Sustainable Program Quality Management of International Infrastructure Construction

doi:10.15302/J-FEM-2016047

Front. Eng

2016, Vol. 3

Issue (3) : 239-245 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FEM-2016047

ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES

Sustainable Program Quality Management of International Infrastructure Construction

Steve Hsueh-Ming Wang(

)

College of Engineering, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, 99514-1629, USA

Download: PDF(967 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Management of the program quality for international infrastructure construction projects is complicated. Sustainability of these programs is the key for them to succeed in their lifecycles. This paper investigated current program quality management and compared it with the results of recent surveys of KGMP. A method for the sustainable program quality management of the international infrastructure construction management is proposed and demonstrated by research projects. The cycle of accountability, predictability, balance ability, and policy was proposed. The findings from the KGMP’s survey and this research show that the trend of the sustainable program quality management of the international infrastructure construction is transferring from agility to alacrity in the balancing of the metrics among economy, ecology, culture, and politics.

Keywords sustainability program infrastructure

Corresponding Author(s): Steve Hsueh-Ming Wang

Online First Date: 25 October 2016 Issue Date: 22 December 2016

Cite this article:

Steve Hsueh-Ming Wang. Sustainable Program Quality Management of International Infrastructure Construction[J]. Front. Eng, 2016, 3(3): 239-245.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.15302/J-FEM-2016047
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2016/V3/I3/239

Tab.1 Distribution of the Types of Infrastructure Projects for these Four Groups

Fig.1 Scope for sustainable program quality management.

Tab.2 Research of Sustainable Construction Management in Academics

Fig.2 Cycle of accountability, predictability, balance ability, and policy (APBP).

Quantity	Predicted	Obs	RMSE	SDE	Bias	r
p (hPa)	1011.1±4.3 (1011.2±4.2)	1006.9±8.1	8.3 (8.4)	7.1 (7.2)	4.3 (4.3)	0.482 (0.478)
$R s ↓$ (W/m²)	6545±1567 (6532±1536)	5936±1640	1641 (1597)	1524 (1482)	609 (596)	0.549 (0.566)
T_a (℃)	14.0±3.5 (14.4±3.5)	15.9±4.2	2.8 (2.6)	2.1 (2.1)	–1.9 (–1.5)	0.865 (0.866)
RH (%)	57±15 (57±14)	55±17	13 (13)	13 (13)	2 (2)	0.679 (0.669)
v (m/s)	2.37±1.05 (2.40±1.06)	1.61±1.01	1.3 (1.33)	1.04 (1.06)	0.77 (0.80)	0.483 (0.474)

Tab.3 Statistical Results of Parameters of the Forecasting Model for Relative Humidity

Tab.4 Estimated Significant Impact Level of Ambient Concentration of Pollutant on Facilities Based on Standards and Incineration Data

Fig.3 Lifetime health cost per person in 2011 constant dollars.

Fig.4 Hierarchical structure of the factors needed for sustainable development.

Fig.5 Weighting factors for the metrics of economic sustainability.

Fig.6 Weighting factors for the metrics of social sustainability.

Fig.7 Electricity prices for each community in Alaska.

Fig.8 Cash flow analysis of the funding of subsidies for the rural Alaskan energy cost.

Fig.9 Sensitivity analysis of the factors of the funding management.

1	C. Alabanzas, (2012). Human health risk analysis of adapting plasma gasification process for solid waste management. University of Alaska, Anchorage.
2	G. Armstrong, (2015). Climbing the curve – 2015 global construction project owner’s survey. Retrieved from
3	L. Fode, (2010). A comparative study between two relative humidity forecasting methods in southcentral Alaska. University of Alaska, Anchorage.
4	A. Rabl, , & J.V. Spadaro, (1998). Health risks of air pollution from incinerators: A perspective. Waste Management & Research Waste, 16, 365–388.
5	J. Stewart, , S. Beatty, , & J. Vella, (2014). The infrastructure 100, world markets report. Retrieved from KPMG International website:
6	S. Wang, , & J.C. Casper, (2013). Scenario analysis of Alaska’s power cost equalization endowment fund for electrical subsidies in rural Alaska. Proceedings of 2013 International Annual Conference of ASEM, Minneapolis, Minnesota–MN. Retrieved from .
7	S. Wang, , P. Williams, , & S.P. Chang, (2015). Using balanced score card for design-centered manufacturing. Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International MSEC, UNC Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
8	S. Wang, , P. Williams, , J. Shi, , & H. Yang, (2015). From green to sustainability-trends in the assessment methods of green buildings. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 2, 114–121.

[1]	Yamuna KALUARACHCHI. Potential advantages in combining smart and green infrastructure over silo approaches for future cities[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(1): 98-108.
[2]	Yifeng TIAN, Zheng LU, Peter ADRIAENS, R. Edward MINCHIN, Alastair CAITHNESS, Junghoon WOO. Finance infrastructure through blockchain-based tokenization[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(4): 485-499.
[3]	Shuai LI, Da HU, Jiannan CAI, Hubo CAI. Real option-based optimization for financial incentive allocation in infrastructure projects under public–private partnerships[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(3): 413-425.
[4]	Sameh Al-SHIHABI, Mohammad AlDURGAM. Multi-objective optimization for the multi-mode finance-based project scheduling problem[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(2): 223-237.
[5]	Sarah M. L. HUBBARD, Bryan HUBBARD. A review of sustainability metrics for the construction and operation of airport and roadway infrastructure[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(3): 433-452.
[6]	Ming LU, Nicolas DIAZ, Monjurul HASAN. Proposing a “lean and green” framework for equipment cost analysis in construction[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(3): 384-394.
[7]	Lizzette PÉREZ LESPIER, Suzanna LONG, Tom SHOBERG, Steven CORNS. A model for the evaluation of environmental impact indicators for a sustainable maritime transportation systems[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(3): 368-383.
[8]	Liang WANG, Xiaolong XUE, Rebecca J. YANG, Xiaowei LUO, Hongying ZHAO. Built environment and management: Exploring grand challenges and management issues in built environment[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(3): 313-326.
[9]	Bing WANG, Qingbin CUI, Shuibo ZHANG. Evaluation of the contract reliability for alternative infrastructure project delivery: a contract engineering method[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(2): 239-248.
[10]	Peter B. MEYER, Reimund SCHWARZE. Financing climate-resilient infrastructure: Determining risk, reward, and return on investment[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(1): 117-127.
[11]	Braulio BRUNAUD, Maria Paz OCHOA, Ignacio E. GROSSMANN. Product decomposition strategy for optimization of supply chain planning[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(4): 466-478.
[12]	Panos M. PARDALOS, Mahdi FATHI. A discussion of objective function representation methods in global optimization[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(4): 515-523.
[13]	Hongquan CHEN, Quanke SU, Saixing ZENG, Daxin SUN, Jonathan Jingsheng SHI. Avoiding the innovation island in infrastructure mega-project[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(1): 109-124.
[14]	Zheming LIU, Liangyan WANG, Zhaohan SHENG, Xinglin GAO. *Social responsibility in infrastructure mega-projects: A case study of ecological compensation for Sousa chinensis* during the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge**[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(1): 98-108.
[15]	Albert P.C. CHAN, Robert OSEI-KYEI, Yi HU, Yun LE. A fuzzy model for assessing the risk exposure of procuring infrastructure mega-projects through public-private partnership: The case of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(1): 64-77.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed