Behavior-Based Quality, Case Study of Closing the Knowing-Doing Gap

Abstract

This is a case study of a large US general contractor's efforts to rethink and implement a new behavior-based approach to quality to achieve zero errors, zero defects, zero rework, and zero surprises. This GC has a long history of building a culture of Behavior-Based Safety and has approached quality the same way. Recognition of upstream behaviors that resulted in quality issues and unpredictable results during construction led to a focus on changing the mindset and behaviors of all project stakeholders to enable the team to achieve the intended results. While owners and designers have an indirect connection to safety results, their behavior and actions directly affect quality outcomes. Although developed independently of Quality Function Deployment (QFD), this GC's approach is similar. Its approach focuses on understanding the customer's expectations and what is required technically in detail from suppliers to achieve them. It focuses on understanding and describing in technical terms what are the 'distinguishing' features of the work from each stakeholder's perspective, and on aligning its teams on measurable acceptance criteria to achieve customer expectations. This process for making knowledge explicit in order to agree on what quality means to the customer allows the team to fabricate and install its products correctly in such a way as to close the 'knowing-doing' gap that plagues most companies and projects.

Lean, Psychological Safety, and Behavior-Based Quality: A Focus on People and Value Delivery

“…Juran retraced events in the history of quality and examined trends and directions to offer a prognosis of what will emerge during the twenty-first century (Juran 1995). The focus on quality has shifted from conformance to requirements only (Crosby 1979), to uniformity (Deming 1982), fitness for use (Juran and Gryna 1988), freedom from deficiencies (Juran and Godfrey 1999), and finally to a focus on satisfying customer's conditions of satisfaction (Ballard and Tommelein 2014;Spencley et al 2018;LCI 2020). The definition of quality has shifted towards delivering projects and achieve client's expectations.…”

“…Research provides evidence that people work in environments where they often do not feel safe to speak up (Milliken et al 2003). This can impact the trust and ability of people to discuss the scope of a deliverable, define expectations around multiple project participants, and commit to a well-defined scope of work, steps that have been described as being part of a process to manage quality, called behavior-based quality (BBQ) (Spencley et al 2018). Edmondson (2012) said that in most organizations, the value generated for customers is delivered by teams.…”

“…Schein (1992) said that psychological safety can help to overcome defensiveness and learning anxiety in an era where managing the change is not enough but managing surprises faster and faster is the new priority. Spencley et al (2018) and Gomez et al (2019) proposed that a BBQ approach will increase the likelihood of managing surprises in construction projects and achieving the expected quality. According to them, BBQ shifts the reactionary approach of quality approaches that act once problems have occurred, and highlights the impact that upstream behaviors have on the outcomes achieved.…”

“…According to them, BBQ shifts the reactionary approach of quality approaches that act once problems have occurred, and highlights the impact that upstream behaviors have on the outcomes achieved. BBQ is a process where participants understand the scope of work, get alignment and set measurable acceptance criteria on what the work looks like, and then execute it as per the agreed decisions (Spencley et al 2018). This approach is sound and logical, but without understanding the link with previous studies and concepts already developed, it might not be fully utilized, and it would fail to gain traction like many other quality approaches have (Koskela et al 2019).…”

Building a Lean Culture: Engaging the Value Stream

“…The LL training supports these efforts, but it is not the only one currently being deployed at the company. Another concrete example, the company has been using to align its partners, focuses on delivering quality products by clearly defining a common language regarding what is expected from its value stream partners via Distinguishing Features of Work (DFOW), aligning the teams, agreeing on measurable criteria of acceptance, and verifying that the deliverables match the defined criteria (Spencley et al 2018).…”