requirement of qlassic knowledge mah sin yin universiti ...

REQUIREMENT OF

QLASSIC KNOWLEDGE

MAH SIN YIN

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

PSZ 19:16

(Pind. 1/07)

NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from

the organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.

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:

√

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

2.1 Total numbers of valid ISO: 9001 certificates in 195 countries in

2015 to sectors. 12

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

performance. 60

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

construction students. 63

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

QLASSIC 73

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

PAM Malaysian Institute of Architects (Pertubuhan Akitek

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.

Figure 1.1: Process of research method.

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

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.

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

Quality

Quality Management System

Quality Assessment System

QLASSIC

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).

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

104,652

56,413

75,26067,354 66,975

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Bas

ic m

etal

& f

abri

cate

d

met

al p

roduct

s

Mac

hin

ery a

nd

equip

men

t

Ele

ctri

cal

and o

pti

cal

equip

men

t

Const

ruct

ion

Whole

sale

& r

etai

l tr

ade;

repai

rs o

f m

oto

r veh

icle

s,

moto

rcycl

es &

per

sonal

& h

ouse

hold

goodsNo. of

Val

id I

SO

: 9001 C

erti

fica

tes

Sectors

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

Residential

Building

Category A

Landed housing

Detached, semi-detached, terrace

and cluster houses

Category B

Stratified housing

Flats, apartments, condominiums,

service apartments, Small Office

Home Office (SOHO) and town

houses

Non-

Residential

Building

Category C

Public/commercial/industrial

buildings without

centralized cooling system

Office buildings, schools, factories,

warehouses, workshops, hangers,

Small Office Flexible Office

(SOFO), Small Office Virtual

Office (SOVO), religious

buildings, stadiums, community

halls, hospitals, airports,

Category D

Public/commercial/industrial

buildings with centralized

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.

Component

Weightage Allocate (%)

Residential Non-Residential

Category A Category B Category C Category D

Structural

Works 15 20 20 20

Architectural

Works 70 60 55 50

M&E Works 5 10 15 20

External Works 10 10 10 10

Total Score 100 100 100 100


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.

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

Material of Elements

Elements of Item

Items to Assess

Weightage of Each Components

Building CategoryCategory A

(Landed housing)

Architectural Works(70%

of total score)

Internal Finishes (68% of

architectural works)

Floor (18% of


Tile

Ceiling (8% of


Plaster/skim coat

External Finishes (26% of


Roof (10% of architectural

works)

Pitch roof

External Works (10% of total score)

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

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

40 47 79 117 122 139 160 272 303

60.0%65.0%

70.0% 69.4% 69.5% 71.4% 72.0% 69.9% 72.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of Project Average QLASSIC Score

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/

dichotomous

Requires respondents to select only one answer from

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-

pre

Involves information before and after to compare

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.


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

Registration

Contractor

Grades of

Registration

Sample Size to Sample Size

Calculator by Raosoft

G7 340 76

G6 83 45

Total Population of

Registered Contractors

423 121


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

Method

Description

Measure central tendency 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

Measure dispersion 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

Percentage (%) = Frequency of selected variable

total number of respondent × 100%

(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.

Mean, x̅ = ∑ x

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:

Mean Range = largest scale - smallest scale

number of scales

= 5 -1

5 = 0.80

(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

Standard Deviation = √∑ (x - x̅)2

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%

Figure 4.1: Questionnaire distribution status for contractors.

90.70%

1.16%

8.14%

Questionnaire Distribution Status

Unreturned Questionnaire

Rejected Questionnaire

Eligible Questionnaire

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%

Figure 4.2: Questionnaire distribution status for students.

81.65%

18.35%

Questionnaire Distribution Status

Returned Questionnaire

Miss Out

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

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%

31, 89%

4, 11%

Grade of Respondent (Contractor)

G7 G6

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

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.

26

74%

1

3%

5

14%

3

9%9

26%

Experience of Respondent in QLASSIC

No experience in QLASSIC implementation

Experience less than 1 year

Experience 1-5 years

Experience more than 5 years

42

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%).

