. The four components are structural works, architectural works,
mechanical and electrical works and external works. Other works such as piling,
foundation and sub-structure works are not included in the assessment as these works
are normally carry out by different contractors or expert sub-contractors. The work
elements that are included in these four major components of QLASSIC assessment
are:
a. Structural works
Reinforced concrete structure
b. Architectural works
 10

Internal finishes, external finishes and materials

c. Mechanical and electrical works
Electrical works, air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation (ACMV),
plumbing and sanitary works, basic M&E fittings and fire protection
d. External works
Link-ways/shelters, external drains, roadwork and parking bays on the ground,
footpath and turfing, playground, court, fence and gate, electrical substation,
guard house, bin space and swimming pool
(CIDB, 2014)

Elements that form these components are listed down and each element
contains standards that need to be fulfill to score during QLASSIC assessment. Each
related element will be assessed to assign score. These scores will then be calculated
according weightage to form QLASSIC score of the project to indicate the quality
performance based on project.

2.2.4 QLASSIC Assessment

Where QLASSIC encourage the construction concept of ‘Doing Things Right

the First Time and Every Time’, onetime assessment is allowed only for every
construction works. This means that the works will not be re-assess after scores are
given through site inspection. Therefore, construction industry players are to
understand and note several important matters regarding to QLASSIC assessment.
 11

2.2.4.1 Process Flow

CIDB provide guideline as per Figure 2-2 for construction industry players to
start the implementation of QLASSIC assessment. Responsible parties, in the case of
construction projects maybe developer, owner or contractor, are to submit his
application to CIDB for the assessment.

Figure 2.2: QLASSIC assessment process flow (CIDB, 2012).

 12

2.2.4.2 Sampling Process

Site inspection of QLASSIC assessment will not be done to the entire project.
Assessment is done by picking samples randomly from the project. Gross floor area
(GFA) of the project will determine the numbers of sample being include in the
assessment. Therefore, QLASSIC assessors are to study and have a brief
understanding on their project in order the select the correct and relevance number of
sample for site inspection. CIS 7: 2006/2014 sets out the guidelines for sample
selection and minimum samples required for each categories of building projects.

All building projects are classified to 4 different categories and each category
have different scoring weightage assigned to work components. The 4 categories of
construction building projects are as Table 2.1 shown below.

Table 2.1: Categories of building projects in QLASSIC.

Category Description
Category A Detached, semi-detached, terrace
Landed housing and cluster houses
Residential Flats, apartments, condominiums,
Building Category B service apartments, Small Office
Stratified housing Home Office (SOHO) and town
houses
Category C
Office buildings, schools, factories,
Public/commercial/industrial
warehouses, workshops, hangers,
buildings without
Non- Small Office Flexible Office
centralized cooling system
Residential (SOFO), Small Office Virtual
Category D
Building Office (SOVO), religious
Public/commercial/industrial
buildings, stadiums, community
buildings with centralized
halls, hospitals, airports,
cooling system.
 13

universities, colleges, police

stations, etc.
Sources: (CIDB, 2014)

2.2.4.3 Weightage

Weightages are assigned to each building components. Each building category

have different weightage distribution for the four components according to the
distribution of cost proportions and aesthetic consideration of the building category
(CIDB, 2014). Therefore, each type of building having different quality requirement
for each component that is fit to their basic final purpose and usage respectively.

Table 2.2: Weightage allocation for components of building construction works

according to building category.

Weightage Allocate (%)

Component Residential Non-Residential
Category A Category B Category C Category D
Structural
15 20 20 20
Works
Architectural
70 60 55 50
Works
M&E Works 5 10 15 20
External Works 10 10 10 10
Total Score 100 100 100 100
Sources: (CIDB, 2014)
 14

2.2.4.4 Assessment Standards

Assessment standard for QLASSIC is stated in CIS:7 2006/2014. The

standards are stated according to components where each component have items that
are needed to be included in the assessment. In each item, elements to be assess will
varies according to the design and material where certain elements that are not relevant
will not be included in the assessment. CIS:7 2006/2014 state out possible materials
or types for each element and give out standards, tolerance and assessment method for
each different material. Figure 2.3 shows an example for the assessment standards in
level.

Category A
Building Category (Landed
housing)

Weightage of Each Architectural External

Works(70% Works (10%
Components of total score) of total score)

Internal External
Finishes Finishes
Items to Assess (68% of (26% of
architectural architectural
works) works)

Floor (18% Ceiling (8%

Roof (10% of
of of
Elements of Item architectural
architectural architectural
works)
works) works)

Plaster/skim
Material of Elements Tile Pitch roof
coat

Figure 2.3: Assessment standard of QLASSIC in level (CIDB, 2014).

 15

2.2.4.5 Assessment Method

There are multiple types of assessment method as per stated in CIS 7:

2006/2014 regarding to standards for each element. Some depending on human senses
such as visual and physical testing while some require aids of tools instruments such
as tapping rod and precise level to test whether the element reach that standard.

2.2.5 Advantages of QLASSIC Implementation

Contractors often has the perception that the promotion of QLASSIC is only
beneficial to customers for gaining valuable return in terms of construction product’s
quality. Small firms believe that seeking for QLASSIC certificate burden the firms in
terms of financial while medium firms are anxious about impact if they fail in the
obtainment (Kam and Abdul Hamid, 2015). These notions are due to lack of
knowledge towards the system. Thus, they overlook the benefits of QLASSIC yield
to them (Kam and Abdul Hamid, 2015).

QLASSIC benefits contractors in the way that, the outcome of QLASSIC

assessment, which is QLASSIC score, can be set as a quality objectives that need to
be achieve for the overall projects (Mukhtar, 2014). Despite setting other quality of
objectives that is not measurable, QLASSIC score will be a clear and easily
understandable objective to be achieve. Besides, the final marks attain for the
assessment can be used to benchmark quality performance of the project (Mukhtar,
2014). QLASSIC score also allows contractors’ products to be easily compared by
consumers with competitor producing similar projects.
 16

QLASSIC assessment can also function as tool to measure the effectiveness

quality improvements strategies or policy of construction firms. As stated by Mukhtar
(2014), the effectiveness of QMS such as ISO 9001 can be analysed by collecting the
trend of QLASSIC score for firms’ projects. In addition, further analysis towards
scores for each element will enable firms to detect areas that need to be improved for
further quality improvement (Mukhtar, 2014).

In the context of whole Malaysia construction industry, the encouragement of

QLASSIC will consequently increase overall industry performance. This is because
contractors will seek ways to attain higher QLASSIC score. One of the effective way
will be getting ISO 9001 certification in firms (Mukhtar, 2014). As according toKam
and Tang (1997), having a clear image of the end products will allow producers to be
more receptive and treat seriously in considering QMS in the firms.

2.2.6 Barriers of QLASSIC Implementation

The system brings benefit towards improving quality performance of

construction industry but at the same time facing barriers in getting acknowledgement
and implement among construction industry players. Despite gaining benefits from
QLASSIC implementation, contractors faced barriers to implement the system. Lack
of knowledge about the system become the cause of rejection towards its
implementation (Kam and Abdul Hamid, 2015). This barrier is agreed by contractors
as one of the barriers to implement QLASSIC (Roshdi, 2013). Contractors should
have knowledge about the benefits of the system to discard the perception of
QLASSIC will only provide minimal benefits from implementation barriers of the
system.
 17

Low involvement by top management is also the barrier agreed for not
implementing QLASSIC (Roshdi, 2013). Top management whom is decisive towards
company performance will consider more on resources feasibility and consequences
causing them refuse to seek for the certification for quality performance improvement
(Kam and Abdul Hamid, 2015). As situated by (Kam and Abdul Hamid, 2015),
decision to or not to implement the system differs according to firms size. This
situation can be related back to the knowledge level management have towards the
system as sufficiency of knowledge towards the system becomes a key for top
management to decide whether to implement and how to get good results after
implementation.

Kam and Abdul Hamid (2015) found that less urgent from the government is
also a barrier to implement QLASSIC throughout the industry. Contractors will evade
themselves to implement the system as there is none of government policy or
regulations needed to be comply. Besides, lack of government promotion resulting
poor public knowledge on the system decrease the motivation of contractor firms to
implement QLASSIC in their projects (Kam and Abdul Hamid, 2015). In this
condition of environment, when contractors themselves does not have understanding
on the system, will not be motivated to implement it.

2.2.7 QLASSIC in Current Malaysia Construction Industry

Since the introducing of QLASSIC in 2006, Malaysia is adapting the system

in a low rate. The number of projects assessed by QLASSIC and average score from
2007 until 2015 is shown in Figure 2.3. Until 2015, only 303 projects, approximately
7% (Nair, 2106), of total projects around the nations were assessed with the system.
Developers in Malaysia, especially big property developers, are initiated to implement
the system as it can rise the market value of invested property (Yvonne, 2014).
However, QLASSIC is still not familiar among contractors (Roshdi, 2013).
 18

350 100.0%
90.0%
300
70.0% 69.4% 69.5% 71.4% 72.0% 69.9% 72.5% 80.0%
250 65.0% 70.0%
60.0%
200 60.0%
50.0%
150 40.0%
100 30.0%
20.0%
50
10.0%
40 47 79 117 122 139 160 272 303
0 0.0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Number of Project Average QLASSIC Score

Figure 2.4: Number of project gone through QLASSIC assessment and

average QLASSIC score from 2007 to 2015.

Sources: (CIDB, 2015a, CIDB, 2015b)

Kam and Abdul Hamid (2015) note that small, medium and large contractor
firms have different responds towards the implementation of QLASSIC. Small firms
tend to declare that they have little financial support to invest for the certificates;
medium-graded companies tend to reject to avoid consequences such as adverse effect
towards quality and productivity when fails to get certified; large company will be
more receptive due to the sufficient financial support and confidence to attain good
results for QLASSIC assessment.

To motivate construction industry players to receive the assessment, CIDB is

honouring QLASSIC Excellence Awards to those who have great performance. In
addition, government are taking initiative to make QLASSIC as an inclusive
requirement for Certificate of Compliance (CCC), Certificate of Practical Completion
(CPC) and the Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA) under Construction Industry
 19

Transformation Programme (CITP) 2016-2020 (CIDB, 2015b). Although there is no

clear time of when this action will be activated, government would make QLASSIC
assessment a mandatory for all government projects in 2018 (Nair, 2106) and is
targeted to have 50% of the projects to exceed acceptable QLASSIC score.

2.3 Summary

Since quality has become more emphasised in construction industry, industry

players are implementing quality management system in firms. However, quality
management system alone does not state clearly about quality of workmanship on site.
Thus, quality assessment system is introduced to allow project quality assessment
according standards that write out acceptable product quality. In Malaysia, CIDB had
introduced QLASSIC for the purpose of improving quality of construction industry’s
product. Unfortunately, the adoption of this system is slow since its introduction in
2006. CITP 2016-2020 then sets out target and desirable outcomes to increase the
adoption of the system among construction industry players.
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Research methodology is defined as a way to solve research problem

systematically (Kothari, 2004). It may also be understood as a studying science on
how research is done scientifically (Kothari, 2004). Therefore, the proper design of
research methodology is to enable research to be done in a systematic and scientific
way.

In this chapter, detail research methodology for the whole study will be detailed
according into study phases. Phases involved are preliminary phase, literature review,
data collection, data analysis and conclusion.
 22

3.2 First Phase: Preliminary Phase

Preliminary phase involves identifying issues in the industry. Sources referred

can be through media, newspaper, magazines, journals or government publications. A
topic of interest is selected for further understanding and detecting problems faced
currently. Research problem, which refers to difficulties experienced theoretically or
practically and needed to be come out with a solution (Kothari, 2004), is generated.
Later, from the research problems, research question, objectives and scopes are
developed. Research question is the question we ask and is required to gain answer
form the study findings. While, the research objectives are defined first to give a clear
goal for this study. The research scope thus, is the range set due to limitations faced
in the reality while conduction the study.

3.3 Second Phase: Literature Review

Literature review will be the phase where comprehensive reading will be done
towards the selected topic, which is QLASSIC. This stage ensures researcher to fully
understand about quality and QLASSIC in order to achieve the objectives. Sources
such as journals, conference reports and government publications are classified as
primary resources; textbooks, newspaper and magazine are secondary literature review
and dictionaries and encyclopedias are classified as reference guides (Naoum, 2012).
This research requires reference from to most of the resources especially journals,
government publications and news report to get detail understanding about the current
scenario of QLASSIC in Malaysia construction industry.
 23

3.4 Third Phase: Data Collection

Data collection phase involves the process of gathering and measuring

information on variables of study. A systematic way to gather information are
establish to enable respondents answer relevant questions and evaluate outcomes. One
of the important decisions to be made is selecting an appropriate data collection
method. Data collection method are dependant to the type of data, primary or
secondary, that are to be collected as both requires different approach (Naoum, 2012,
Kothari, 2004). Primary data are data that is original in character, consists of data
collected for the first time and collected again but in a new or different way (Kothari,
2004). On the other hand, secondary data are data that was being collected and
statically processed by someone else (Kothari, 2004).

Data collection method for primary data involve fieldwork research. It consists
of survey questionnaires, interviews and case study. These methods serve for different
research outcomes, depending on the level of accuracy required. For this study, data
that are expected to collect survey questionnaire is selected as the data collection
method as responds form a large number of respondents are required.

3.4.1 Questionnaire

Questionnaire will be one of the most popular research method to be used to

collect data. Types of questionnaire can be classified according the natural of its
questions. There are mainly two types of format for questionnaire questions, which is
open-ended and close-ended. Open-ended questions allow respondents to express his
views and ideas freely. This format of question does not provide a fixed structure for
respondents’ reply. In the opposite, close-ended questions provide respondents with
 24

limited alternatives of answers. Respondents responding in these types of questions

are not given the opportunity to express his own view and judgement.

Close-ended question can be further divided into several types. Types of close-
ended question included single-choice, multiple-choice, rank-ordering, retrospective
post-then-pre, Likert scale (Mustapa, 2016a) and contingency (Sincero, 2012). The
description of each question type is shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1:Description for question type.

Question Type Description

Single-choice/ Requires respondents to select only one answer from
dichotomous the two selections given (Law).
Multiple-choice Respondents can select one or more answers (depend
on question’s requirement) form the options given.
Rank-ordering From the options given, respondents are to response
by ranking all the options to indicate importance,
priorities or preferences (Naoum, 2012).
Retrospective post-then- Involves information before and after to compare
pre knowledge, skill, attitude or behaviour before and
after lesson, activity or course (Rockwell and Kohn,
1989)
Likert scale/Raking scale Respondents are response to reflect the intensity of
agreement, attitude towards statements (Naoum,
2012), frequency, quality level and level of
importance.
Contingency Questions that depend on prior question, need to be
answer when a specific answer is given in prior
question, prevent asking questions to respondents
whom is not applicable (Sincero, 2012).
 25

3.4.2 Questionnaire Design

As to the objectives of the study, there will be two groups of respondents

involved for data collection. Therefore, two sets of questionnaires will be design for
each respondent group. First set of questionnaires will be designed for contractor
forms while the second set will be designed for UTM students.

I. Set 1 (contractor firms as respondents)

The first set of questionnaires is designed to achieve the first objective of the
survey, which is ‘To identify expectation of contactors towards QLASSIC knowledge
on potential recruitment candidates’. Questionnaire for contractor firms will mainly
comprise of 3 parts, contractors’ background, awareness towards QLASSIC and
expectation of QLASSIC knowledge. Completed questionnaire can be refer in
appendix.

Part A: Contractors’ Background

Question asked will be grade of contractor, major works involved, awareness
towards QLASSIC, application of QLASSIC in firm, experience on QLASSIC
(include years and score attained), reason of implication. Question type will be varied
to the question’s purpose and answer desired from the question.

Part B: Awareness towards QLASSIC

This section is designed to determine the awareness of contractors towards
QLASSIC. The questions designed will mainly conclude of basic purpose of
QLASSIC, details to carry out QLASSIC assessment and targets of CIDB to make
QLASSIC mandatory in the future. Linking to targets of CIDB to make QLASSIC
mandatory in the future, perspective of contractors will be asked together with their
willingness to adopt QLASSIC and to consider QLASSIC knowledge among
candidates during recruitment.
 26

Part C: Expectation of QLASSIC knowledge required during Recruitment

This section will determine expectation of contractors towards QLASSIC
knowledge for actual practice during QLASSIC assessment. The questions designed
will include process flow, sampling process, weightage, assessment standards and
assessment method in QLASSIC assessment.

II. Set 2 (students as respondents)

The second set of questionnaires is designed to achieve the second objective of
the survey, ‘To identify the understanding of QLASSIC among students in UTM
construction industry related courses’. Questionnaire for students will be comprising
of 3 parts, students background, awareness towards QLASSIC and understanding
towards QLASSIC. Completed questionnaire can be refer in appendix.

Part A: Students’ background

Questions will be about students’ year of study and source of QLASSIC
acknowledgement.

Part B: Awareness towards QLASSIC

This section is designed to determine the awareness of students towards
QLASSIC. The questions designed will mainly conclude of basic purpose of
QLASSIC, details to carry out QLASSIC assessment and targets of CIDB to make
QLASSIC mandatory in the future. Linking to targets of CIDB to make QLASSIC
mandatory in the future, perspective of construction students will be asked together
with their willingness to study about QLASSIC in the future.
 27

Part C: Student’s level of knowledge

Question will be asked using Likert scale type to determine the understanding
of students about QLASSIC. Components of QLASSIC assessment includes process
flow, sampling process, weightage, standards and method.

3.4.3 Sampling

Primary data for the study was obtained from respondents, which is contractors
and students. The population of students studying construction course included in the
study while respondents from contractor were selected using sampling method.
Contractors registered Grade 7 and Grade 6 under CIDB in Johor Bahru form the
respondent for the first objective. Number of sample taken was calculated with the aid of
Sample Size Calculator by Raosoft. Margin of error and confidence level was set as 10%
and 90% respectively. The population of registered contractor in CIDB for G7 and G6
contractors and the sample size were shown in Table 3.3 below. Extra number of
questionnaire form will be distributed out to get a more accurate result.

