Accepted Version:

Abdirad, H. and Nazari, A. (2015) Barriers to Effective Implementation of Quality Management Systems
in Public Design Projects in Iran, Journal of Architectural Engineering and Design Management, Taylor
and Francis; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17452007.2015.1049973

Barriers to Effective Implementation of Quality Management Systems in

Public Design Projects in Iran
Hamid Abdirad a1 and Ahad Nazari b
a

College of Built Environments, University of Washington, Seattle, USA; Email:

habdirad@uw.edu
b

College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran; Email:

a_nazari@sbu.ac.ir

Abstract
The goal of this research is to investigate why architectural design practice in the public
domain in Iran has not implemented quality management systems (QMSs) as effectively as
expected. Through an in-depth review of the literature and a set of interviews, a framework of
challenges is identified and validated, and it served as the basis of a survey among high ranked
design firms active in public projects. This study shows there are many barriers to reach design
excellence, rooted in general policies and standards, characteristics of clients organizations, and
strategies and organizational factors in design firms. Although many design firms and agencies
in Iran have certification of accredited QMSs, realities of architectural design practice show that
norms in public projects clearly contradict principles of QMSs and make them ineffective. This
study reveals a strong need for developing QMSs that address (1) true definition of design
quality in standards and guidelines, (2) importance of final users and public community as true
customers of public projects, (3) strategies in design firm management and organizational
structures, (4) prerequisites of learning cycle in design projects, and (5) modifications in cultures
and interactions among parties involved in design decision-making.
Keywords: Design Quality, Design Management, Architectural Practice, Quality Management,
Public Buildings

Corresponding Author

Introduction
Quality, in general, is an extent to which characteristics and features of a service or a product
meet requirements (International Organization for Standardization, 2005). Royal Institute of
British Architects (RIBA) uses a similar definition of quality in design practice, indicating that
quality is the ability of a service or product to satisfy needs (RIBA, 2006). In this regard,
American Institute of Architects (AIA) introduces the concept of design excellence that
addresses needs of three major stakeholders, including (1) design practice and industry
participants, (2) project stakeholders and contracting parties, and (3) building users and public
communities (AIA, 1989). In design management literature, needs and requirements of these
stakeholders have been defined in two complementary forms, including (1) qualities of design
processes and (2) qualities of design products (Blyth & Worthington, 2000; Prasad, 2004;
Sebastian, 2005; Volker, 2010). Quality of design processes focuses on structure of tasks, and
efficiency and integration of information flows during design, while quality of a design product
should address functional needs as well as intangible requirements (e.g. character, innovation,
and sense of place; Sebastian, 2005; Whyte, Gann, & Salter, 2004; Volker, 2010). For evaluating
these qualities, according to the literature, quantitative metrics can directly measure process
performance and tangible outcomes, while for intangible criteria, stakeholder judgments are
usually scaled statistically (PMI, 2003). Prior research suggests that an integrated approach for
maximizing quality in both paradigms is required in architectural practice (Prasad, 2004;
Giddings et al., 2013).
Providing such definitions of quality in design practice is essential, especially for design
products, because architecture impacts different elements at the center of quality of life from the
standpoints of individual and social comfort, feelings, behaviors, and well-being (CABE, 2006b;
MacMillan, 2006). Poor design quality imposes tangible and intangible costs that are usually
paid by users and communities, and not by decision makers who underrate intangible values of
design (CABE, 2006a). This impact can become more important in public projects that are more
significant from the standpoints of scale, type, size, stakeholders, and local factors (CABE,
2006b). Although reports in many countries stress the urgency of valuing quality in architectural
practice, design excellence still seems hard to achieve. For instance, The Scottish Executive
reported that there is a general acceptance of the need to raise public awareness and debate

about [quality of the] built environment (Hope, Cumming, & King, 2005, p. 5). Evaluating U.S.
federal facilities, Wright (1989) states that the emphasis on cost and budgeting issues in the
public sector negatively impacts design quality of facilities. According to UK National Audit
Office, most public funded projects have focused on capital costs rather than quality and impact
of design. The Dutch Audit Office highlights that public agencies should consider value adding
aspects of architecture for the whole society instead of focusing on capital expenditures (Dewulf
& van Meel, 2004). However, such a transition from a cost oriented design to a value-based
design has been extremely challenging (Keniger, 2004).
So far, many quality assessment tools have been developed to evaluate qualities of design
processes and products (Eley, 2004; Gann, Salter, & Whyte, 2003; Giddings, Sharma, Jones, &
Jensen, 2010, 2013; Swan & Kyng, 2004). Although scholars have documented the potential
advantages of these tools in providing a common language and stimulating discussions about
quality (e.g. Dewulf & van Meel, 2004; Volker, 2010; Whyte & Gann, 2003), they have also
listed many shortcomings in implementation QMSs. Though some shortcomings relate to the
scope and structure of tools (Giddings et al., 2013; Markus, 2003), many challenges in their
implementation originate from organizational strategies and cultures. For instance, lack of
accountability, pitfalls in the organizational learning cycle, and high bargaining power of clients
are some of these challenges (Eley, 2004; Slaughter, 2004; Whyte and Gann, 2003). According
to Project Management Institute (PMI, 2008, 2013), a design project team may not have the
ability or power to effectively address and control such issues located in organizational cultures
and governance.
Quality management systems (QMS) are developed to promote the quality culture in all
organizational levels (Williams and Buswell, 2003). QMSs consist of quality planning, quality
control, quality assurance, and quality improvement processes, which support setting up quality
policies, and defining and providing means, resources, and procedures to assess, improve, and
maintain quality in organizations (International Organization for Standardization, 2005).
Although the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry has mandated
implementation of accredited QMSs in design firms and in public agencies in some countries
(Landin, 2000; RIBA, 2010; Samsudin, Ayop, Sahab, & Ismail, 2012), there are still many
barriers at organizational and strategic levels that make QMSs ineffective. Prior research on
QMS applications in the AEC industry has mostly focused on construction firms in the

construction and fabrication stages as quality of construction seems more tangible than design
quality (e.g. Bubshait & Al-Atiq, 1999; Cachadinha, 2009; Hoonakke, Carayon, & Loushine,
2010; Low & Omar, 1997; Pheng & Teo, 2004; Samsudin et al., 2012). Although few
researchers have studied QMSs in architectural design firms (e.g. Bubshait, Farooq, Jannadi, &
Assaf, 1999; Ezeldin & Abu-Ghazala, 2007; Salgado, 2011), their focus is mostly on building
defects initiated by bad design, instead of considering organizational and decision making issues
that impact design excellence. Therefore, there is a gap in research on challenges of
implementing QMSs at strategic levels of design projects. The purpose of this paper is to
investigate why QMSs are not as effective as implementers in design practice intended,
especially in public projects.

Literature Review and Background

Quality and Architectural Design Practice
Many theories on architectural quality of buildings are based on Vitruvius definition of quality
(Markus & Cameron, 2002; Prasad, 2004; Talbott, 2007; Volker, 2010). For instance, Design
Quality Indicator of UK Construction Industry Council (CIC) considers Functionality, Build
Quality, and Impact as three major criteria for assessing qualities of a building (CIC, 2012).
In that model, different project participants collaboratively determine each criterions importance
as (1) fundamental, (2) value adding, or (3) excellence. AIAs design excellence model has a
slightly different perspective. It considers a hierarchy of needs for a building, consisting six
levels of (1) a simple shelter, (2) meeting codes and standard requirements, (3) meeting project
schedule and budget, (4) functionality and usability, (5) satisfying major stakeholders, and (6)
satisfying users, communities, and the profession. In this model, the first four levels are quality
thresholds, and they do not satisfy intangible requirements that can lead to achieving design
excellence. These models suggest that design excellence is an essential part of the architectural
design profession, because many non-architects can easily follow the codes and meet the tangible
threshold criteria (AIA, 1989). However, managing design excellence is still challenging due to
the strategies of project participants that underrate (1) indispensable qualities of design products
or (2) importance of processes that could lead to such qualities.

Quality Management Systems in Architectural Design Practice

Quality management systems consist of administrative processes that can potentially improve
and maintain quality in accord with objectives (Tang, Ahmed, Aoieong, & Poon, 2005). These
processes generally include quality planning, quality control, quality assurance, and quality
improvement to set up quality policies and support them (International Organization for
Standardization, 2005). Quality planning is for setting quality objectives and planning resources
required for meeting quality requirements. Quality control supports preventing and correcting
defects in pre-production, production, and post-production stages. Quality assurance focuses on
assuring that prerequisites (e.g. workforce, technologies, materials) of providing/creating a highquality service or product are available. Finally, quality improvement processes focus on
identifying potential areas of improvement, and execution of improvement tasks on QMSs and
resulting services/products (Atkinson, 2005; Hoyle, 2007; Ireland, 1991; Tang et al., 2005).
According to International Organization for Standardization (2005), underlying principles and
success factors of these processes include customer focus, leadership, involvement of people,
continuous improvement, factual approach to decision-making, and mutual beneficial
relationships with service providers.
A client, in public funded projects, is an agency that initiates procurements and signs off
design-brief, design-outcome, construction, and handover. A project client may either act as a
project sponsor to fund the project or argue cases and negotiate with a sponsor parent agency for
funding. Given this definition, prior research indicates that the first and most important reason
for implementing QMSs in design practice is the external forced by clients. Intentions to gain
momentum in the market, and internal desire to improve productivity and products of design
were ranked as subsequent drivers (Nelson, 2006). QMSs are either non-accredited or accredited
(Williams & Buswell, 2003). In case of public funded projects, governmental agencies in some
countries such as Australia (Nelson, 2006) and the UK (RIBA, 2010) have mandated
implementation of accredited QMSs in design firms. In some countries, accredited QMSs is not
obligatory but would provide design firms with extra points in qualification assessment processes
(Nelson, 2006).

Challenges in Managing Quality in Architectural Practice

In most industries, external pressures for certification, and not quality itself, is the major reason
for service providers to adopt QMSs. The problem with this approach is that organizational
decision makers do not consider quality as a strategic requirement (Hoyle, 2007; Samsudin et al.,
2012). Spillinger (2000) points out quality management certifications just confirm that
organizations have mapped and measured processes, regardless of the quality level they have
achieved. Hence, no QMS certification can guarantee any quality level without strategic
commitments. Nelson (2006) acknowledges such an issue is problematic in architectural
practice, because established personality of design firms and their perceptions of quality would
be hard to change without strategic commitments. Hence, for addressing quality issues in
projects, characteristics of clients, design teams, and project organizations should be taken into
account (CABE, 2006b). The context of architectural design projects has both internal and
external forces that may impede well-implementation of quality management concepts.
Construction industry, as an external force, values less cost and shorter duration of projects as
main objectives (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004). This is problematic because effectiveness of a
QMS is dependent on support of all stakeholders who believe quality is not an obstacle to meet
performance objectives (Keniger, 2004).
Volker (2010) categorizes qualities of a design product into tangible and intangible criteria.
Tangible qualities are quantifiable, and objective evaluation of them is feasible. Intangible
criteria are challenging to quantify because their evaluation is dependent on subjective and
personal preferences of people. However, intangible criteria are the ones that can make a project
architecturally unique and meaningful (Blyth & Worthington, 2000; Volker, 2010). Conventional
design assessment tools aim to mitigate physical defects of buildings, while design quality of an
architecturally excellent building is far from a defect-free building (Eley, 2004). Although
defining objective assessment criteria for intangibles is challenging, this does not mean that
users/communities do not have any expectation of intangibles (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004;
Volker, 2010). To overcome this challenge in evaluating intangible criteria, benchmarking
successful design projects could be beneficial (Whyte & Gann, 2003). Accordingly, researchers
have encouraged the use of systematic approaches to collecting expectations and experiences of
stakeholders. According to CABE (2003), such a learning cycle can be implemented through
different processes, including getting feedback from existing buildings, getting feedback from