Figure 4.6: Reason of contractor not implementing QLASSIC.

0 1 2 3 4 5

QLASSIC score less than 50%

QLASSIC score from 50% to 80%

QLASSIC score more than 80%

QLASSIC score less

than 50%

QLASSIC score from

50% to 80%

QLASSIC score more

than 80%

Number 1 3 5

Performance of Respondent Adopted QLASSIC

42%

39%

9%

6%

3%

Lack of QLASSIC Knowledge

Less Urgent by Government

Low Involvement by Top Management

Insufficient Financial Support

Avoid consequences

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

Reason of Respondent 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.

Figure 4.7: Acknowledgement of construction student on QLASSIC.

37

42%

52

58%

Acknowledgement on QLASSIC

Yes No

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.

Figure 4.8: Awareness of QLASSIC among contractors and students.

QLASSIC is an

independence

assessment for quality.

QLASSIC is to

increase construction

quality performance.

QLASSIC standardize

acceptable quality of

workmanship on site

by clarifying desired…

QLASSIC assess

workmanship based on

CIS 7 standard.

Assessment will be

carry out by external

assessor.

CIDB provide

application for

QLASSIC assessment.

QLASSIC assess

structural,

architectural,

mechanical and…

A score, namely

QLASSIC score, will

be issue to the project

after assessment.

Construction Industry

Transformation Plan

(CITP) 2016-2020 sets

out target to include…

CITP 2016-2020 sets

out target to initiate

QLASSIC as

prerequisites for…

Awareness of QLASSIC among Contractors and Students

Contractor 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

3.41 – 4.20 Lower-level of Consciousness (requires

little attention)

4.21 – 5.00 Higher-level of Consciousness (requires

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.

No Awareness on QLASSIC Frequency for Likert-scale

Mean Level of

Awareness

Standard

Deviation Rank

1 2 3 4 5 Total

1 QLASSIC is an independence assessment for quality. 5 2 10 7 11 35 3.49 Lower-level of

Consciousness 1.38 3

2 QLASSIC is to increase construction quality

performance. 5 0 8 11 11 35 3.66

Lower-level of


3

QLASSIC standardize acceptable quality of

workmanship on site by clarifying desired final quality

of products.

5 1 9 12 8 35 3.49 Lower-level of


4 QLASSIC assess workmanship based on CIS 7

standard. 6 3 8 11 7 35 3.29

Altered State

of

Consciousness

1.36 7

5 Assessment will be carry out by external assessor. 5 4 7 12 7 35 3.34

Altered State

of

Consciousness

1.33 6

6 CIDB provide application for QLASSIC assessment. 7 1 13 6 8 35 3.20

Altered State

of

Consciousness

1.39 8

52

47

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

7 QLASSIC assess structural, architectural, mechanical

and electrical and external works. 5 4 7 10 9 35 3.40

Altered State

of

Consciousness

1.38 5

8 A score, namely QLASSIC score, will be issue to the

project after assessment. 5 3 6 13 8 35 3.46

Lower-level of


9

Construction Industry Transformation Plan (CITP)

2016-2020 sets out target to include QLASSIC score in

Sales and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) by 2020

13 2 11 5 4 35 2.57 Subconscious

Awareness 1.42 10

10

CITP 2016-2020 sets out target to initiate QLASSIC as

prerequisites for Certificate of Partial Completion (CPC)

and Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

12 2 11 6 4 35 2.66

Altered State

of

Consciousness

1.41 9

53

48

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.

Figure 4.10: Source of Awareness for contractors.

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

3.49 3.66 3.49 3.29 3.34 3.20 3.40 3.46

2.57 2.66M

ean

Awareness on QLASSIC

53%

18% 18%

5%8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Source of Awareness

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.

