Making the Case for Quality

June 2009

Singapore Housing and Development Board MoJet Pack:

Using Quality Tools for Product Development

At a Glance . . .
Singapores Housing and Development Board used quality tools to develop a new product, the MoJet Pack, to test water tightness and prevent seepage in homes. In just one year, use of the MoJet Pack brought about a 90-percent decrease in the number of seepage defect cases per housing contract. Use of the MoJet Pack saves contractors 165 worker-hours per residential block.

by Molly K. Brush

As the main source of housing for the people of Singapore, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has the mission of providing affordable homes of quality and value. So it was cause for concern when a quality assurance study showed that from 2004 to 2006, water seepage was the most frequently reported defect during the first year of occupancy. Staff suspected that the high occurrence of seepage defect cases was due to an inaccurate, time-consuming, and costly water tightness test. A special team from the Sustainability and Building Research Section of the Building Technology Department (BTD) was enlisted to develop a more accurate, faster, and less costly way to test water tightness. Little did the team know that their efforts would result in an innovative new product that would drastically reduce the number of seepage defect cases, or that they would qualify as finalists in the ASQ International Team Excellence Award process.

About the Housing Development Board

Founded in 1960, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) is the public housing authority of Singapore. Its mission is to provide affordable homes of quality and value, create vibrant and sustainable towns, and promote the building of active and cohesive communities. More than 80 percent of Singapores populationapproximately three million peoplelives in HDB-constructed housing. The Sustainability and Building Research Section of HDBs BTD provides professional technical expertise and management support services and promotes technology transfer to industry to enhance the performance and service life of HDB properties. In August 2003 a group of employees from this section formed an Innovation and Quality Circle, named Quantum Circle, and began attending innovation- and quality-related courses and conferences to enhance their understanding of quality tools and techniques.

Fighting Seepage
Since its inception, HDB has progressed from building housing on-site to using a prefabrication method in which building components are pre-cast in factories and then installed on-site. The prefabrication technology has significantly enhanced building quality overall. However, the presence of pre-cast joints between building elements increases the likelihood of water seepage in homes, a serious concern in Singapore, where the tropical climate often brings large amounts of torrential rainfall. To identify seepage issues, contractors perform a water tightness test during construction. With this test, any seepage issues can be discovered and corrected before residents occupy their homes. But prior to 2007, there was no standardized procedure for testing water tightness in HDB buildings. Individual contractors proposed their own testing methodologies and equipment, consultants assessed the suitability of the contractors

ASQ

www.asq.org

Page 1 of 4

proposals, and HDB gave final approval. A wide range of testing procedures varied greatly in both methodology and equipment. It came as no surprise, then, that when HDBs Building Technology Department studied trends among defects, engineers found that the most frequently reported defect during the first year of occupancy, known as the defects liability period, was water seepage. In an effort to reduce the number of water seepage cases during the defects liability period, a team from HDBs Sustainability and Building Research Section decided to address the quality of the water tightness test.

Identifying the Problem

Quantum Circle first conducted a brainstorming session to analyze the current situation. The session yielded three separate problem areas of the water tightness test that needed to be addressed: Inaccurate results Costly work processes Lengthy work processes

Getting Started
Six members of Quantum Circle were selected to work on the water tightness test project based on their specialized skills and expertise. The first task was to align the project with the HDB mission statement. Deciding that the mission statements first point, We provide affordable homes of quality and value, best related to the project, the team developed two guiding statements: Improving the quality of the water tightness test will improve the quality of the home. Enhancing the accuracy of the water tightness test will reduce future seepage problems.

The team then collected data on the cost and duration of current water tightness test methodologies. Performing testing on three HDB buildings in different contracts, the team collected data and compiled them in a flowchart diagram to show the entire work process and time taken on each step. It also held discussions with relevant stakeholder groups to gather feedback about the work process. Using information from the brainstorming session, the flowchart diagram, and the stakeholder discussions, the team created a cause and effect diagram to identify the root causes of the problem areas. The team also used an entity-relationship diagram to study the relationship between the cause and effect diagram and the project goals. This helped reveal how the problem areas root causes related to the project goals and helped identify potential solutions for improving the water tightness test. Figure 2 shows the cause and effect diagram illustrating improvement opportunities.

After aligning the project with the HDB mission statement, the team established its goals for the project: Enhanced accuracy of the water tightness test Improved worksite safety Reduced testing time Reduced cost

Developing the Solution

Quantum Circle turned to another set of quality tools to develop a solution for improving the water tightness test. The team decided that, first and foremost, any solution must meet the project goals: It must enhance the accuracy of the water quality test, improve worksite safety, reduce testing time, and reduce the cost of the test. The paired comparison analysis tool (PCAT) helped determine which of these criteria was the most important by weighting each one. Enhanced accuracy was selected as the most important, followed by worksite safety, reduced testing time, and reduced cost. In order to generate ideas about what other features a solution should have, the team used the random entry method, in which a word is selected randomly and used in a brainstorming session. Using the words washing machine, team members visualized images of a washing machine and generated a list of its key features, then thought about how these features could be applied to a solution for water tightness testing. For example, after visualizing a washing machines display panel, the team realized that a water tightness testing device could have a similar feature that provided information about the water flow rate from the device, which would meet the project goal of enhancing accuracy. Combining the information from the PCAT and the random entry brainstorm into a tree diagram, the team determined which features best aligned with the project goals. The results of the tree diagram were used to develop a blueprint for a preliminary solution.

Meeting these goals would result in: Improved building quality and customer service Safety effectiveness Enhanced service delivery Cost effectiveness

The team also identified the groups of internal and external stakeholders with which it would be working throughout the project. Figure 1 presents a list of stakeholder groups and their roles in the process.

Figure 1HDB water tightness test stakeholders

Internal Stakeholders HDB maintenance officers HDB safety officers External Stakeholders Residents Consultants Contractors Notify HDB about seepage defect cases Assess water tightness test methodology Supervise water tightness test Propose water tightness test methodology Conduct water tightness test Role(s) Prepare building specifications Ensure building quality Carry out defects rectification Conduct site audit checks to ensure site safety

ASQ

www.asq.org

Page 2 of 4

The teams preliminary solution included several key criteria. According to the criteria, the solution must: Be self-contained. Be able to maintain water pressure for the duration of the test. Have a piping system that is flexible enough for all faade, wall, and window types. Be simple and foolproof to operate. Be mobile.

ing workers to use a new testing method. Both consultants and contractors expressed concern about the cost of the new device. In order to ensure buy-in from the stakeholder groups, Quantum Circle worked closely with them to address their concerns. Results from the PTC Testing Lab were shared with the HDB maintenance officers and consultants to demonstrate that the device could accurately perform a large number of water tightness tests. The manufacturer also incorporated all safety features suggested by HDB safety officers into the design of the device. In addition, the team demonstrated to contractors that the device was easy to operate and required no retraining of workers. Finally, to address concerns about cost, HDB developed a plan to lease the device to contactors at an affordable rate. After conducting testing and receiving feedback, the manufacturer and Quantum Circle made a number of adjustments to the device. The final result was the Mobile Water Jetspray Pack, or MoJet Pack, shown in Figure 3. The MoJet Pack has three main components: A reservoir tank with a built-in sensor that detects the water level in the tank. A modular piping system with color-coded stainless steel pipes with nozzles that deliver the required spraying pattern. A pre-programmed digital control panel that controls test parameters such as water pressure.

After outlining the key criteria, the team engaged a manufacturer to develop a device based on its blueprint.

The MoJet Pack

The manufacturer developed a prototype that met Quantum Circles key criteria. The prototype was tested at HDBs Prefabrication Technology Centre (PTC) Testing Lab. The team also conducted trial runs of the prototype at selected construction sites. At this point in the process, stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide feedback about the prototype and express any concerns. HDBs maintenance officers were concerned about the accuracy of the new device, while HDBs safety officers were concerned about safety issues related to its installation, pipe connection, and weight. Consultants wanted to ensure that the new device could accurately perform a large number of water tightness tests, while contractors were concerned about the cost of retrain-

With the help of HDBs legal department, Quantum Circle filed for a patent for the MoJet Pack in May 2007.