on-going design and construction projects, post occupancy evaluation (POE) in completed
projects, and applying learnings to future projects. However, a challenge to conduct these
processes is that project parties are not willing to commit resources for such studies (Volker,
2010).
Even if a design team can assess intangible criteria, a more challenging problem could be
collective decision making on design quality. Wright (1989), in the context of U.S. federal
projects, reported that quality objectives of a project are completely dependent on personal
preference of project leaders. This provides a unique context for architectural design projects,
because a small group of decision makers impose their judgment on a large group of users (Eley,
2004). Even if project participants try to judge quality criteria objectively, they have this
dilemma about how to find the best solution for all stakeholders (Whyte & Gann, 2003). For this
reason, CABE (2009) has proposed conducting external design reviews by inviting independent
and multidisciplinary experts to local and regional review panels for identifying quality issues at
an early stage, and bringing insights and experiences beyond those of the project team or
authorities. According to Volker (2010), however, such judgements may be still different from
preferences of public communities and users. Possible solutions suggested by the literature are to
prioritize stakeholders based on building types (AIA, 1989), and prioritize stakeholders based on
their duration of occupancy and their role in the facility operation stage (Volker, 2010).
However, there is no consensus on this issue among professionals.
As quality is dependent on tight collaboration of all project participants (Spillinger, 2000), the
industry cannot consider architects as the sole responsible party for design quality (Dewulf &
van Meel, 2004). Although it is proven that collaboration and involvement of all parties is
beneficial to reach a consensus on design, creating such a collaborative environment is very
challenging (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004). Slaughter (2004) explains the impact of bargaining
power in design projects, where a client imposes decisions as a result of its ownership on the
project. Consequently, a designer may compromise some issues because of other opportunities
like future potential projects with a client. This is even worse for final users and occupants, who
have the weakest bargaining power in public projects. People may not be in the position to
choose not to use public buildings because buildings are not like generic everyday products from
the standpoints of required resources, functions, and their life-span (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004;
Eley, 2004).

Wirick (2009) lists barriers to meet quality requirements in the public sector, including low bid
purchasing strategies, lack of incentive policies for high-quality works, and instability in
priorities. Wright (1989) acknowledged that extra pressure from public sector on cost reduction
in some U.S. federal projects misled the design and resulted in inferior quality. Public officials
have the duty to keep costs low (CABE, 2006a), and this suppresses a long-term value a good
design can make (Volker, 2010). The extent to which a public agency adheres to cost cutting
policies is dependent on its size, missions, geographical location, and management policies and
design guidelines (Wright, 1989). Building high-quality facilities is not a core mission of most
agencies, and they build facilities to support their core missions that are merely functional
(Spillinger, 2000). Another problem initiated by public agencies is overly extensive design
guidelines that limit designers freedom to generate innovative ideas (Wright, 1989). Further,
standards are not applied consistently in different projects and their impact on each other usually
remains unknown. Therefore, to facilitate achieving quality in design, there is need for
developing simpler yet more consistent and comprehensive standards (CABE, 2010).
Challenges to manage design excellence in architectural practice have also roots in strategies of
design firms. AIA (1989) states that success is a long-term performance of a design firm from
the standpoints of industrial relations and recognition. Success does not automatically result in
design excellence in every project, and providing services just as what a client requires will not
assure a high-quality design (AIA, 1989). Coxe et al. (1986) introduce the concept of
positioning matrix for design firms. This matrix suggests that values in a clients organization
impose some directions on the way design firms orient their organizations. These three directions
form (1) strong delivery firms, (2) strong service firms, and (3) strong idea firms. Strong delivery
firms shape themselves to satisfy time and budget requirements, and to save money by using
repetitive design patterns in multiple projects. Strong service firms can meet special functional
requirements of complex projects, for which strong delivery firms do not have enough
experience and expertise to satisfy expectations. Strong idea firms deal with clients who look for
innovative design ideas that make a building architecturally unique in an important public venue
(AIA, 1989). These orientations directly impact several strategic areas in each firm, including (1)
design processes, (2) organizational structure and project decision-making, (3) staffing and
recruitment at the project level, (4) choice of a best market and client types (e.g. building types),
(5) marketing system (6) project pricing and employee reward systems, and (7) organizational

leadership and management style (Coxe et al., 1986). Any design firm can do their business
successfully by implementing any of strategy sets defined in the positioning matrix. However,
prior research showed firms that could regularly reach design excellence in their projects have
had management strategies compatible with strong idea firms (AIA, 1989). Hence, design
firms strategies are indicators of both internal and external barriers to reach design excellence in
public projects.
Taken together, these views support the fact that both design firms and clients, and their
patterns of interaction and decision making can be a source of quality deficiencies. The authors
classified aforementioned issues in the form of a framework, which is validated and shaped by an
expert panel as illustrated in Table 1. This framework serves as the basis for following steps of
this research.

Table 1 - A Framework of Strategic Challenges to Implement Quality Management in Architectural Design