No Awareness on QLASSIC Frequency for Likert-scale

Mean Level of

Awareness

Standard

Deviation Rank

1 2 3 4 5 Total

1 QLASSIC is an independence assessment for quality. 16 20 24 20 9 89 2.84 Altered State of


2 QLASSIC is to increase construction quality

performance. 14 12 25 24 14 89 3.13

Altered State of


3

QLASSIC standardize acceptable quality of

workmanship on site by clarifying desired final quality

of products.

16 16 25 18 14 89 2.98 Altered State of


4 QLASSIC assess workmanship based on CIS 7

standard. 21 23 16 23 6 89 2.66

Altered State of


5 Assessment will be carry out by external assessor. 21 17 29 17 5 89 2.64 Altered State of


6 CIDB provide application for QLASSIC assessment. 14 18 25 25 7 89 2.92 Altered State of


7 QLASSIC assess structural, architectural, mechanical

and electrical and external works. 14 15 28 22 10 89 2.99

Altered State of


56

51

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

8 A score, namely QLASSIC score, will be issue to the

project after assessment. 17 12 25 26 9 89 2.98

Altered State of


9

Construction Industry Transformation Plan (CITP)

2016-2020 sets out target to include QLASSIC score in

Sales and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) by 2020

20 15 28 24 2 89 2.70 Altered State of


10

CITP 2016-2020 sets out target to initiate QLASSIC as



18 22 27 18 4 89 2.64 Altered State of


57

52

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.

Figure 4.12: Source of awareness among students.

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

2.843.13 2.98

2.66 2.642.92 2.99 2.98

2.70 2.64M

ean

Awareness on QLASSIC

20%

2%

44%

2%

24%

7%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Source of Awareness

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.

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

1

3%0

0%

11

31%

20

57%

3

9%

Perspective towards QLASSIC Mandatory

Worse Bad Neither Good Excellent

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.

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.

Yes

21

60%

No

14

40%

Perspecive towards QLASSIC Mandatory

Effect on Firms Performance

55

Figure 4.15: Possibility of firm to adopt QLASSIC in future

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

2

6%

2

6%

13

37%

12

34%

6

17%

Possibility of Firm to Adopt QLASSIC in Future

Not at All Not Likely Somewhat Likely Very Lkely Absolutely Will

2

6%

2

6%

15

43%

11

31%

5

14%

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.

Figure 4.17: Perspective of construction students towards QLASSIC mandatory.

1

1%

4

5%

40

45%

33

37%

11

12%

Perspective towards QLASSIC Mandatory

Worse Bad Neither Good Excellent

57

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.

Figure 4.19: Keenness to Know about QLASSIC in Future

Yes

46

52%

No

43

48%

Perspecive towards QLASSIC Mandatory

Effect on Respondent

2

6%

2

6%

13

37%

12

34%

6

17%

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.

No Category of

Element Expectation

Frequency for Likert-scale Mean

Level of

Expectation

Standard

Deviation Rank

1 2 3 4 5 Total

1 Process

Flow

Candidate knows when will the assessment

be carry out. 2 4 15 11 3 35 3.26

Moderate

Expectation 0.98 9

2 Process

Flow

Candidate understand the procedure to carry

out the assessment on site. 2 4 11 14 4 35 3.40

Moderate

Expectation 1.03 2

3 Sampling

Process

Candidate can determine category of

respective project for assessment purpose. 2 4 10 16 3 35 3.40

Moderate

Expectation 1.01 1

4 Weightage

Candidate knows which component

included in the assessment is to be under

firm’s expert.

2 4 12 12 5 35 3.40 Moderate

Expectation 1.06 3

5 Weightage Candidate understand the calculation

method of QLASSIC score. 2 5 12 12 4 35 3.31

Moderate

Expectation 1.05 6

6 Sampling

Process

Candidate knows the sampling method of

QLASSIC. 2 5 12 13 3 35 3.29

Moderate

Expectation 1.02 7

66

61

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

7 Assessment

Standard

Candidate knows elements included in

QLASSIC assessment under each

component.

