Abstract
This study investigates the defect management strategies of small and medium residential building enterprises (SMEs) in Queensland, Australia, towards developing a model for the risk management of most recurring defects. A defects causation topology retrieved from the literature is combined with the results of a questionnaire survey of 427 residential construction trade respondents and validated by a focus group of experienced building practitioners. The results show 42 taxonomies grouped into three main categories: management strategies to organizational influences, defective supervision, and preconditions for defective acts. Communication and information sharing about defects are essential, as the industry relies on individual experience to solve defects-related problems. The most recurring defects for the Builder trade are Concrete driveways and paths, guttering and eaves construction defects, and Stormwater drainage pipework installation and workmanship defects. The most popular management strategies for the Carpentry trade are cupboard installation and workmanship defects, stairs and balustrade defects, and timber doors and windows defects. The findings suggest that residential construction trades face repetitive difficulties in implementing on-site defect management strategies, with SMEs resistant to new trends and continuing to use conventional practice methods based on ‘known ways of doing things’ rather than innovation and updated defect management strategies.
Introduction
Management of residential construction defects: theories and current research
Strategies for managing residential construction defects
Risk management is a popular topic in construction research, involving such recent topics as Public Private Partnerships (Osei-Kyei et al. Citation2023), supply chain management (Pham et al. Citation2023), quality management (Okoye Citation2022), project scheduling (Sami Ur Rehman et al. Citation2022), asset management (Alshboul et al. Citation2023), and the influence of organizational culture (Gyamfi et al. Citation2022). However, the academic literature argues that the risk management techniques available are not necessarily fit for practical implementation. Rostami et al. (Citation2015), for example, found that the specific requirements of SME construction companies are often not met when applying project risk managementFootnote1 (PRM), thus restricting its use in practice. The mismatch between real construction project-specific scenarios experienced on-site, and the flexibility of existing theoretical PRM principles inhibits the application of risk management systems at the organizational level (Liu et al. Citation2013). Risk management tools are primarily based on experience and rule of thumb (Ye et al. Citation2015), risk decisions are based on subjective judgments (Yildiz et al. Citation2014) and diverse behavioral responses to deal with risks (Lazzerini and Pistolesi Citation2013). Aligned with these results, Kutsch and Hall (Citation2010) highlight that subjective risk decisions are a major barrier to successful PRM since incorrect risk assessments are generated due to decision-maker behaviors that ignore important risks misconceived as irrelevant.
Of particular relevance is the role of risk management strategies. The residential construction sector faces various challenges, and one of the primary causes of deficient quality performance and cost overruns is the presence of construction defects (Lambers et al. Citation2023). These defects often lead to rework, which not only increases project costs but also causes schedule delays. As a result, it is essential to develop effective risk management strategies to mitigate the impact of construction defects and improve overall project outcomes.
Previous research has examined different aspects of construction defects in the residential construction sector, shedding light on their identification and correlated causes. Lambers et al. (Citation2023) propose a new method for identifying the most recurrent defects in residential construction and their causes, aiming to develop a framework for practical improvements in managing defect risks. Their study involves a literature review to ground the defects within existing theory, followed by an analysis of archival data and a questionnaire survey to determine the causes of these defects. Lambers (Citation2019) conducted a comprehensive study on construction defects in the residential sector, identifying frequently occurring defects and examining their causation and management. The research highlights that risk management strategies and causes for defects are specific to each construction trade, emphasizing the need for trade-specific approaches to effectively manage construction defects.
In addition to the focus on construction defects, Royal et al. (Citation2023) conducted a comparative case study analysis of home warranty schemes in different countries. Their research aims to provide a systematic representation of various active programs globally and identifies similarities and variations between these programs. The study underscores the importance of designing effective public policies for domestic building warranties to protect consumers and stimulate residential production. Furthermore, Royal et al. (Citation2022) developed a standardized comparative framework to analyze and compare home warranty schemes across different countries. Their research explores the characteristics that define these warranty programs and presents a comprehensive framework of codes to measure the efficiency of a home warranty scheme. The study contributes to filling the knowledge gap in the field of home warranty program design.
The significance of effective risk management strategies and the need for improved legal remedies for building defects are also highlighted in other studies. Partlett (Citation2007) discusses the development of contractor liability for defective construction and the effects of imposing liability for economic loss. Fhloinn and Maire (Citation2019) focus on the lack of effective legal remedies and deficiencies in the regulatory regime for residential construction in Ireland, proposing improved remedies and regulatory reforms.