Practice
Public client general policies:
- External pressures for certification as the major reason to adopt QMSs (Hoyle, 2007; Samsudin et al., 2012)
- Public agencies that set policies and guidelines on design excellence are not among construction clients and
do not seek their contributions (Expert Panel)
A. - The extent to which policies and guidelines on design excellence are considered mandatory is ambiguous
(Expert Panel)
- Public audits mostly focus on costs rather than on architectural qualities and values a project can make
(Wright, 1989)
Characteristics and norms in a public client organization:
- Focusing on productivity rather than on quality of products (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004)
- Considering criteria that are unable to assess true architectural quality and design excellence (Volker, 2010)
- Agencies missions, geographical conditions, and internal management can alter quality of design (Wright,
1989)
- Overly extensive guidelines limit designers freedom to create innovative ideas as design options (Wright,
1989)
B. - Client acts as customers who are willing to pay only for a repetitive and clearly priced product (Volker, 2010)
- Imposing judgments on a large group of users that are not in a position to refuse use public buildings.
- Public clients set thresholds of quality to the lowest acceptable quality in public domain (Eley, 2004)
Staff in public client organization:
- Personal preferences impact judgments and decisions on design quality (Wright, 1989)
- Underrating architectural quality and inability to align goals of final users and clients (Wright, 1989)
- Personnel competencies are not as significant as competencies in private organizations (Wright, 1989)
Characteristics and norms in a design firms:
- The established personality of a design firm would typically be hard to change (Nelson, 2006)
- Value system in a design firm (Business oriented vs. Design Practice oriented) (AIA, 1989).
- Choosing strategies that are not fit for design excellence due to external pressure (AIA, 1989)
C. - Choosing a definition of service and success that is not favorable in design projects (AIA, 1989).
Staff in charge of a project in a design firm:
- Conflicts between personal values and employer/clients value systems (Volker, 2010)
- Design values in a firm will be adopted and retained by team members (AIA, 1989)
Defining quality criteria for design projects:
- Criteria mostly address a defect-free building rather than an excellent design (Eley, 2004).
- Inability of some stakeholder to express their expectations and requirements clearly (Dewulf & van Meel,
2004)
D. - Challenges in defining and interpreting intangible criteria (Volker, 2010)
Benchmarking and learning-cycle:
- Inability to benchmark and learn from success factors of similar projects (Whyte & Gann, 2003).
- Excluding POE from internal/outsourced processes (Volker, 2010).
Interactions and collaborative decision making:
- Lack of standard procedures for prioritizing stakeholders needs and wants (AIA, 1989; Volker, 2010).
- Preferences of designers/decision-makers are different from public communitys preferred options (Volker,
2010).
E.
Prioritizing stakeholders and their requirements:
- Designers think that quality assessment suppresses creative design (Prasad, 2004).
- Designers may compromise some issues because of future potential projects with a client.
- Clients misuse their bargaining power in decision making (Dewulf & van Meel, 2004).

Research Methodology
As Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009) suggest, the authors first determine acceptable
knowledge in this field of study, and how a researcher can gain that knowledge. The dynamic
nature of architectural practice suggests that findings cannot be universally generalized because
participants actions, socio-cultural variables, and interactions are too complex to suggest a
universal pattern, and the authors do not intend to generalize findings to all cultures, countries,
and projects. Instead, they aim for an internal generalization in the specific context selected for
this study (Onwuegbuzie & Nancy, 2007). For this reason, as Mack (2010) put it, findings will
resonate with people who have similar concerns, and the reader can determine the extent to
which findings are applicable to another context. Further, these dynamics may not be observable
by an outsider. Therefore, gaining knowledge on this topic requires interpretations of actors
actively involved in the practice.
The objective of this research is to investigate why design practice has not implemented QMSs
and tools as effectively as expected, and how realities of architectural practice make QMSs
ineffective. The authors selected Iranian architectural design practice in public sector as the
context of this research for two reasons. First, generic QMSs are trending and implicitly
mandatory in the Iranian public projects, though their effectiveness in quality of design has been
subject to question. Second, the extent to which previous research on this topic can be applicable
in Iran is still unknown, because procedural, political, and cultural issues in public projects in
Iran are not similar to the contexts of prior studies (mostly in the U.K. and U.S.). The authors
conducted a survey research with triangulation of data collection methods (interview and
questionnaire) to validate the framework (Table 1), to identify context-specific issues, to
investigate which issues are more salient in Iran, and where these issues should be addressed in
QMSs.
In the first-stage, authors presented the framework to a group of five experts to determine the
extent to which findings from other countries can be applicable in the Iranian context, and to add
contextual factors to the framework as well. The criteria used for invitation and selection of
experts were having: (1) a leading position and more than 15 years of experience either in a
public client organization (as clients representatives) or in a design firm (as design managers)
involved in public projects, and (2) experience in forms of researching/teaching architectural

design management in academia. Through a semi-structured interview, invited experts

categorized, added to, and validated contents of the framework (Table 1).
In the second stage, the framework served as the basis for a survey to investigate experiences
of high-ranked design firms involved in dynamic nature of public projects in Iran. Here, the
authors explain how the government ranks design firms, and why the authors choose Rank-1
firms for the survey. National Management and Planning Organization (MPORG) evaluates
design firms qualifications, and ranks them based on academic education and professional
experience of staff, design experience of firms (in the form of yearly charged design fees), and
management certifications (MPORG, 2006). The government has defined three ranks based on
such criteria, and firms in each rank may participate in projects with a predefined
maximum/minimum budget threshold. The authors invited Rank-1 firms to take the survey based
on following considerations. First, they are the most experienced design firms in the country.
Second, they can participate in largest and highest value public projects, in which architectural
quality and value of design can become nationally important. Third, from the standpoint of
success, as defined by AIA (1989), they have favorable financial status, industrial relations, and
recognition. Lastly, almost all of them have the ISO-9000 certification, and reflection of their
experience can show whether QMSs works effectively in this context or not. Although being
certified is not explicitly mandated by Iranian public clients, it provides design firms with extra
scores in RFQ/RFP processes. Consequently, almost all Rank-1 firms are ISO-9000 certified in
order to keep up their competitiveness. As of 2013, MPORG listed 113 rank-1 design firms as
qualified firms to participate in design projects (MPORG, 2011). The authors sent the survey to
55 randomly selected design firms (from the population size of 113) in forms of paper-based and
online questionnaires, to be filled by design managers. Each respondent was responsible for
design processes, interactions, and decisions within his or her organization. A total of 36 firms
returned the questionnaires, providing a response rate of 65%. Eleven respondents partially
completed the survey, and therefore, twenty five responses (45%) were completely valid and
included in the analysis.
The findings of survey were presented to the expert panel to seek their interpretation of
findings and additional comments around the framework. As questionnaires by their nature are
very structured and they cannot go deep into meanings, the experts added more explanations and
interpretations to the findings. Further, as some experts are owner-representatives, this enabled

this study to include interpretations from a public clients perspective alongside that of design
firms. The authors coded experts as Interviewee 1 to Interviewee 5 to report their insights in the
findings section. Finally, the experts linked each item of the framework to corresponding quality
management principles and success factors to clarify how these strategic issues make QMSs
ineffective.