2 5 10 15 3 35 3.34 Moderate

Expectation 1.03 5

8 Assessment

Standard

Candidate understand standards in CIS 7:

2006/2014 that are related to firm’s expert. 3 4 11 15 2 35 3.26

Moderate

Expectation 1.04 12

9 Assessment

Method

Candidate understand the assessment

method for each component. 2 5 13 12 3 35 3.26

Moderate

Expectation 1.01 11

10 Assessment

Method

Candidate can operate tools and instruments

used for assessment. 2 4 11 15 3 35 3.37

Moderate

Expectation 1.00 4

11 On-site

Practice

Candidate have experience on QLASSIC

assessment. 3 4 12 12 4 35 3.29

Moderate

Expectation 1.10 8

12 On-site

Practice

Candidate can pre-assess works on site

accordingly to the standards. 2 4 15 11 3 35 3.26

Moderate

Expectation 0.98 9

67

62

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.

3.263.40

3.40

3.40

3.31

3.29

3.34

3.26

3.26

3.37

3.29

3.26

Candidate knows when

will the assessment be

carry out.Candidate understand

the procedure to carry

out the assessment on…

Candidate can

determine category of

respective project for…

Candidate knows which

component included in

the assessment is to …

Candidate understand

the calculation method

of QLASSIC score.

Candidate knows the

sampling method of

QLASSIC.Candidate knows

elements included in

QLASSIC…


standards in CIS 7:

2006/2014 that are …


the assessment method

for each component.

Candidate can operate

tools and instruments

used for assessment.

Candidate have

experience on

QLASSIC assessment.

Candidate can pre-

assess works on site

accordingly to the…

Mean Value: Expectation of Contractors towards QLASSIC

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.

No Category

of Element Understanding towards QLASSIC

Frequency for Likert-scale

Mean

Level of

Understan

ding

Standard

Deviation Rank

1 2 3 4 5 Total

1 Process

Flow

QLASSIC assessment will be carry out after

work done on site 2 2 11 14 8 37 3.65

Understand

Well 1.06 3

2 Process

Flow

CIDB provides a procedure to carry out the

assessment. 1 0 13 17 6 37 3.73

Understand

Well 0.84 1

3 Sampling

Process

Projects are divided into 4 categories (landed

residential building, stratified residential

building, non-residential building without

centralized cooling system and non-residential

building with centralized cooling system) for

assessment purpose.

1 5 11 17 3 37 3.43 Understand

Well 0.93 6

4 Weightage

4 components (structural, architectural,

mechanical and electrical and external) are

included in the scope QLASSIC assessment.

1 2 15 15 4 37 3.51 Understand

Well 0.87 5

71

66

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

5 Weightage

Different weightage (for 4 components) are

assigned to each building category for the

calculation of QLASSIC score.

1 2 15 13 6 37 3.57 Understand

Well 0.93 4

6 Sampling

Process

Sampling for QLASSIC assessment is done

based on gross floor area (GFA) of project and

randomly.

2 2 16 14 3 37 3.38 Not Clearly

Understand 0.92 7

7 Assessment

Standard

Each component contains elements that need

to be assess and evaluate during QLASSIC

assessment.

1 2 11 18 5 37 3.65 Understand

Well 0.89 2

8 Assessment

Standard

CIS 7: 2006/2014 is the construction industry

standard that state out standards for each

element that need to be evaluate during

QLASSIC assessment.

2 4 12 17 2 37 3.35 Not Clearly

Understand 0.95 8

9 Assessment

Method

Each standard for each component has

different assessment method as stated in CIS 7:

2006/2014.

2 7 11 12 5 37 3.30 Not Clearly

Understand 1.10 10

10 Assessment

Method

Tools and instruments such as tapping rod and

precise level are used to assist the assessment. 1 7 14 9 6 37 3.32

Not Clearly

Understand 1.06 9

72

67

Figure 4.21: Mean Value: Understanding of construction students towards

QLASSIC.

3.65

3.73

3.43

3.51

3.573.38

3.65

3.35

3.30

3.32

QLASSIC assessment

will be carry out after

work done on site

CIDB provides a

procedure to carry out

the assessment.