Table 3.2: Population of Grade 7 and 6 registered contractors under CIDB in Johor
Bahru.

Contractor Grades of Contractor Sample Size to Sample Size

Registration Grades of Calculator by Raosoft
Registration
G7 340 76
G6 83 45
Total Population of 423 121
Registered Contractors
Sources: (CIDB, 2016)
 28

3.5 Forth Phase: Data Analysis

Data analysis will be conducted with the aid of Microsoft Excel. Since there
is two categories of respondents, data analysis for the study will include both
descriptive statistic and inferential statistic. Descriptive statistic method is suitable
when sampling forms the majority or the whole population of respondent. Inferential
statistic method, on the other hand, is suitable when samples are only a portion of the
population. In this study, inferential statistic method will be used to analyse data
collected through survey questionnaires.

3.5.1 Descriptive Statistic Method

There are three ways to analyze descriptive data, which is by measuring the
central tendency, measuring dispersion and standardizing data. The description of
each way is shown in Table 3.4 below.

Table 3.3: Description for descriptive statistic method.

Descriptive Statistic Description

Method
Measure central tendency
Measure dispersion
About finding middle point of the data set to
simplify the data, for example:
 Mean – average value
 Median – middle score value
 Mode – value occur most frequently
About finding the data dispersion, for example:
 Range – difference of highest and lowest
value
 29

 Standard deviation – explain dispersion of

scores in distribution
 Variance – identify dispersion of score in
distribution
Standardize data  Proportion
 Percentage
 Change in percentage
 Rate
 Ratio
Sources: (Mustapa, 2016b)

3.5.1.1 Frequency Distribution

The raw collected data through the questionnaires were normally in large
volume, hence it was required to be gathered and categorised. According to Naoum
(2012), the collected data could be summarised through classifying them into various
categories which they belong to.

Frequency distribution has been adopted in this research in order to analyse the
collected data. It has been used to analyse multiple choices and checklist questions.
Frequency distribution method enable collected data to be arranged and tabulated in
tables before they are presented in bar charts and pie charts.

Percentage is one of the data tabulation method. The frequency distribution

from the data could be converted into percentage by using the Equation 3.1 below:
 30

Frequency of selected variable

Percentage (%) = × 100%
total number of respondent

(Equation 3.1)

3.5.1.2 Mean

Mean was used to analyse the Likert-scale question. The Likert-scale include
the ranging from 1-5 with indication from no awareness to higher-level of
consciousness, least expectation to huge expectation and from does not understand to
fully understand. Firstly, the raw data from the questionnaires was tabulated to analyse
further. Then, the data was analysed by using the mean method. The purpose of using
the mean score method for the research is to examine the level of awareness among
contractors and construction students on QLASSIC, level of expectation of contractors
towards QLASSIC knowledge and level of understanding of students towards
QLASSIC. Ranking are assigned to each question according to the mean value
calculated. The higher the mean value, the higher the ranking of that question or
element.

The formula to calculate mean is shown in Equation 3.2 below.

∑x
Mean, x̅ =
n

(Equation 3.2)

Where, ∑ 𝑥 = frequency × scale

 31

n = total number of respondents

The mean range is also chosen as the method of analysis to analyse the Likert-
scale type questions. The mean range will indicate which categories that the Likert
items belong to. The formula for mean range is illustrated as Equation 3.3 below:

largest scale - smallest scale

Mean Range =
number of scales
5 -1
= = 0.80
5

(Equation 3.3)

The categories will be based on the mean range of 0.80 as shown in Equation
3.3.

3.5.1.3 Standard Deviation

The other measure use is standard deviation which is spread around the mean.
Standard deviation value is used to define ranking of the elements when two elements
have the same mean. The lower the standard deviation value, the higher the ranking
of the elements. The formula to calculate standard deviation is shown in Equation 3.4
below:
 32

∑ (x - x̅)2
Standard Deviation = √
n

(Equation 3.4)

Where, x = scale
x̅ = mean
n = number of respondent

3.6 Final Phase: Conclusion

Conclusion is about summarising research findings in data analysis to answer

research questions generated for study purpose. In conclusion, research findings on
chapter 4 will be summarised and related to each objective. Meanwhile, the relevant
recommendations will be carried out to enhance the system for the next research in the
future.

3.7 Summary

The chapter summarized the five study phases involve in the study. Data
collection and data analysis phase is highlighted by providing a clear and
comprehensive method to achieve study objectives. The survey method used was
questionnaire survey. Meanwhile, the tool used to analyze the collected data was SPSS
 33

software. After this, the data analysis and findings will be described in-depth in
Chapter 4 using both descriptive statistics method and inferential statistic method.
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
 CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to analyse the data collected through questionnaires
and to discuss the results. The analysis and findings is about the expectation
contractors have on potential recruitment candidates and understanding among UTM
construction students on QLASSIC.

The analysis for each section will be analysed and discussed in two parts, one
for contractors and one for students.
 36

4.2 Questionnaire Delivered

4.2.1 Questionnaire to Contractors

A total of 430 questionnaires were distributed to all registered grade G7 and

G6 contractor under CIDB in Johor Bahru area through email and direct visit. Among
40 questionnaires returned, 5 questionnaires were rejected due to representative to
answer the questionnaire was improper. Therefore, 35 questionnaires were eligible for
analysis, representing 8.14 % from the total distributed questionnaires. All the eligible
data collected from the questionnaires were analysed and used as the basis of the study.

Table 4.1: Summary of questionnaire distribution status for contractors.

Questionnaire Status Frequency Percentage
Eligible Questionnaire 35 8.14%
Rejected Questionnaire 5 1.16%
Unreturned Questionnaire 395 90.70%
Total 430 100.00%

Questionnaire Distribution Status

90.70%

Unreturned Questionnaire
Rejected Questionnaire
Eligible Questionnaire

1.16%
8.14%

Figure 4.1: Questionnaire distribution status for contractors.

 37

4.2.2 Questionnaire to Students

From office of Faculty of Built Environment, there is a total number of 109

students studying in construction. 109 sets of questionnaires through direct approach
for those in the campus and with the aid of google form for part of the students doing
internship outside the campus. 89 from the distributed questionnaires were returned
representing 81.65% of the total population. Questionnaires miss out due to constrain
such as not full attendance during questionnaire distribution.

Table 4.2: Summary of questionnaire distribution status for students

Questionnaire Status Frequency Percentage
Returned Questionnaire 89 81.65%
Questionnaire Miss Out 20 18.35%
Total 109 100.00%

Questionnaire Distribution Status

81.65%

Returned Questionnaire
18.35% Miss Out

Figure 4.2: Questionnaire distribution status for students.

 38

4.3 Background of Respondent

Background of respondent is included in the questionnaire to provide the

survey with a brief understanding of the respondents involving in the survey.

4.3.1 Contractor Company’s Background

Company’s background included registration grade of firm under CIDB,

position of respondent and company’s experience of firms on QLASSIC
implementation.

4.3.1.1 Registration Grade of Firm under CIDB

Among 35 eligible questionnaires returned, 31 respondents are formed by

contractor firm registered grade G7 under CIDB while 4 are from grade G6 company.

Table 4.3: Number of respondent by CIDB grade.

Grade of Contractor Firms Number of Respondent Percentage
G7 31 89%
G6 4 11%
Total 35 100%
 39

Grade of Respondent (Contractor)

G7 G6

31, 89%

4, 11%

Figure 4.3: Number of respondent by CIDB grade.

4.3.1.2 Position of Respondent within the Organisation

Table 4.4 shows the composition for position of the respondents. Majority of
the respondents were project manager, comprising of 30%. Others will be project
coordinator (13%), site supervisor (13%), project engineer (8%), QA/QC supervisor
(5%), assistant QA/QC manager (5%) and 3% each for senior superintendent, HR
executive and project director. There are totally 5 respondents comprising of positions
that does not involve on construction site. These positions are quantity surveyors,
administrator, contract assistant and account executive. Questionnaires filled in by
these respondents were rejected for the analysis.

Table 4.4: Position of respondent in firm.

No Position of Respondent Frequency Percentage Note
1 Project Manager 13 33%
2 Project Coordinator 5 13%
3 Site Supervisor 5 13%
4 Project Engineer 3 8%
 40

5 QA/QC Supervisor 2 5%
7 Assistant QA/QC Manager 2 5%
8 Director 2 5%
9 Quantity Surveyor 2 5% Rejected
10 Senior Superintendent 1 3%
11 HR Executive 1 3%
12 Project Director 1 3%
13 Administrator 1 3% Rejected
14 Contract Assistant 1 3% Rejected
15 Account Executive 1 3% Rejected
Total 40 100%

4.3.1.3 Experience of Firms in QLASSIC

Surprisingly, a high number of firms responded to the survey show no

experience in QLASSIC in previous project which is not accordance with
announcement by CIDB that the assessment had been adopted by higher contractors
reported by Yvonne (2014) Only 9 firms have previous experience in QLASSIC.
Experience of these firms is shown in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.4.

Table 4.5: Experience of respondent in QLASSIC.

Experience of Respondent in QLASSIC Frequency Percentage
No experience in QLASSIC implementation 26 74%
Experience in QLASSIC implementation
 Experience less than 1 year 1 3%
 Experience 1-5 years 5 14%
 Experience more than 5 years 3 9%
Total 35 100%
 41

Experience of Respondent in QLASSIC

5 3
26 9 9%
74% 26% 14%

1
3%

No experience in QLASSIC implementation

Experience less than 1 year
Experience 1-5 years
Experience more than 5 years

Figure 4.4: Experience of respondent in QLASSIC.

Firms with QLASSIC experience were also ask for their performance in their
previous projects. Shown in Figure 4.5 that those who adopted QLASSIC achieve
good result in QLASSIC score. Majority achieve higher than 50 marks and 5 among
them experienced achieving more than 80 marks in their projects.
 42

Performance of Respondent Adopted QLASSIC

QLASSIC score more than 80%

QLASSIC score from 50% to 80%

QLASSIC score less than 50%

0 1 2 3 4 5

QLASSIC score less QLASSIC score from QLASSIC score more

than 50% 50% to 80% than 80%
Number 1 3 5

Figure 4.5: Performance among respondent having experience in QLASSIC

implementation.

For firms that did not implement QLASSIC, the reason or barriers were
indicated in Figure 4.6. The most significant reason for responding firms to not
adopting QLASSIC were lack of QLASSIC knowledge by firm (43%) and less urgent
by government (39%).

Reason of Respondent not Implementing QLASSIC

Avoid consequences 3%

Insufficient Financial Support 6%

Low Involvement by Top Management 9%

Less Urgent by Government 39%

Lack of QLASSIC Knowledge 42%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Figure 4.6: Reason of contractor not implementing QLASSIC.

 43

4.3.2 Construction Student’s Background

Figure 4.7 shows the proportion of students in acknowledgement on QLASSIC.

58% of construction students does not heard or know about QLASSIC. These
respondents were rejected to determine their understanding on QLASSIC. However,
they are still included in determining the awareness on QLASSIC to gain an average
among construction students. Therefore, only 37 respondents with acknowledgement
on QLASSIC will be taken as respondent to rete their understanding on QLASSIC.

Acknowledgement on QLASSIC

Yes No

37
42%
52
58%

Figure 4.7: Acknowledgement of construction student on QLASSIC.

 44

4.4 Awareness of Respondent towards QLASSIC

Figure 4.8 shows the awareness of respondents towards QLASSIC. Generally,

contractors had higher awareness towards QLASSIC comparing to construction
students. However, both respondents show similar awareness on two of ten items
which were related to CITP 2016-2020.

Awareness of QLASSIC among Contractors and Students

QLASSIC is an
independence
assessment for quality.
CITP 2016-2020 sets
QLASSIC is to
out target to initiate
increase construction
QLASSIC as
quality performance.
prerequisites for…
Construction Industry QLASSIC standardize
Transformation Plan acceptable quality of
(CITP) 2016-2020 sets workmanship on site
out target to include… by clarifying desired…

A score, namely
QLASSIC assess
QLASSIC score, will
workmanship based on
be issue to the project
CIS 7 standard.
after assessment.
QLASSIC assess
Assessment will be
structural,
carry out by external
architectural,
assessor.
mechanical and…
CIDB provide
application for
QLASSIC assessment.

Contractor Students

Figure 4.8: Awareness of QLASSIC among contractors and students.

 45

4.4.1 Awareness among Contractors

Table 4.7 shows the awareness of contractors on QLASSIC with frequency and
mean value. Table 4.6 showed the mean value category for the scale to determine level
of expectation.

Table 4.6: Mean value for the scale of awareness level.

Mean Level of Awareness
1.00 – 1.80 No Awareness
1.81 - 2.60 Subconscious Awareness
2.61 – 3.40 Altered State of Consciousness
Lower-level of Consciousness (requires
3.41 – 4.20
little attention)
Higher-level of Consciousness (requires
4.21 – 5.00
selective attention)

Awareness of contractors are relatively higher than average. Respondents

showed to aware on the basic knowledge of QLASSIC as they show lower-level of
consciousness in purpose and product of QLASSIC assessment (ranked from 1 to 4).
On details to carry out QLASSIC assessment (ranked from 5 to 8), they showed only
an altered state of consciousness. This may be related to only few of respondent has
experience in conducting QLASSIC assessment. Respondents had the lowest
awareness on latest information about QLASSIC (ranked 9 with mean 2.66 and ranked
10 with mean 2.57 shown in Figure 4.9). It explained that the targets CIDB on
QLASSIC stated in CITP 2016-2020 is not yet widely recognised by higher grade
contractors.
 46

Table 4.7: Awareness of contractors on QLASSIC.

Frequency for Likert-scale Level of Standard
No Awareness on QLASSIC Mean Rank
1 2 3 4 5 Total Awareness Deviation
Lower-level of
1 QLASSIC is an independence assessment for quality. 5 2 10 7 11 35 3.49 1.38 3
Consciousness
QLASSIC is to increase construction quality Lower-level of
2 5 0 8 11 11 35 3.66 1.33 1
performance. Consciousness
QLASSIC standardize acceptable quality of
Lower-level of
3 workmanship on site by clarifying desired final quality 5 1 9 12 8 35 3.49 1.29 2
Consciousness
of products.
Altered State
QLASSIC assess workmanship based on CIS 7
4 6 3 8 11 7 35 3.29 of 1.36 7
standard.
Consciousness
Altered State
5 Assessment will be carry out by external assessor. 5 4 7 12 7 35 3.34 of 1.33 6
Consciousness
Altered State
6 CIDB provide application for QLASSIC assessment. 7 1 13 6 8 35 3.20 of 1.39 8
Consciousness

52
 47

Table 4.7: Awareness of contractors on QLASSIC (Continued).

Altered State
QLASSIC assess structural, architectural, mechanical
7 5 4 7 10 9 35 3.40 of 1.38 5
and electrical and external works.
Consciousness
A score, namely QLASSIC score, will be issue to the Lower-level of
8 5 3 6 13 8 35 3.46 1.34 4
project after assessment. Consciousness
Construction Industry Transformation Plan (CITP)
Subconscious
9 2016-2020 sets out target to include QLASSIC score in 13 2 11 5 4 35 2.57 1.42 10
Awareness
Sales and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) by 2020
CITP 2016-2020 sets out target to initiate QLASSIC as Altered State
10 prerequisites for Certificate of Partial Completion (CPC) 12 2 11 6 4 35 2.66 of 1.41 9
and Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC). Consciousness

53
 48

Awareness on QLASSIC

5.00
4.50
4.00 3.49 3.66 3.49 3.29 3.34
3.50 3.20 3.40 3.46
Mean 3.00 2.57 2.66
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

Figure 4.9: Mean of awareness of contractors on QLASSIC.

Source of awareness for contractors was shown in Figure 4.10. 52%, which is
more than half of them gain information of QLASSIC from CIDB announcement while
18% and 17% get to know QLASSIC through their client and QLASSIC awareness
courses.

Source of Awareness
60%
53%
50%

40%

30%

20% 18% 18%

10% 8%
5%
0%

Figure 4.10: Source of Awareness for contractors.

 49

4.4.2 Awareness among Students

Awareness of QLASSIC among construction students were averagely low.

Item 2 which is the basic purpose of QLASSIC, QLASSIC is to increase construction
quality performance, has the highest awareness among all with mean 3.13. The lowest
would be item number 5, assessment will be carry out by external assessor, with only
2.64 for mean.
 50

Table 4.8: Awareness of QLASSIC among construction students.

Frequency for Likert-scale Level of Standard

No Awareness on QLASSIC Mean Rank
1 2 3 4 5 Total Awareness Deviation
Altered State of
1 QLASSIC is an independence assessment for quality. 16 20 24 20 9 89 2.84 1.25 6
Consciousness
QLASSIC is to increase construction quality Altered State of
2 14 12 25 24 14 89 3.13 1.29 1
performance. Consciousness
QLASSIC standardize acceptable quality of
Altered State of
3 workmanship on site by clarifying desired final quality 16 16 25 18 14 89 2.98 1.32 3
Consciousness
of products.
QLASSIC assess workmanship based on CIS 7 Altered State of
4 21 23 16 23 6 89 2.66 1.28 8
standard. Consciousness
Altered State of
5 Assessment will be carry out by external assessor. 21 17 29 17 5 89 2.64 1.20 10
Consciousness
Altered State of
6 CIDB provide application for QLASSIC assessment. 14 18 25 25 7 89 2.92 1.20 5
Consciousness
QLASSIC assess structural, architectural, mechanical Altered State of
7 14 15 28 22 10 89 2.99 1.23 2
and electrical and external works. Consciousness

56
 51

Table 4.8: Awareness of QLASSIC among construction students (Continued).

A score, namely QLASSIC score, will be issue to the Altered State of
8 17 12 25 26 9 89 2.98 1.27 3
project after assessment. Consciousness
Construction Industry Transformation Plan (CITP)
Altered State of
9 2016-2020 sets out target to include QLASSIC score in 20 15 28 24 2 89 2.70 1.16 7
Consciousness
Sales and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) by 2020
CITP 2016-2020 sets out target to initiate QLASSIC as
Altered State of
10 prerequisites for Certificate of Partial Completion (CPC) 18 22 27 18 4 89 2.64 1.15 9
Consciousness
and Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

57
 52

Awareness on QLASSIC

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50 3.13 2.98 2.92 2.99 2.98
2.84 2.66 2.64 2.70 2.64
3.00
Mean
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00

Figure 4.11: Mean of awareness of contractors on QLASSIC.