Findings
The analysis on profiles of respondents revealed that 68% of design managers in design firms
have degrees in architectural engineering (44% M.Sc., 12% Ph.D., and 12% B.Sc.). This was
followed by civil engineering and project management (CEPM) majors (20% M.Sc. and 12%
B.Sc.), and urban design (M.Sc.) with 4%. The age of design firms in this study ranged between
9 to 32 years, with the average of 24 years. All firms had at least one rank-1 qualification, 92%
with for designing residential, commercial, military, and industrial buildings, and 60% for
designing educational, medical, and sporting facilities. This warranted that design firms have had
long experience of working with public agencies in different project types.
The questionnaire had three sections. The first set of questions investigated organizational
strategies in design firms (based on section C in Table 1). The second section addressed the
status of POE studies in the public projects (based on section D in Table 1). The third section
focused on design firms experiences and observations of organizational policies, strategies, and
interactions in public clients (based on sections A, B, and E in Table 1).
For the first section, the authors used concepts from the super-positioning model developed by
Coxe et al. (1986), because, to the authors knowledge, it is the sole model that interweaves
organizational strategies to architectural design quality (AIA, 1989). Considering the realities of
public projects in Iran and strategies firms can adopt in this context, the authors designed this
section by reviewing and modifying the original model and two modified versions of it (Cheung
G, 1994; Coxe et al., 1987; Fanek, 1993). This approach facilitated attaining unbiased responses
because the authors did not express in the survey that some strategies are indicators of strong
idea firms that are more likely to achieve design excellence.
Respondents were required to give information on 13 strategic areas in order to reflect whether
they are strong delivery, strong service, or strong idea firms. First, each strategic area was

individually analyzed to show how firms collectively oriented themselves in each area (Figure
1). In seven strategic areas, strong-delivery indicators were dominant. This includes strategies on
(1) project organizational structure, (2) staffing and recruitment criteria, (3) project pricing
system, (4) clients priorities and expectations from the firm, (5) firms constitution and
ownership status, (6) firm-wide decision making, and (7) benefit-increasing strategies. In four
strategic areas including (1) firms advantage in attracting clients, (2) range of charged fees, (3)
executives participation in projects, and (4) salaries and rewards, strong-service indicators were
dominant. Only in two areas strong-idea indicators were prevailing among design firms,
including experience of the employees and project decision-making style. It is apparent that
except for these two strategic areas, the majority of firms have not implemented strong-idea
strategies that potentially can lead to design excellence. For eight strategic areas, less than 20%
of the firms showed indications of being strong-idea firms. This analysis shows which strategic
issues are more salient and can potentially be addressed in QMSs of design firms (e.g. project
organizational structure, and staffing). Further, it shows public clients priorities and
expectations of services and products have impacted strategies of design firms, and this should
be mitigated in QMSs of public clients.
The authors also analyzed how chosen strategies in each firm collectively shape its dominant
direction. This analysis is based on the number of indicators each firm selected in the three
strategy sets (Figure 2). This analysis showed that for 60% of firms, the strong-service approach
was dominant, followed by the strong-delivery approach with 16% and the strong-idea approach
with 4%. Some firms have shown a similar inclination towards two approaches; 12% showed the
same number of indicators for strong-delivery and strong-service approaches. Mixed-directions
of idea-service and idea-delivery approaches each did not exceed 4% of design firms (Figure 3).
This analysis shows although strategies most design firms have implemented may satisfy
requirements of functionally complex projects, they may not stimulate innovation and excellence
in design. Interviewee #2 said in this regard: After all, owners get what they expect, and it is not
very inspirational usually, and does not need participatory interactions [among all stakeholders];
for designers [in this culture] it is a matter of profit, smooth transaction, and marketing for
similar projects, and I think everything is structured as both sides expect.

Figure 1 Internal organization and project management strategies applied by design firms

Figure 2 - Number of indicators each firm has selected in each of three strategy sets

Figure 3 - Dominant directions design firms

In the second section, respondents were asked whether they conduct POE studies in their scope
of services, and what their motive for conducting such a study is. As shown in Figure 4, only
twenty percent of firms conduct POE studies. Of these, only 20% of firms reported that clients
expect POE from them, while 80% indicated their internal interest is the motive to conduct POE.
The expert panel emphasized this issue is problematic even for tangible design qualities.
Obligatory design codes have rarely been updated for functional [e.g. movement, ergonomic,
psychological effects, etc.] and social aspects. Although many countries incorporate their lessons
learned into their codes and standards, we have not implemented a systematic learning cycle
throughout the country (Interviewee #4).

Figure 4 - Conducting POE studies and the motivation

The third section of the survey focused on experience of design firms regarding quality
management issues initiated by organizational issues in public clients. The authors used fivepoint scale questions on 22 statements extracted from the framework (Figure 5). This type of
question provides the respondents freedom to express their experience, and to determine to what
degree they agree with each identified challenge (Jolley & Mitchell, 2012). To increase
reliability of responses, the questionnaire contained control questions to avoid repetitive
patterns in the responses (Kothari, 2004). Figure 5 presents descriptive statistics of the agreement
level of respondents on each statement. In addition, to assess quantitative internal
generalizability in the selected context, the authors performed one-sample t-test (test value = 3)
to determine whether the mean values are significantly different from the neutral value (which is
3), followed by analyzing whether that difference strongly supports the framework (Table 2).