Additionally, the construction management industry has a poor record of learning from past errors (Hadjri and Crozier Citation2009; Ozorhon et al. Citation2014). For example, a study of 450 Australian contracting organizations found shared learning platforms in their practices to be limited (Shokri-Ghasabeh and Chileshe Citation2014). In addition to the knowledge managementFootnote2 (KM) component, construction organizations are unwilling to seek building performance feedback after project completion (Göçer et al. Citation2015), thus becoming resistant to post-occupancy evaluation procedures (Bordass and Leaman Citation2005). One of the reasons that organizations do not engage in post-occupancy evaluation may be attributed to a lack of awareness of the benefits of KM systems (Iqbal et al. Citation2015). Traditionally, the industry still relies on manual systems to manage records (Macarulla et al. Citation2013). Studies are needed that emphasize the role of KM in preventing defects and rework, a theoretical proposition adopted in the current research.
Defect management strategies: topology and theoretical framework
Previous studies have used the Swiss cheese model to investigate the cause of defects (Chong and Low Citation2005; Love et al. Citation2009; Aljassmi et al. Citation2013; Love et al. Citation2013). A vast literature, however, refers to a three-layered model to understand the causation and management of construction defects (e.g. Chong and Low Citation2005; Aljassmi et al. Citation2013; Love and Edwards Citation2013). This model is adopted to frame this study theoretically, organized around Aljassmi et al. (Citation2013) Organizational influences, Defective Supervision, and Preconditions for defective acts layers. Organizational influences are decisions made by upper-level management that can directly affect the practices of the supervisors. These decisions work their way down to the next layer causing the defective act. Supervisors can influence the worker’s conditions in the third layer, defective supervision. Inadequate supervision in return feeds into the precondition layer. The preconditions for the defective acts layer are the lowest of the latent conditions. It includes the worker’s condition, environmental and personal factors and is usually the most immediate cause of the defective act.
In summary, several studies attempt to develop defect management models and frameworks, aiming to produce an integrated system for managing defects and rework. Although simplifying the current fieldwork inspection practices through innovative technological systems seems promising, there are complexities in construction projects that need to be addressed before real achievement can be realized.
Research gaps
The review of the literature indicates there are significant gaps in the knowledge of defect management strategies. These comprise:
Improved strategies for managing defects prior to formalized complaints: That not all defects are rectified indicates a need for better strategies to prevent and mitigate key residential construction defects before they escalate into formal complaints.
Tailored risk management techniques for SMEs: Existing PRM techniques may not be suitable for practical implementation by SMEs dominating the residential construction sector. New strategies and tools need to be developed that cater to the specific needs of SME construction companies.
Addressing the mismatch between theoretical PRM principles and real construction project-specific scenarios: The disconnect between theoretical PRM principles and the actual scenarios faced on-site limits the application of risk management systems at the organizational level. Research is needed to bridge this gap and make risk management techniques more applicable to the practical challenges encountered in the construction industry.
Overcoming subjective risk decisions and poor learning from past errors: Subjective risk decisions, lack of shared learning platforms, and resistance to post-occupancy evaluation procedures hinder successful PRM. Research should address these issues and emphasize KM’s role in preventing defects and rework.
Integration of KM systems in the construction industry: The construction industry traditionally relies on manual systems for records management. Studies are needed to demonstrate the benefits of integrating KM systems into construction organizations, especially in preventing defects and reducing rework.
Comprehensive defect management models and frameworks: While some studies have attempted to develop defect management models and frameworks, a more comprehensive and integrated system is needed to address the complexities of construction projects. This would involve taking into account various layers of causation and management of construction defects, such as organizational influences, defective supervision, and preconditions for defective acts.
Research questions, aims, and objectives
As the above indicates, there are significant gaps in the knowledge of defect management strategies. In particular, risk management strategies for specific residential construction defects are lacking, and there is limited research into defect management during the construction phase, especially where SMEs are involved, raising the main research question of ‘What are the current risk management strategies used by SMEs to prevent the occurrence of specific defects in the construction of residential buildings and how can they be improved?’
In addressing this question, therefore, the objectives of this study are: first, to identify the current SMEs’ risk management strategies used to try to minimize onsite defects by trade; second, to identify the problems faced when adopting risk management technologies; and third, to identify the most suitable strategies to apply.
Research method
Background
The study is based in Queensland, Austral, where the key characteristics of the residential construction sector are described through a large historical dataset obtained from the Queensland Building and Construction Commission (QBCC). Queensland’s residential construction activity is legislated by a Statutory Home Insurance Scheme governed by QBCC. As of June 2016, the QBCC held a list of over one hundred building industry licensing types, categorized into individual (solo traders) and company licensees. The total licenses granted by QBCC from the 2011–2016 financial years show the industry to be mostly characterized by individual traders, representing a consistent average of 81% of the total number of construction sector trade licensees, highlighting the dominance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) trading in the Queensland construction sector. Based on their nature and capability, there are some limitations in terms of solo traders’ financial commitments, which directly impact their scope for developing defect risk management strategies.