From Figure 4.12, the main sources of awareness of construction students on

QLASSIC is from their academic courses. This can explain why they are aware of the
basic purpose of QLASSIC in increasing construction quality performance.

Source of Awareness
50% 44%
45%
40%
35%
30% 24%
25% 20%
20%
15%
10% 7%
5% 2% 2%
0%

Figure 4.12: Source of awareness among students.

 53

4.5 Perspective of Respondent towards QLASSIC

This section is will mainly discuss about perspective of respondent towards

QLASSIC mandatory, effect on responded firms or respondents and possibility for
them to take initiative to adopt or understand QLASSIC in the future.

4.5.1 Perspective of Contractors towards QLASSIC

Shown in Figure 4.13, contractors grade G7 and G6 had good perspective on

making QLASSIC mandatory for construction projects.

Perspective towards QLASSIC Mandatory

Worse Bad Neither Good Excellent

20
57%

11 3
31% 9%

0 1
0% 3%

Figure 4.13: Perspective of contractors towards QLASSIC mandatory.

Figure 4.14 shows perspective towards effect of QLASSIC mandatory on

firm’s performance. Although majority of the respondents thinks that mandatory of
QLASSIC will give effects on firm’s performance, there are still quite many
 54

respondent (40% from the total) does not think that this action by the government will
affect them. One of the reason is because their firms are currently adopting QLASSIC
in projects while another will be the major work of their firms was not included in
QLASSIC assessment.

Perspecive towards QLASSIC Mandatory

Effect on Firms Performance

No
14 Yes
40% 21
60%

Figure 4.14: Perspective towards effect of QLASSIC mandatory on firm’s

performance.

Figure 4.15 shows the possibility of firm to adopt QLASSIC in future while
Figure 4.16 shows possibility of firm to recruit employees with QLASSIC knowledge.
From Figure 4.15, majority of the respondents have positive respond to adopt
QLASSIC in their firms’ project with 17% stating absolutely will, 34% indicating very
likely and 37% stating somewhat likely. The remainder reflecting not likely (6%) and
not at all (6%) are possibly those with major work frame not included in QLASSIC
assessment.

Possibility of firm to recruit employees with QLASSIC knowledge also shows

virtually the same as their possibility to adopt QLASSIC in the future. 14% among
the respondents indicate absolute willingness, 31% shows very likely and 43% states
somewhat likely.
 55

Possibility of Firm to Adopt QLASSIC in Future

Not at All Not Likely Somewhat Likely Very Lkely Absolutely Will

2
6
6%
17%
2
12 6%
34%

13
37%

Figure 4.15: Possibility of firm to adopt QLASSIC in future

Possibility of Firm to Recruit Employees with

QLASSIC Knowledge

5 2
11
14% 6%
31%
2
6%
15
43%

Not at All Not Likely Somewhat Likely Very Lkely Absolutely Will

Figure 4.16: Possibility of firm to recruit employees with QLASSIC knowledge.

 56

4.5.2 Perspective of Construction Student towards QLASSIC

Almost half of construction students giving perspective of neither good nor bad
towards QLASSIC mandatory in the future. The reason of this result may cause by
the low awareness and acknowledgement among construction students. Thus, only
half of the students thinks that mandatory of QLASSIC will give them some
consequences as shown in Figure 4.18. However, there is still 37% of the respondents,
shown in Figure 4.17, think that it is good to make QLASSIC mandatory for
construction projects.

Perspective towards QLASSIC Mandatory

Worse Bad Neither Good Excellent

40 33
45% 37%

4 11
5% 12%

1
1%

Figure 4.17: Perspective of construction students towards QLASSIC mandatory.

 57

Perspecive towards QLASSIC Mandatory

Effect on Respondent

No Yes
43 46
48% 52%

Figure 4.18: Perspective towards effect of QLASSIC mandatory on construction

students.

Figure 4.19 indicate the keenness of construction student to know about

QLASSIC in the future. Most of the students have positive respond towards knowing
about QLASSIC.

Keenness to Know about QLASSIC in Future

6
17% 2
12
6%
34%

2
6%

13
37%

Not at All Not Likely Somewhat Likely Very Lkely Absolutely Will

Figure 4.19: Keenness to Know about QLASSIC in Future

 58

4.6 Expectation of Contractors towards QLASSIC Knowledge

This section will discuss about the analysis to achieve objective 1. Table 4.10
and Figure 4.20 show the result of the study on expectation of contractors towards
QLASSIC knowledge on recruitment candidates with mean and ranking. Ranking of
was decided according to the mean of each element. Table 4.9 showed the mean value
category for the scale to determine level of expectation.

Table 4.9: Mean value for the scale of expectation level.

Mean Level of Expectation
1.00 – 1.80 Least Expectation
1.81 - 2.60 Less Expectation
2.61 – 3.40 Moderate Expectation
3.41 – 4.20 High Expectation
4.21 – 5.00 Huge Expectation

Basically, contractors have moderate expectation for all elements list in Table
4.10 and Figure 4.20. This explains that contractors have expectations towards
QLASSIC on potential recruit candidates by having similar expectation for all related
knowledge.

Although all elements had the similar expectation by contractors, the highest
expectation is the requirement for candidates to determine the category of respective
project for assessment purpose, with mean of 3.40 and standard deviation of 1.01. The
second element, which is the understanding of candidates about the procedure to carry
out the assessment on site ranked second among all with mean 3.40 and standard
deviation 1.03. Ranked in the 3rd place is element number 4, candidate knows which
component included in the assessment is to be under firm’s expert, with same mean as
1st and 2nd expected elements and standard deviation of 1.06. These three elements
 59

ranked high in the list are the knowledge related to identify and determine project’s
work flow, sampling and calculation weightage for QLASSIC assessment purpose.

Elements ranking 4 to 9 are knowledge related to actual work on site in

QLASSIC assessment process flow, sampling, weightage, standards, methods and on-
site practice. Ranking number 4 was ‘candidate can operate tools and instruments used
for assessment’ with mean 3.37; ranked in the 5th was ‘candidate knows elements
included in QLASSIC assessment under each component.’ With mean 3.34; with mean
3.3, ‘candidate understand the calculation method of QLASSIC score’ ranked in
number 6; ‘candidate knows the sampling method of QLASSIC’ with mean 3.29 and
standard deviation 1.02 ranked 7th; 8th was the element ‘candidate have experience on
QLASSIC assessment’ with mean 3.29 and standard deviation 1.10.

Element number 9, candidate understand the assessment method for each

component, rank in the lowers with mean 3.26 while element number 8, candidate
understand standards in CIS 7: 2006/2014 that are related to firm’s expert, rank 11th
among all elements. These 2 elements are knowledge related more to details to carry
out QLASSIC assessment.

In conclusion, contractors’ expectation on QLASSIC knowledge is not high

since most of them are not yet aware of the future tendency for QLASSIC assessment.
When compared among the elements of QLASSIC knowledge, contractors are more
expected on the ability to identify and determine project’s work compare to knowledge
related to actual practice on site and details on carrying out the assessment.
 60

Table 4.10: Level of expectation of contractors towards QLASSIC.

Category of Frequency for Likert-scale Level of Standard

No Expectation Mean Rank
Element Expectation Deviation
1 2 3 4 5 Total
Process Candidate knows when will the assessment Moderate
1 2 4 15 11 3 35 3.26 0.98 9
Flow be carry out. Expectation
Process Candidate understand the procedure to carry Moderate
2 2 4 11 14 4 35 3.40 1.03 2
Flow out the assessment on site. Expectation
Sampling Candidate can determine category of Moderate
3 2 4 10 16 3 35 3.40 1.01 1
Process respective project for assessment purpose. Expectation
Candidate knows which component
Moderate
4 Weightage included in the assessment is to be under 2 4 12 12 5 35 3.40 1.06 3
Expectation
firm’s expert.
Candidate understand the calculation Moderate
5 Weightage 2 5 12 12 4 35 3.31 1.05 6
method of QLASSIC score. Expectation
Sampling Candidate knows the sampling method of Moderate
6 2 5 12 13 3 35 3.29 1.02 7
Process QLASSIC. Expectation

66
 61

Table 4.10: Level of expectation of contractors towards QLASSIC (Continued).