Figure 2Cause and effect diagram

Man Water test results inconsistent Inconsistent water flow and equipment results No proper observation by workers Extra effort needed to ensure the accuracy of test result Cost incurred to employ skilled workers Material Seepage defect cases reported during defects liability period Extra effort needed to ensure the accuracy of test result Lack of skilled workers in the market Contractors preferences No restriction of method used for water tightness test Different testing device and method used by the contractors Time-consuming submitting proposed water tightness test method Require PE to approve set up of gondola for external wall/window water testing Site safety requirements Ensure safe working platform for workers Time consuming in logistics for manpower and materials Manual operations on the test A lot of parts and workers involved in the test

Costly to engage contractors with skilled workers Unskilled workers used during test Extra time needed to secure the testing device

Tedious in setting A lot of parts and joints need to be up water test assembled and disassembled after each test Time spent in monitoring water pressure meter during test No self-monitoring of water pressure meter Use of gondola

Extra time needed to secure the testing device To ensure safety requirement compliance

Difficult to achieve accurate results Costly work process Long time spent

No restriction of method used for water tightness test One of the methods used by contractor Engage professional engineers endorsement

Testing device consists of many interlocking parts Difficulty in achieving accurate results complying to HDB specifications Water pump is not auto regulated Monitoring of water pressure done by unskilled workers

Method

Environment

ASQ

www.asq.org

Page 3 of 4

Achieving Results
During the solution development phase of the project, the team set several quantitative goals to measure progress toward the overall project goals of enhanced accuracy, improved safety, reduced testing time, and reduced cost. The first quantitative goal was to reduce by 75 percent the number of seepage defect cases per contract during the defects liability period. Between the years 2004 and 2006, the average number of cases reported was 10 per contract. During 2007, the first year during which the MoJet Pack was used on HDB homes, the average was one per contract, a reduction of 90 percent. The second goal was to reduce by 37 percent the duration of the water tightness test. The team calculated that use of the MoJet Pack saved contractors 165 worker-hours per residential block, a reduction of 62 percent (see Figure 4). The MoJet Pack also helped meet HDBs mission of providing affordable housing of quality and value. By using the MoJet Pack during the construction process, HDB was able to: Conduct water tightness testing with better accuracy during the construction stage and fewer rectification works postconstruction. Deliver housing to residents in a timely manner. Construct housing in an environmentally friendly manner, using reusable and interchangeable water testing pipes.

Sharing the Quality Journey

Now that the MoJet Pack has become the standard device for testing water tightness in HDB housing, Quantum Circle has taken steps to ensure that it will be used for all future HDB projects. The team has documented its product development process in HDBs building construction specifications. It has also arranged for the devices manufacturer to provide ongoing maintenance support. Quantum Circle has shared its product development process through various vehicles, including site audits, feedback sessions with consultants and contractors, publications, and technology transfer seminars. In 2008, the team earned international recognition by qualifying as one of 26 finalists in the ASQ International Team Excellence Award Process. Team representatives traveled to present their process and results before a panel of judges at ASQs World Conference on Quality and Improvement. By sharing its experiences with others in industry and government, Quantum Circle is spreading the message that using quality tools can result in the development of innovative new products that enhance quality and increase efficiency.

For More Information

To learn more about the Singapore Housing and Development Board, visit www.hdb.gov.sg. For details on the ASQ International Team Excellence Award Process, visit wcqi.asq.org/team-competition/ participants.html. Two other Singapore HDB teams qualified as finalists in 2008. Read their stories: M.A.G.I.C. Huddles: Handbook Motivates Staff and Improves Customer Service (www.asq.org/2009/06/ quality-tools/magic-huddles.pdf) Quality Tools Help Singapore Housing and Development Board Develop Award-Winning New Product (www. asq.org/2009/06/quality-tools/develop-award-winningproduct.pdf)

In addition, the product development process helped Quantum Circle improve working relationships with its business partners, including the device manufacturer, consultants, and contractors. Other benefits included increased team morale and improved work efficiency for all stakeholders.

Figure 3MoJet Pack

Figure 4Key results bar graph

Number of seepage cases during DLP/contract 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2004 2005 Year 2006 2007 90%

ASQ

www.asq.org

Page 4 of 4