Debate raged between the superintendent and the new quality inspector over the rough bottom edge of a marble shelf on the side of a shower enclosure. Construction’s position was, “We’ve always done it this way,” while the inspector felt it should be smooth to prevent injury to someone cleaning it.
In the end the item was corrected and specifications were updated for future homes. This small but potentially significant detail had simply not been addressed previously. The heated debate was an unnecessary waste of time and energy. An efficient and reasonable approach would have been for all involved parties to visit the home in question together, examine the marble edge, and arrive at a consensus.
This incident illustrates several key points about quality management:
- A completely objective definition of quality eludes home builders. While some standards can be expressed in measurements that avoid debate (a ¼ inch is the same whether you are a superintendent, company owner, or home buyer), many are open to subjective evaluation: carpet seams, paint coverage, drywall flaws, and so on.
- Details not previously specified are often noted during quality inspections. A fresh set of eyes might see things the person who’s most familiar with the project overlooks.
If inspectors and construction personnel traded places, the exact same complaints would be heard. Certainly arrogant or condescending attitudes can exacerbate the debates, but friction is an inevitable part of the quality management process, especially during the early years of implementation. Up for Debate. As more and more builders add quality management inspections–either using in-house personnel or a third-party inspector–more debates should be expected. Criticisms of a quality inspector typically include complaints that he or she is inconsistent or too picky, or makes personal attacks. A method for resolving these debates is essential to the success of the program.
These discussions should be managed systematically and include mutual respect for all parties. Recognize debates about quality for what they are: a natural and inevitable part of the quality management evolution. Naming this process provides a needed perspective for all involved and tends to reduce unhealthy and potentially damaging emotional responses (such as taking the debate personally).
Quality issues cannot be resolved sitting around a conference table, standing in the construction trailer, or talking on the phone. Homes must be walked together to avoid someone overlooking or misunderstanding the original concern.
All parties should limit themselves to specifics. Generalizations such as “Those quality guys are too picky” or “They are inconsistent” solve nothing. Similarly, quality staff should avoid implying that construction only cares about schedules and budgets.
If necessary, a deciding vote can be cast by the company owner. Once codes and other requirements are met, upper management is the next authority on what the company’s standards will be. Even members of upper management may disagree about how a detail should be handled, further underlining the fact that no completely objective definition of quality exists.
Once the detail is decided, it needs to be documented (in trades’ scopes of work and quality checklists) and from that point forward, all parties should abide by that standard.