Candidate knows elements included in
Assessment Moderate
7 QLASSIC assessment under each 2 5 10 15 3 35 3.34 1.03 5
Standard Expectation
component.
Assessment Candidate understand standards in CIS 7: Moderate
8 3 4 11 15 2 35 3.26 1.04 12
Standard 2006/2014 that are related to firm’s expert. Expectation
Assessment Candidate understand the assessment Moderate
9 2 5 13 12 3 35 3.26 1.01 11
Method method for each component. Expectation
Assessment Candidate can operate tools and instruments Moderate
10 2 4 11 15 3 35 3.37 1.00 4
Method used for assessment. Expectation
On-site Candidate have experience on QLASSIC Moderate
11 3 4 12 12 4 35 3.29 1.10 8
Practice assessment. Expectation
On-site Candidate can pre-assess works on site Moderate
12 2 4 15 11 3 35 3.26 0.98 9
Practice accordingly to the standards. Expectation

67
 62

Mean Value: Expectation of Contractors towards QLASSIC

Candidate knows when

will the assessment be
carry out.
Candidate can pre- Candidate understand
assess works on site the procedure to carry
accordingly to the… 3.26 out the assessment on…
3.26 3.40
Candidate have Candidate can
experience on determine category of
QLASSIC assessment. 3.29 3.40 respective project for…

Candidate can operate Candidate knows which

tools and instruments 3.37 3.40 component included in
used for assessment. the assessment is to…

Candidate understand 3.26 3.31 Candidate understand

the assessment method the calculation method
for each component. 3.26 3.29 of QLASSIC score.
Candidate understand 3.34 Candidate knows the
standards in CIS 7: sampling method of
2006/2014 that are… QLASSIC.
Candidate knows
elements included in
QLASSIC…

Figure 4.20: Mean value: Expectation of contractors towards QLASSIC.

4.7 Understanding of QLASSIC among Construction Students

This section discusses about the understanding of QLASSIC among UTM

construction students. Table 4.11 showed the mean value category for the scale to
determine level of understanding while Table 4.12 and Figure 4.21 show the
understanding of QLASSIC among construction students in mean and ranking. Only
students having acknowledgement on QLASSIC were analysed for their understanding.
In overall, students have well understanding on 6 elements among 10 while they do
not understand well in the rest of the elements.
 63

Table 4.11: Mean value for the scale of level of understanding.

Mean Level of Understanding
1.00 – 1.80 Does Not Understand
1.81 - 2.60 Less Understand
2.61 – 3.40 Not Clearly Understand
3.41 – 4.20 Understand Well
4.21 – 5.00 Fully Understand (able to practice)

Among all category of elements, students understand more about the process
flow of QLASSIC assessment. Students have the highest understanding in ‘CIDB
provides a procedure to carry out the assessment’, with mean 3.73. Ranked 2nd with
mean 3.65 and mean 0.89 was element number 7, ‘each component contains elements
that need to be assess and evaluate during QLASSIC assessment’. Element number 1,
‘QLASSIC assessment will be carry out after work done on site’ ranked 3rd with the
same mean with standard deviation 1.06.

Elements that ranked from 4th to 7th were related more details to carry out
QLASSIC assessment in terms of sampling and weightage of each items. Ranked 4th
with mean 3.57 was about the calculation weightage for each type of building category
while ranked 5th with mean 3.51 was ‘4 components (structural, architectural,
mechanical and electrical and external) are included in the scope QLASSIC
assessment’. Ranked 6th and 7th were division of project categories (mean 3.43) and
involvement of (GFA) in sampling (mean 3.38) during QLASSIC assessment.

It was showed that students do not understand much on the assessment standard
and method. Among 3 elements ranked from 8th to 10th, 2 elements (element number
8 and 9) were about CIS:7 2006/2014. Element number 8, ‘CIS 7: 2006/2014 is the
construction industry standard that state out standards for each element that need to be
evaluate during QLASSIC assessment’ ranked 8th with mean 3.35 while element
number 9, ‘each standard for each component has different assessment method as
 64

stated in CIS 7: 2006/2014’ has the lowest understanding among students with mean
3.30. Besides, element number 10 relating to actual site practice of the assessment
was ranked 9th with mean 3.32.

In conclusion, students with QLASSIC acknowledgement had understanding

higher than average but still does not reach satisfaction level to carry out actual
assessment on site. Furthermore, there are still numbers of students that did not being
included in analysis of this section does not heard of QLASSIC.
 65

Table 4.12: Understanding of QLASSIC among construction students.

Frequency for Likert-scale Level of
Category Standard
No Understanding towards QLASSIC Mean Understan Rank
of Element 1 2 3 4 5 Total Deviation
ding
Process QLASSIC assessment will be carry out after Understand
1 2 2 11 14 8 37 3.65 1.06 3
Flow work done on site Well
Process CIDB provides a procedure to carry out the Understand
2 1 0 13 17 6 37 3.73 0.84 1
Flow assessment. Well
Projects are divided into 4 categories (landed
residential building, stratified residential
Sampling building, non-residential building without Understand
3 1 5 11 17 3 37 3.43 0.93 6
Process centralized cooling system and non-residential Well
building with centralized cooling system) for
assessment purpose.
4 components (structural, architectural,
Understand
4 Weightage mechanical and electrical and external) are 1 2 15 15 4 37 3.51 0.87 5
Well
included in the scope QLASSIC assessment.

71
 66

Table 4.12: Understanding of QLASSIC among construction students (Continued).

Different weightage (for 4 components) are
Understand
5 Weightage assigned to each building category for the 1 2 15 13 6 37 3.57 0.93 4
Well
calculation of QLASSIC score.
Sampling for QLASSIC assessment is done
Sampling Not Clearly
6 based on gross floor area (GFA) of project and 2 2 16 14 3 37 3.38 0.92 7
Process Understand
randomly.
Each component contains elements that need
Assessment Understand
7 to be assess and evaluate during QLASSIC 1 2 11 18 5 37 3.65 0.89 2
Standard Well
assessment.
CIS 7: 2006/2014 is the construction industry
Assessment standard that state out standards for each Not Clearly
8 2 4 12 17 2 37 3.35 0.95 8
Standard element that need to be evaluate during Understand
QLASSIC assessment.
Each standard for each component has
Assessment Not Clearly
9 different assessment method as stated in CIS 7: 2 7 11 12 5 37 3.30 1.10 10
Method Understand
2006/2014.
Assessment Tools and instruments such as tapping rod and Not Clearly
10 1 7 14 9 6 37 3.32 1.06 9
Method precise level are used to assist the assessment. Understand

72
 67

Mean Value: Understanding of Construction Students towards

QLASSIC

QLASSIC assessment
will be carry out after
work done on site
Tools and instruments CIDB provides a
such as tapping rod and 3.65 procedure to carry out
precise level are used… 3.73 the assessment.
3.32
Each standard for each Projects are divided
component has different into 4 categories
assessment method… 3.30 3.43 (landed residential…

CIS 7: 2006/2014 is the 3.35 4 components

3.51
construction industry (structural,
standard that state… architectural,…

Each component 3.65 3.57 Different weightage

contains elements that 3.38 (for 4 components) are
need to be assess and… assigned to each…
Sampling for QLASSIC
assessment is done
based on gross floor…

Figure 4.21: Mean Value: Understanding of construction students towards

QLASSIC.
 68

4.8 Summary

This section summarized the overall findings of the research. The research is
intended to identify the expectation of QLASSIC knowledge by contractors towards
potential recruit candidates and the understanding of QLASSIC among construction
students that are form part of the potential recruit candidates. The result shows that
contractors still do not have high expectation towards the knowledge as majority of
them are still not aware of the intention of government to mandatory QLASSIC in
construction projects as stated in CITP 2016-2020. Construction students also shows
similar result in terms of awareness towards QLASSIC. Thus, part of them having
acknowledgement on QLASSIC shows understanding higher than average on theories
which is not practicable enough during actual practice.
 69

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
 70

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter will overall summerised and conclude the study that was
conducted in chapter 4. Nevertheless, this chapter will also encompass on the
limitations and problem encountered when conducting the study. Besides that, the
recommendation for future research.

5.2 Research Conclusion

The objectives of this research were to identify the expectation of QLASSIC

knowledge by contractors towards potential recruit candidates and the understanding
of QLASSIC among construction students that are form part of the potential recruit
candidates. The research conclusion is divided into 2 sections which was made in
accordance with the highlighted objectives.
 71

5.2.1 Expectation of Contractors towards QLASSIC Knowledge

The result shows that contractors still do not have high expectation towards the
knowledge as they have similar expectation for all related knowledge. Among
QLASIC assessment process flow, sampling, weightage, standards and methods,
contractors expected more on the knowledge related to identify and determine
project’s work on these items. The items include:
 Candidate can determine category of respective project for assessment purpose
(mean: 3.40, standard deviation: 1.01).
 Candidate understand the procedure to carry out the assessment on site (mean:
3.40, standard deviation: 1.03).
 Candidate knows which component included in the assessment is to be under
firm’s expert (mean: 3.40, standard deviation: 1.06).

However, elements with knowledge related more to details to carry out

QLASSIC assessment were less expected by contractors especially related to
assessment method and standard. Two items having the lowers expectation were:
 Candidate understand standards in CIS 7: 2006/2014 that are related to firm’s
expert (mean: 3.26, standard deviation: 1.04).
 Candidate understand the assessment method for each component (mean: 3.26,
standard deviation: 1.01).

The result on contractors’ expectation maybe explained by their awareness

where they may not aware the future intention of CIDB towards QLASSIC. The result
shows that contractors still do not have high expectation towards the knowledge as
majority of them are still not aware of the intention of government to mandatory
QLASSIC in construction projects as stated in CITP 2016-2020.
Based on the result, awareness of contractors was relatively higher than
average. Respondents showed to aware on the basic knowledge of QLASSIC. Instead,
they show low awareness on latest information about QLASSIC especially on:
 72

 Construction Industry Transformation Plan (CITP) 2016-2020 sets out

target to include QLASSIC score in Sales and Purchase Agreements
(SPAs) by 2020 (mean: 2.57, standard deviation: 2.42).
 CITP 2016-2020 sets out target to initiate QLASSIC as prerequisites
for Certificate of Partial Completion (CPC) and Certificate of
Completion and Compliance (CCC) (mean: 2.66, standard deviation:
2.41).