Figure 5 - Reflection of design firms on their experience in public projects

The results show that 19 out of 22 statements are strongly supported by the respondents and
achieved statistical significance. Statements that questioned whether architects have freedom to
express their interests and ideas, whether respondents are aware of binding codes on design
excellence, and whether geographical location impact on clients perspective on design quality
did not receive significant support. One expert argued that at this rank of projects, both design
firms and public clients completely know each other [because a limited number of owners, and a

limited number of design firms can participate in such large projects], and a long-term
relationship has been established. So, they know what binding codes [from the owners
perspective] are, and they [are free to] discuss many issues, though obviously owners have more
bargaining power. (Interviewee #2)
Table 2 - Results from t-test and level of support and significance
Mean
Significance Mean Difference
Rank
Strongly
Level
(test value = 3)
Supports the
Framework
S1
2.2000
<0.001**
-.80000
9
Yes
S2
2.4800
<0.020*
-.52000
18
Yes
S3
2.5200
<0.031*
-.48000
19
Yes
S4
2.6250
<0.175
-.37500
20
Not Statistically
S5
2.4167
<0.005**
-.58333
14
Yes
S6
2.1200
<0.000**
-.88000
5
Yes
S7
3.5600
<0.013*
.56000
16
Yes
S8
3.8400
<0.004**
.84000
8
Yes
S9
3.5600
<0.024*
.56000
15
Yes
S10
3.6800
<0.003**
.68000
11
Yes
S11
3.9200
<0.000**
.92000
4
Yes
S12
3.8400
<0.000**
.84000
7
Yes
S13
3.2800
<0.230
.28000
21
Not Statistically
S14
3.6000
<0.010*
.60000
13
Yes
S15
1.6000
<0.000**
-1.40000
1
Yes
S16
3.5600
<0.032*
.56000
17
Yes
S17
3.6250
<0.025*
.62500
12
Yes
S18
3.8800
<0.000**
.88000
6
Yes
S19
3.0417
<0.862
.04167
22
No
S20
3.9600
<0.000**
.96000
3
Yes
S21
2.2800
<0.002**
-.72000
10
Yes
S22
4.0000
<0.000**
1.00000
2
Yes
* Significance Level <0.05
** Significance Level < 0.005
Statement
Number

Statements #15 and # 22 achieved the strongest agreement level; they highlight that clients
underrate design excellence in projects in which they are not a user/occupant, and they do not
seek opinions and expectations of future users and occupants. These were followed by the
statements #20, #11, #6, and #18, which respectively confirm that Iranian public design suffers
from limiting design quality to defect-free buildings, lack of competencies in public officials,
lack of strict audits over design quality, and inappropriate understanding of design service in
public projects. These findings are also confirmed by the expert panel:

Design fees, determined by the public sector, do not match the risks, responsibilities, and
services designers are expected to bear for an innovative design idea. As a result, public projects
usually end up with conventional design solutions, which are only functional structures, not
architectural buildings exceptions are open design competitions, in which a series of ideas is
acquired with a relatively small award. (Interviewee #2)
In regard to competencies, the expert panel argued that one should not blame owner
representatives as though a series of substitution and re-hires would resolve all issues.
Owner representatives at the project level do not have much freedom to ask for value adding
services, post-occupancy evaluation for example, as they need to follow the standard guidelines
for architectural design services in all projects (Interviewee #3)
[they] are very distant from design processes, their comments rarely go beyond project
budget, timeliness, and facilitation of coordination issues between designers and contractors, so
it feels like some of them are not aware what it takes to architecturally design a building
(Interviewee #5) [] this might be due to their involvement in several projects at a given time.
(Interviewee #1)
Standard deviations (SD), as presented in Figure 5, range from 0.64 to 1.31. This shows that
responses are not polarized in some statements. This could be interpreted as saying that some
public agencies may completely differ from others in certain standpoints. For instance, results on
statement #4 suggest that the governments binding codes do not address design excellence in
many project types. However, the SD highlights that different experiences were also observed
among design firms. The results for statements #8 and #17 suggest that although decision
making challenges exist in the industry, some firms have not regularly experienced such
challenges in their practice. Interviewee #1 confirmed that few projects become salient and
nationally important, and clients would not easily disregard their image [] this happens for
certain public agencies with more power [and influence in the nation] and in certain building
types (emphasis added). The strongest consensus view in the survey (lowest SD) was observed
for statement #15, in which respondents acknowledged that public clients do not seek opinions
and expectations of final users. This was followed by statement #6, in which the results confirm
that public audits do not hold strict controls on design excellence. These suggest that the most
serious challenge in this context is the way most public agencies underrate the impact of design

on public community and the built environment. Taken together, findings of the survey and
interviews provide important insights into the quality management issues design practice has
faced in Iran.

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of this study show that although all design firms in this research and many public
agencies, with whom these firms often work, have certification of an accredited QMS, realities
of architectural design practice clearly contradict the principles and success factors of QMSs. As
presented in Table 3, the expert panel attempted to link the identified issues to quality
management principles to show where identified challenges should be addressed in QMSs of
design firms and public agencies. These findings suggest that conventional quality management
language and requirements have shortcomings in considering implications of quality
management in public design projects. A possible explanation for these results may be the
dissimilarities of architectural practice to other industries from the standpoint of fitness for
implementation of generic QMSs. As Eley (2004) explained, construction industry has a unique
context for defining customers and interpreting quality; it requires more expensive resources,
incorporates different types of services, and has unique processes for interacting and decisionmaking over quality of design in public projects. Additionally, due to underlying economic,
social, and cultural factors, quality management in public design may not be a strategic concern,
neither in public agencies nor in design firms (Hoyle, 2007). Some issues this study raises have
also been observed in best-practices as well. For instance, Roaf, Crichton, and Nicol (2009)
reported despite of conducting POE studies regularly in the U.K., little efforts have been made to
effectively improve building standards in order to avoid repeating same mistakes. They also
reported some concerns regarding biased views of design review panels and issues of power in
public works (pp. 322-323). Findings of this study assert that public design requires a serious
attention towards strategic commitments to quality among all project participants and responsible
agencies.