Projects are divided

into 4 categories

(landed residential…

4 components

(structural,

architectural,…

Different weightage

(for 4 components) are

assigned to each…

Sampling for QLASSIC

assessment is done

based on gross floor…

Each component

contains elements that

need to be assess and…

CIS 7: 2006/2014 is the

construction industry

standard that state…

Each standard for each

component has different

assessment method…

Tools and instruments

such as tapping rod and

precise level are used…

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].

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/assessment.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/quality.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/system.html

http://www.cidb.gov.my/cidbv4/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=178:qlassic&catid=33:construction-industry-en&lang=en

http://www.cidb.gov.my/cidbv4/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=178:qlassic&catid=33:construction-industry-en&lang=en

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

http://smb.cidb.gov.my/directory/contractors

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.

http://www.pmint.gov.my/v2/main.php?module=297

https://explorable.com/types-of-survey-questions

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/construction/the-viewpoint-of-developers-background-of-study-construction-essay.php

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/construction/the-viewpoint-of-developers-background-of-study-construction-essay.php

80

APPENDIX A

LETTER OF PERMISSION

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 : [email protected]

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


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

site by clarifying desired final quality of products. 1 2 3 4 5

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

electrical and external works. 1 2 3 4 5

15) A score, namely QLASSIC score, will be issue to the project

after assessment. 1 2 3 4 5

16) Construction Industry Transformation Plan (CITP) 2016-2020

sets out target to include QLASSIC score in Sales and

Purchase Agreements (SPAs) by 2020

1 2 3 4 5

86

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

prerequisites for Certificate of Partial Completion (CPC) and

Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

1 2 3 4 5

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

assessment on site. 1 2 3 4 5

25) Candidate can determine category of respective project for

assessment purpose. 1 2 3 4 5

26) Candidate knows which component included in the

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

27) Candidate understand the calculation method of QLASSIC

score. 1 2 3 4 5

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

29) Candidate knows elements included in QLASSIC assessment

under each component. 1 2 3 4 5

88

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

related to firm’s expert. 1 2 3 4 5

31) Candidate understand the assessment method for each

component. 1 2 3 4 5

32) Candidate can operate tools and instruments used for

assessment. 1 2 3 4 5

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

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

standards. 1 2 3 4 5

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 : [email protected]

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: __________________


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

on site by clarifying desired final quality of products. 1 2 3 4 5

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

electrical and external works. 1 2 3 4 5

10) A score, namely QLASSIC score, will be issue to the

project after assessment. 1 2 3 4 5

91

11) Construction Industry Transformation Plan (CITP) 2016-

2020 sets out target to include QLASSIC score in Sales

and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) by 2020

1 2 3 4 5

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



1 2 3 4 5

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)

Understanding towards QLASSIC knowledge Level of

Understanding

16) QLASSIC assessment will be carry out after work done

on site 1 2 3 4 5

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-

residential building with centralized cooling system) for

assessment purpose.

1 2 3 4 5

19) 4 components (structural, architectural, mechanical and

electrical and external) are included in the scope

QLASSIC assessment.

1 2 3 4 5

20) Different weightage (for 4 components) are assigned to

each building category for the calculation of QLASSIC

score.

1 2 3 4 5

21) Sampling for QLASSIC assessment is done based on

gross floor area (GFA) of project and randomly. 1 2 3 4 5

22) Each component contains elements that need to be

assess and evaluate during QLASSIC assessment. 1 2 3 4 5

23) CIS 7: 2006/2014 is the construction industry standard

that state out standards for each element that need to be

evaluate during QLASSIC assessment.

1 2 3 4 5

93

24) Each standard for each component has different

assessment method as stated in CIS 7: 2006/2014. 1 2 3 4 5

25) Tools and instruments such as tapping rod and precise

level are used to assist the assessment. 1 2 3 4 5

Questionnaire End

Thank you for participation the survey.

requirement of qlassic knowledge mah sin yin universiti ...

Documents

Transcript of requirement of qlassic knowledge mah sin yin universiti ...