Thus, future intention of CIDB on QLASSIC stated in CITP 2016-2020 is not

yet widely recognised by higher grade contractors, effecting their expectation on
QLASSIC knowledge. Their level of expectation may be higher if they are more aware
to the latest information.

5.2.2 Understanding of Construction Students towards QLASSIC

In overall, construction students had relatively low awareness on QLASSIC

which shows similar as contractors. The highest awareness they have was on the basic
purpose of QLASSIC assessment which was ‘QLASSIC is to increase construction
quality performance’ with mean 3.13. This mean value gained higher of 0.14 than
mean value of element, ‘QLASSIC assess structural, architectural, mechanical and
electrical and external works’, which ranked next to it with mean 2.99.

From total 89 construction students responded to the survey, only 37 students

with acknowledgement of QLASSIC were included to determine their understanding.
They understand more about the process flow of QLASSIC assessment while lower in
sampling, weightage, assessment standard and method. The elements which they have
higher understanding were:
 73

 CIDB provides a procedure to carry out the assessment (mean: 3.73,

standard deviation: 0.84).
 Each component contains elements that need to be assess and evaluate
during QLASSIC assessment (mean: 3.65, standard deviation: 0.89).
 QLASSIC assessment will be carry out after work done on site (mean:
3.65, standard deviation: 1.06).

However, students show less understanding on the assessment standard and

method which include:
 Each standard for each component has different assessment method as
stated in CIS 7: 2006/2014 (mean: 3.30, standard deviation: 1.10).
 Tools and instruments such as tapping rod and precise level are used to
assist the assessment (mean: 3.32, standard deviation: 1.06).

Thus, it can be concluded that part of them having acknowledgement on

QLASSIC only shows understanding higher than average on theories which is not
practicable enough during actual practice. Furthermore, there are still numbers of
students that did not being included in analysis of this section does not heard of
QLASSIC.
 74

5.3 Limitation and Problems Encounter

There are a few problems encountered throughout the process in conducting

this research. The following are some of the problems encountered when conducting
this research:

i. Low rate of response from the respondents (430 sets of questionnaires

have been distributed to the respondents but only 40 sets of
questionnaires were returned)
ii. Respondent responding to the questionnaire is not relevant (5 sets of
questionnaires were rejected due to respond of irrelevant personnel)

5.4 Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the findings and conclusions of the research, the following are
recommendations for future research:

i. The study can be further to lower grades contractor

ii. Understanding among current employees in contractor firms can be
 75

REFERENCES
 76

REFERENCES

BCA, Building and Construction Authority Singapore 2008. The BCA Constuction
Quality Assessment System. The BCA Constuction Quality Assessment System.
7th Edition 2008 ed. Singapore: Building and Construction Authority,
Singapore

BusinessDictionary.com. 2016a. assessment [Online]. BusinessDictionary.com.

Available: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/assessment.html
[Accessed 25, November 2016].

BusinessDictionary.com. 2016b. quality [Online]. BusinessDictionary.com. Available:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/quality.html [Accessed 2,
November 2016].

BusinessDictionary.com. 2016c. system [Online]. BusinessDictionary.com. Available:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/system.html [Accessed 25,
November 2016].

Chan, Albert PC & Chan, Ada PL 2004. Key performance indicators for measuring
construction success. Benchmarking: an international journal, 11, 203-221.

Chini, Abdol R & Valdez, Hector E 2003. ISO 9000 and the US construction industry.
Journal of management in engineering, 19, 69-77.

CIDB, Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia. 2012. QLASSIC [Online].

Constructon Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB). Available:
http://www.cidb.gov.my/cidbv4/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=178:qlassic&catid=33:construction-industry-en&lang=en [Accessed 29,
October 2016].
 77

CIDB, Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia 2014. Construction

Industry Standard; CIS 7: 2014 Quality Assessment System For Building
Construction Work. Construction Industry Standard; CIS 7: 2014 Quality
Assessment System For Building Construction Work. Second ed.: CIDB,
Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) Malaysia.

CIDB, Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia 2015a. 2014 Annual

Report Towards A Safer & Healtier Industry; Laporan Tahunan 2014 Ke Arah
Industri yang Lebih Selamat & Sihat. 2014 Annual Report Towards A Safer &
Healtier Industry; Laporan Tahunan 2014 Ke Arah Industri yang Lebih
Selamat & Sihat. Malaysia: CIDB Malaysia.

CIDB, Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia 2015b. Construction

Industry Transformation Plan 2016-2020, Driving Construction Excellent
Together. In: OFFICE, P. M. (ed.) Construction Industry Transformation Plan
2016-2020, Driving Construction Excellent Together. Malaysia: Construction
Industry Development Board (CIDB) Malaysia.

CIDB, Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia. 2016. Directories Carian

Kontraktor [Online]. CIDB. Available:
http://smb.cidb.gov.my/directory/contractors [Accessed 26, November 2016].

Hornby, A S 2005. Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary. In: WEHMEIER, S. (ed.)

Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ISO 2015. The ISO Survey of Management System Standard Certifications (1993-
2015). The ISO Survey of Management System Standard Certifications (1993-
2015). 31, December 2015 ed.: International Organisation for Standardization
(ISO).

Kam, CW & Tang, SL 1997. Development and implementation of quality assurance

in public construction works in Singapore and Hong Kong. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 14, 909-928.

Kam, Kenn Jhun & Abdul Hamid, Ahmad Hilmy 2015. The true motives behind the
adoption of QLASSIC-CIS 7: 2006: As a quality assurance initiative in
 78

construction industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management, 32, 603-616.

Kärnä, Sami 2004. Analysing Customer Satisfaction and Quality in Construction –

The Case of Public and Private Customers. Nordic Journal of Surveying and
Real Estate Research - Special Series, Vol. 2.

Kothari, Chakravanti Rajagopalachari 2004. Research methodology: Methods and

techniques, New Age International.

Law, Ginette TYPES OF SURVEY QUESTIONS. TYPES OF SURVEY QUESTIONS.

Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute.

Ledbetter, WB 1994. Quality performance on successful project. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 120, 34-46.

Mukhtar, Che Ali 2014. Exploring the potential of integration quality assessment
system in construction (QLASSIC) with ISO 9001 Quality Management
System (QMS). International Journal for Quality Research, 8, 73-86.

Mustapa, Muzani 2016a. Design & Development of Questionnaires. Design &

Development of Questionnaires. Lecturer Notes SBEC 4172 Research Method:
University Technology Malaysia.

Mustapa, Muzani 2016b. Research Statistic. Research Statistic. Lecturer Notes SBEC
4172 Research Method: University Technology Malaysia.

Nair, Vijenthi. 2106. QLASSIC case of setting high standards. The STAR online, 21,
July 2016.

Naoum, Shamil G 2012. Dissertation research and writing for construction students,
Routledge.

Norizam, Ayob & Malek, MA Perception on Quality Assessment System in

Construction (QLASSIC) Implementation in Malaysia.

Perbadanan Memajukan Iktisad Negeri Terengganu. 2015. ANUGERAH

PENCAPAIAN PENSIJILAN QLASSIC TERBAIK [Online]. Kuala Terengganu,
 79

Malaysia: Perbadanan Memajukan Iktisad Negeri Terengganu. Available:

http://www.pmint.gov.my/v2/main.php?module=297 [Accessed 20,
September 2016].

Rockwell, S Kay & Kohn, Harriet 1989. Post-then-pre evaluation. Journal of

Extension, 27, 19-21.

Roshdi, Farrah Rina Bt Mohd. 2013. CHALLENGES OF QUALITY ASSESSMENT

SYSTEM (QLASSIC) IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN MALAYSIA. Master
of Science (Construction Management), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Sincero, Sarah Mae. 2012. Types of Survey Questions [Online]. Explorable.com.

Available: https://explorable.com/types-of-survey-questions [Accessed 23,
November 2016].

Song, Sang-Hoon, Lee, Hyun-Soo & Park, Moonseo Development of Quality

Performance Indicators for Quality Management in Construction Projects.

UK Essays. 2013. The Viewpoint Of Developers Background Of Study Construction

Essay [Online]. Available:
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/construction/the-viewpoint-of-developers-
background-of-study-construction-essay.php [Accessed 31, October 2016].

Yvonne, Cheryl. 2014. QLASSIC way to better homes. New Straits Times Online, 17
October 2014.
 80

APPENDIX A
LETTER OF PERMISSION
81
 82

APPENDIX B
SURVEY FORM
 83

DEPARTMENT OF QUANTITY SURVEYING

FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Research Title: Requirement of QLASSIC Knowledge

Research Objectives:
1) To identify expectation of contactors towards QLASSIC knowledge on potential
recruitment candidates
2) To identify the understanding of QLASSIC among UTM construction students.

RESEARCHER : MAH SIN YIN

SUPERVISOR : DR. MOHAMMADAMIN AZIMI
COURSE : BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (CONSTRUCTION)
MATRIC CARD : A13BE0051
CONTACT NO. : 0164694869
EMAIL : mahsyin@gmail.com

NOTE: This survey questionnaire is used for collecting data regarding the above study. All
information given are strictly CONFIDENTIAL and used for academic purpose only. Your
cooperation will be highly appreciated. Thank You.
 84

Part A: Background
1) Kindly indicate name of firm.
__________________________________________________

2) Select Grade of firm under CIDB.

G7 G6

3) Kindly indicate position of respondent in firm.

______________________________________________________

4) Did the firm apply QLASSIC in current or previous projects?

Yes No
If ‘Yes’, please answer Question 5 and 6.
If ‘No’, kindly proceed to Question 7.

5) Please indicate years of experience,

Less than 1 year
1 – 5 years
More than 5 years

6) Kindly indicate the range of score attained for previous project

Less than 50%
50% to 80%
More than 80%
 85

7) If QLASSIC is not applied, kindly indicate the reasons.

Lack of QLASSIC Knowledge
Low Involvement by Top Management
Less Urgent by Government
Insufficient Financial Support
Avoid consequences such as adverse effect on firm’s reputation

Part B: Awareness towards QLASSIC

Please indicate level of awareness from 1 to 5.
1 - No Awareness
2 - Subconscious Awareness
3 - Altered State of Consciousness
4 - Lower-level of Consciousness (requires little attention)
5 - Higher-level of Consciousness (requires selective attention)

Awareness towards QLASSIC Level of Awareness

8) QLASSIC is an independence assessment for quality. 1 2 3 4 5
9) QLASSIC is to increase construction quality performance. 1 2 3 4 5
10) QLASSIC standardize acceptable quality of workmanship on
1 2 3 4 5
site by clarifying desired final quality of products.
11) QLASSIC assess workmanship based on CIS 7 standard. 1 2 3 4 5
12) Assessment will be carry out by external assessor. 1 2 3 4 5
13) CIDB provide application for QLASSIC assessment. 1 2 3 4 5
14) QLASSIC assess structural, architectural, mechanical and
1 2 3 4 5
electrical and external works.
15) A score, namely QLASSIC score, will be issue to the project
1 2 3 4 5
after assessment.
16) Construction Industry Transformation Plan (CITP) 2016-2020
sets out target to include QLASSIC score in Sales and 1 2 3 4 5
Purchase Agreements (SPAs) by 2020
 86

17) CITP 2016-2020 sets out target to initiate QLASSIC as

prerequisites for Certificate of Partial Completion (CPC) and 1 2 3 4 5
Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

18) What is the source of QLASSIC awareness of the firm?

CIDB Announcement
QLASSIC Awareness Courses
Client
Peer or Counterparts
Others: __________________

19) What is your perspective towards QLASSIC mandatory?

Excellent
Good
Neither
Bad
Worse

20) Will the mandatory affect the firm in terms of performance?

Yes No

21) How likely will your firm adopt QLASSIC in the future?
Absolutely Will

Very Likely

Somewhat Likely

Not Likely

Not at All

22) How likely will your firm consider QLASSIC knowledge among candidates during
recruitment to improve QLASSIC score/starting the implementation of QLASSIC
assessment?
Absolutely Will
 87

Very Likely

Somewhat Likely

Not Likely

Not at All

Part C: Expectation of QLASSIC knowledge required for implementation

Please indicate your expectations towards QLASSIC knowledge during recruitment making
from 1 to 5.
1 - Least Expectation
2 - Less Expectation
3 - Moderate Expectation
4 - High Expectation
5 - Huge Expectation
Expectation towards QLASSIC knowledge Level of Expectation

23) Candidate knows when will the assessment be carry out. 1 2 3 4 5

24) Candidate understand the procedure to carry out the

1 2 3 4 5
assessment on site.

25) Candidate can determine category of respective project for

1 2 3 4 5
assessment purpose.

26) Candidate knows which component included in the

1 2 3 4 5
assessment is to be under firm’s expert.

27) Candidate understand the calculation method of QLASSIC

1 2 3 4 5
score.

28) Candidate knows the sampling method of QLASSIC. 1 2 3 4 5

29) Candidate knows elements included in QLASSIC assessment

1 2 3 4 5
under each component.
 88

30) Candidate understand standards in CIS 7: 2006/2014 that are

1 2 3 4 5
related to firm’s expert.

31) Candidate understand the assessment method for each

1 2 3 4 5
component.

32) Candidate can operate tools and instruments used for

1 2 3 4 5
assessment.

33) Candidate have experience on QLASSIC assessment. 1 2 3 4 5

34) Candidate can pre-assess works on site accordingly to the

1 2 3 4 5
standards.

Questionnaire End
Thank you for participation the survey.
 89

DEPARTMENT OF QUANTITY SURVEYING

FACULTY OF BUILT ENVIRONMENT

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Research Title: Requirement of QLASSIC Knowledge

Research Objectives:
3) To identify expectation of contactors towards QLASSIC knowledge on potential
recruitment candidates
4) To identify the understanding of QLASSIC among UTM construction students.

RESEARCHER : MAH SIN YIN

SUPERVISOR : DR. MOHAMMADAMIN AZIMI
COURSE : BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (CONSTRUCTION)
MATRIC CARD : A13BE0051
CONTACT NO. : 0164694869
EMAIL : mahsyin@gmail.com

NOTE: This survey questionnaire is used for collecting data regarding the above study. All
information given are strictly CONFIDENTIAL and used for academic purpose only. Your
cooperation will be highly appreciated. Thank You.
 90

Part A: Background
1) Have you heard of QLASSIC before?
Yes No

2) If yes, from where did you heard QLASSIC form?

CIDB Announcement
QLASSIC Awareness Courses
Academic Courses
External Courses
Industrial Training
Others: __________________

Part B: Awareness towards QLASSIC

Please indicate your level of awareness towards QLASSIC from 1 to 5.

1 - No Awareness
2 - Subconscious Awareness
3 - Altered State of Consciousness
4 - Lower-level of Consciousness (requires little attention)
5 - Higher-level of Consciousness (requires selective attention)

Awareness towards QLASSIC Level of Awareness

3) QLASSIC is an independence assessment for quality. 1 2 3 4 5
4) QLASSIC is to increase construction quality performance. 1 2 3 4 5
5) QLASSIC standardize acceptable quality of workmanship
1 2 3 4 5
on site by clarifying desired final quality of products.
6) QLASSIC assess workmanship based on CIS 7 standard. 1 2 3 4 5
7) Assessment will be carry out by external assessor. 1 2 3 4 5
8) CIDB provide application for QLASSIC assessment. 1 2 3 4 5
9) QLASSIC assess structural, architectural, mechanical and
1 2 3 4 5
electrical and external works.
10) A score, namely QLASSIC score, will be issue to the
1 2 3 4 5
project after assessment.
 91

11) Construction Industry Transformation Plan (CITP) 2016-

2020 sets out target to include QLASSIC score in Sales 1 2 3 4 5
and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) by 2020
12) CITP 2016-2020 sets out target to initiate QLASSIC as
prerequisites for Certificate of Partial Completion (CPC) 1 2 3 4 5
and Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

13) What is your perspective towards QLASSIC mandatory?

Excellent
Good
Neither
Bad
Worse

14) Will the mandatory affect you?

Yes No

15) How likely to keen to know about QLASSIC in the future?

Absolutely Will
Very Likely
Somewhat Likely
Not Likely
Not at All
 92

Part C: Level of QLASSIC knowledge

NOTE: Skip this part if you did not hear QLASSIC before.

Kindly indicate on the level of understanding from 1 to 5 for each statement below.

1 - Does Not Understand

2 - Less Expectation
3 - Not Clearly Understand
4 - Understand Well
5 - Fully Understand (able to practice)
Level of
Understanding towards QLASSIC knowledge
Understanding
16) QLASSIC assessment will be carry out after work done
1 2 3 4 5
on site
17) CIDB provides a procedure to carry out the assessment. 1 2 3 4 5
18) Projects are divided into 4 categories (landed residential
building, stratified residential building, non-residential
building without centralized cooling system and non- 1 2 3 4 5
residential building with centralized cooling system) for
assessment purpose.
19) 4 components (structural, architectural, mechanical and
electrical and external) are included in the scope 1 2 3 4 5
QLASSIC assessment.
20) Different weightage (for 4 components) are assigned to
each building category for the calculation of QLASSIC 1 2 3 4 5
score.
21) Sampling for QLASSIC assessment is done based on
1 2 3 4 5
gross floor area (GFA) of project and randomly.
22) Each component contains elements that need to be
1 2 3 4 5
assess and evaluate during QLASSIC assessment.
23) CIS 7: 2006/2014 is the construction industry standard
that state out standards for each element that need to be 1 2 3 4 5
evaluate during QLASSIC assessment.
 93

24) Each standard for each component has different

1 2 3 4 5
assessment method as stated in CIS 7: 2006/2014.
25) Tools and instruments such as tapping rod and precise
1 2 3 4 5
level are used to assist the assessment.

Questionnaire End
Thank you for participation the survey.