Table 3 - Linking Challenges in Managing Quality of Design Projects to Principles of Quality Management
Systems
Quality Management Principles
Realities in Architectural Practice in Public Domain
(International Organization for
(summarized from the validated framework and surveys)
Standardization, 2005)
Customer Focus
They underrate design excellence criteria that could
Public
benefit public communities and people as the first and
clients most important customers of public facilities.
Inappropriate perception of Architectural Service
Design and Architectural Practice. They have a dilemma in
Firms
prioritizing stakeholders.
Leadership
Focusing on cost cutting policies to enhance
Public
efficiency and schedule optimization. Quality
clients standards for design excellence are sometimes nonbinding.
Design Adopting organizational strategies that may not lead
Firms
to design excellence at the project level.
Involvement of people
Leaning towards personal judgments of clients
Public
representatives in decision making over intangibles.
clients Competencies, roles, and responsibilities of clients
representatives should be re-defined.
Design Project team members are not involved in decision
Firms
making over design trends, processes, and products.
Process Approach
Deficiencies in (1) defining quality, (2) assessing
Public
quality, (3) leading decision-making processes, and
clients
(4) improving quality are all showing that quality
&
management processes, including quality planning,
Design
quality assurance, quality control, and quality
Firms
improvement, are not implemented effectively.
Continuous Improvement
Underrating the value of POE studies in quality
Public
assessment and improvement. No systematic approach
clients
for using POE studies and updating standards.
Deficiencies in the learning cycle (projects to
Design
projects). Excluding POE from the scope of works
Firms
and services.
Factual approach to decision-making
Public
Suspecting that intangible aspects of design could be
clients value adding to the public comfort (Value vs. Cost).
Strategic actions in interactive processes of design
Design
decision making. Repeating a set of decisions as
Firms
permanent guidelines for all projects.
Mutual beneficial relationships with suppliers
Due to their high-bargaining power and other
Public
organizational issues, public clients may disregard
clients
other stakeholders and impose decisions.
System Approach to Management
Public
Extensive inflexible guidelines that result in repetitive
clients management and product patterns in design projects.
Oversimplifying management of design projects, as
Design though a generic product going to be manufactured.
Firms
The design management structure is not stimulating
design excellence throughout the whole organization.

The present study makes some noteworthy contributions to the existing knowledge. This is the
first study that attempts to link and translate multilateral organizational issues in architectural
design practice to standard quality management language by developing and validating a
framework of challenges in managing quality in public design projects. This research is also the
first study that interweaves strategic challenges of design firms with those of public agencies,
and shows how each side should approach principles and success factors of QMSs (Table 3).
In conclusion, this study reveals a strong need for developing QMSs that deal with realities of
practice in public projects in Iran. Such a system should address (1) true definition of quality in
setting design criteria, (2) importance of final users and communities as true customers of public
projects, and allocating resources to engage them and address their expectations, (3) strategies in
design management and shaping organizational structures in public projects, (4) learning cycles
in design projects, and (5) modifications in processes and cultures of interactions among parties
involved in decision-making. Although QMSs themselves are not the objective, and they are
possible means to an end, this study emphasizes that quality requirements and language in QMSs
must be continuously improved to be effective in the practice.
Although some executive reports even in developed countries have criticized some similar
issues in public design practice regarding policies on design quality and valuing good design
(e.g. Hope et al., 2005 in Scotland), the current study has examined and validated the framework
only in Iranian public projects. As a result, there is a limitation in generalizability of findings,
and they might not be applicable to other countries, though the goal is to raise an international
awareness on higher-level organizational issues. As most studies on this topic are conducted on
best-practices in the U.K and the U.S., further research should explore strategies different
countries have adopted to mitigate issues this study brings up regarding quality management in
public design projects.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge valuable suggestions by the expert panel, and give special
thanks to design managers and senior architects of design firms who completed the survey. The
authors also wish to acknowledge two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.

References
AIA. (1989). In Search of Design Excellence. New York, US: American Institute of Architects.
Atkinson, G. (2005). Construction Quality and Quality Standards. London, UK: Taylor &
Francis.
Blyth, A., & Worthington, J. (2000). Managing the Brief for Better Design. London, UK: Taylor
& Francis.
Bubshait, A. A., & Al-Atiq, T. H. (1999). ISO 9000 Quality Standards in Construction.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING, 15(6), 41-46. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1999)15:6(41)
Bubshait, A. A., Farooq, G., Jannadi, O., & Assaf, S. A. (1999). Quality Practices in Design
Organizations. Construction Management and Economics, 17, 799-809. doi:
10.1080/014461999371132
CABE. (2003). Creating Excellent Buildings: A Guide for Clients. UK: Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment.
CABE. (2006a). The Cost of Bad Design. London, UK: Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment.
CABE. (2006b). Design Review; How CABE Evaluates Quality in Architecture and Urban
Design. London, UK: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
CABE. (2009). Design Review Principles and practice. UK: Commission for Architecture and
the Built Environment.
CABE. (2010). Improving the design of new housing: What role for standards? UK: Commission
for Architecture and the Built Environment.
Cachadinha, N. M. (2009). Implementing Quality Management Systems in Small and Medium
Construction Companies: A Contribution to a Road Map for Success. Leadership and
Management in Engineering, 9(1), 32-39. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2009)9:1(32)
Cheung G, S.-H. (1994). The Applicability of Superpositioning To American Architectural
Firms. Texas Tech University, U.S.
CIC. (2012). DQI (Design Quality Indicator).
http://www.dqi.org.uk/

Retrieved August, 11, 2012, from

Coxe, W., Hartung, N., Hochberg, H., Lewif, B., Maister, D., Mattox, R., & Piven, P. (1986).
Charting Your Course; Master Strategies for Organizing and managing architecture
firms. Architectural Technology, May/June, 52-58.
Coxe, W., Hartung, N., Hochberg, H., Lewif, B., Maister, D., Mattox, R., & Piven, P. (1987).
Success Strategies for Design Professionals: Super-positioning for Architecture &
Engineering Firms. U.S: McGraw-Hill.

Dewulf, G., & van Meel, J. (2004). Sense and Nonsense of Measuring Design Quality.
BUILDING
RESEARCH
&
INFORMATION,
32(3),
247-250.
doi:
10.1080/0961321042000189662
Eley, J. (2004). Design Quality in Buildings. BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 32(3),
255-260. doi: 10.1080/09613210410001689649
Ezeldin, A. S., & Abu-Ghazala, H. (2007). Quality Management System for Design Consultants:
Development and Application on Projects in the Middle East. JOURNAL OF
MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING, 23(2), 75-87. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742597X(2007)23:2(75)
Fanek, M. F. (1993). The Positioning and Success of Jordanian Architectural and Engineering
Firms. Texas Tech University, U.S.
Gann, D. M., Salter, A. J., & Whyte, J. K. (2003). Design Quality Indicator as a Tool For
Thinking. BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 31(5), 318-333. doi:
10.1080/0961321032000107564
Giddings, B., Sharma, M., Jones, P., & Jensen, P. (2010). Architectural Design Quality in Local
Authority Private Finance Initiative Projects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
CIB World Congress: Building a Better World, 10-13 May 2010, Salford Quays, UK.
Giddings, B., Sharma, M., Jones, P., & Jensen, P. (2013). An Evaluation Tool for Design
Quality: PFI Sheltered Housing. BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 41(6). doi:
10.1080/09613218.2013.775895
Hoonakke, P., Carayon, P., & Loushine, T. (2010). Barriers and Benefits of Quality Management
in the Construction Industry: An Empirical Study. Total Quality Management, 21(9),
953-969. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2010.487673
Hope, S., Cumming, R., & King, S. (2005). Survey of the Building Design Professions Attitudes
to the Policy on Architecture. Scotland: Scottish Executive.
Hoyle, D. (2007). Quality Management Essentials. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
International Organization for Standardization. (2005). ISO 9000 - Quality management systems
- Fundamentals and Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization.
Ireland, L. R. (1991). Quality Management for Projects and Programs. PA, U.S: Project
Management Institute.
Jolley, J. M., & Mitchell, M. L. (2012). Research Design Explained. U.S: Cengage Learning.
Keniger, M. (2004). Achieving Design Quality: from Intent to Implementation. BUILDING
RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 32(3), 251-254. doi: 10.1080/09613210410001679866

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi, India: New
Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers.
Landin, A. (2000). Impact of Quality Management in the Swedish Construction Process. Lund,
Sweden: Lund University.
Low, S. P., & Omar, H. F. (1997). The Effective Maintenance of Quality Management Systems
in the Construction Industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
14(8), 768-790. doi: 10.1108/02656719710181303
Mack, L. (2010). The philosophical underpinnings of educational research. Polyglossia, 19, 5-11.
MacMillan, S. (2006). Added Value of Good Design. BUILDING RESEARCH &
INFORMATION, 34(3), 257-271. doi: 10.1080/09613210600590074
Markus, T. A. (2003). Lessons From the Design Quality Indicator. BUILDING RESEARCH &
INFORMATION, 31(5), 399-405. doi: 10.1080/0961321032000088016
Markus , T. A., & Cameron, D. (2002). The Words Between the Spaces: Buildings and
Language. London, UK: Routledge.
MPORG. (2006). The Guideline for Qualification Assesssment of Consultant Firms. Tehran,
Iran: Vice-Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision (in Farsi) Retrieved from
http://www.mdhc.ir/portal/File/ShowFile.aspx?ID=d75e497f-d050-4a75-9770e8220a7204e3.
MPORG. (2011). List of Rank-1 Qualified Design Consultants. Tehran, Iran: Vice-Presidency
for Strategic Planning and Supervision (in Farsi).
Nelson, C. (2006). Managing Quality in Architecture. London, UK: Architectural Press.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Nancy, L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualitative research: Making the
sampling process more public. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 238-254.
Pheng, L. S., & Teo, J. A. (2004). Implementing Total Quality Management in Construction
Firms. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING, 20(1), 8-15. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)20:1(8)
PMI. (2003). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model: Knowledge Foundation. PA,
U.S: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2008). Project Management Body of Knowledge. PA, U.S: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2013). Project Management Body of Knowledge. PA, U.S: Project Management Institute.
Prasad, S. (2004). Inclusive maps. In S. Macmillan (Ed.), Designing Better Buildings. London,
UK: Spon Press.

RIBA. (2006). RIBA Quality Management Toolkit: Quality Manual. UK: Royal Institute of
British Architects.
RIBA. (2010). RIBA Chartered Practice Manual. UK: Royal Institute of British Architects.
Roaf, S., Crichton, D., & Nicol, F. (2009). Adapting Buildings and Cities for Climate Change
(Second Edition). Oxford, U.K.: Architectural Press.
Salgado, M. S. (2011). Implementation of Quality Management System on architecture offices as
a requirement for sustainable design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the CIBW096 Architectural Management in the Digital Arena, Vienna, Austria.
Samsudin, N. S., Ayop, S. M., Sahab, S., & Ismail, Z. (2012). Problems and Issues on The
Implementation of Quality Management System in Construction Projects. Paper presented
at the IEEE Symposium on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students (5th
ed.): Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Sebastian, R. (2005). The Interface between Design and Management. Design Issues, 21(1), 8193.
Slaughter, E. S. (2004). DQI: The Dynamics of Design Values and Assessment. BUILDING
RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 32(3), 245-246. doi: 10.1080/0961321042000209461
Spillinger, R. S. (2000). Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Process: Best Practices for
Reviewing Facility Designs. U.S: National Academy Press.
Swan, W., & Kyng, E. (2004). An Introduction to Key Performance Indicators. Manchester ,
UK: Centre for Construction Innovation.
Talbott, J. M. (2007). Expanding on Architucture: A New School of Architecture Planning and
Preservation. University of Maryland, U.S.
Tang, S. L., Ahmed, M., Aoieong, R. T., & Poon, S. W. (2005). Construction Quality
Management. Aberdeen, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Volker, L. (2010). Deciding about Design Quality. Leiden, Holland: Sidestone Press,.
Whyte, J., & Gann, D. (2003). Design Quality Indicators: Work in Progress. BUILDING
RESEARCH & INFORMATION, 31(5), 387-398. doi: 10.1080/0961321032000107537
Whyte, J., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2004). Building Indicators of Design Quality Designing Better
Buildings (pp. 195-205). London, UK: Spon Press.
Williams, C., & Buswell, J. (2003). Service Quality in Leisure and Tourism. U.K: CABI.
Wirick, D. (2009). Public-Sector Project Management: Meeting the Challenges and Achieving
Results. U.S: John Wiley & Sons.

Wright, C. D. (1989). Improving the Design Quality of Federal Buildings. U.S: National
Academies Press: Building Research Board.