The QBCC statistics show the incidence and management of defects in Queensland’s residential buildings. The 2011–2016 QBCC quantitative data show the total number of residential construction works, divided into alteration/addition and new construction works. The statistical analysis of this data shows that the total number of defect complaints and rectified works has been sustained over the period, with slight and constant growth. There was an average of 82,000 residential construction projects per annum (64% alterations and additions and 35% new construction), with an average of 5,250 dispute cases per annum, representing 6.4% of the total number of projects. Only 10% of the defects were rectified, confirming the need for improved strategies for managing the defects prior to formalized complaints to the industry regulator (QBCC).
Research design
Quantitative defects data were gathered with the objective of establishing the most significant set of defects in the residential construction sector, including correlations with affected trades. The data consist of homeowner complaint forms submitted to the QBCC during the 2009–2016 Australian financial years. These complaint forms are the formal documentation used to record residential construction defects. The quantification of defects was corroborated against QBCC experienced building professional reports, which assess the validity of the claims, process the defects (coding), and establish responsibilities for the defects and their directed rectification. The list of defects was analyzed according to their degree of occurrence to produce the twenty most recurring construction defects, as summarized in . These were then used to investigate their potential management strategies.
Table 1. Top 20 frequently occurring defects and construction trades surveyed in this research.
QBCC uses a stringent assessment process in awarding a construction trade license to perform residential construction work in Queensland, which includes an evaluation of the knowledge, expertise, and experience in the trade. Therefore, a stratified sampling technique was used to select only participants with valid knowledge, expertise, and experience in the trade and who are current industry practitioners. Thirty-three were targeted according to the type of defect involved.
A questionnaire was developed structured around these twenty most common defects. Construction trade practitioners were asked to provide a list of three possible strategies for the risk management of a maximum of three defects per trade. The responses were subjective, based on the participants’ experience, knowledge, and expertise.
Data analysis
Four hundred twenty-seven trade respondents participated in the survey, all current holders of a valid QBCC license. With a total of 258 practitioners, ‘Builders’ is the trade with the highest number of respondents, representing 60.4% of the total number of respondents. This is followed by ‘Carpentry’, ‘Painting and decorating’, and ‘Plumbing and drainage’ with a total of 30, 24, and 22 respondents, respectively, representing 7%, 5.6%, and 5.1% of the total number of respondents. The remaining trades (such as Wall and floor tiling, Plastering drywall, Cabinet making, Structural landscaping, etc.) have a significantly lower proportion of respondents, representing between 0.2% and 3.3% of the total number of respondents.
In terms of respondent profile, 69.3% are trade licensees and directors of firms, followed by trade specialists (10.5%), project managers (10.1%), and site managers (5.1%). 78.8% have over 10 years of experience in their role, with only 10.9% having between 6 and 10 years of experience in their role. 68.3% work in a firm with between 0 and 4 employees, with 22.4% working in firms with between 5 and 19 employees.
The resulting responses were coded following the existing taxonomies of strategies in the literature and by interpreting the type of responses and grouping them into new ones. The final step in coding the data followed a three-layer management strategy categorization adopted from the literature review, with the management strategies for each of the 20 defects grouped according to their organizational influence level, supervision, and pre-condition of defective acts. This data set was then analyzed using NVivo software to determine which strategies the respondents rated the highest.
The respondent also rated their level of agreement with twelve KM-associated statements on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (‘totally disagree’) to 5 (‘totally agree’).
Survey results and defects risk management model
Strategies currently used in the industry to manage residential construction defects
A key objective of this study is to identify the defect management strategies used in current practice. The most predominant strategies are displayed for each trade to compare the quantitative and qualitative results. shows a total of 42 taxonomies used to code all the responses related to the common management strategies provided by the survey participants. These taxonomies are grouped into a typology of three main categories of 1) Management strategies to organizational influences, 2) Management strategies to defective supervision, and 3) Management strategies to preconditions for defective acts. The list of 42 taxonomies resulted from the type and number of strategies suggested by the industry (trade respondents).
Table 2. Taxonomy of potential defect management strategies provided by the survey respondents.
shows the descriptive statistical results relating to KM, with Learning experiences about defects that should be communicated within the firm with a mean value of 4.31, which is the clear leader. This is followed by Post project review is a key to reducing rework, Knowledge about common defects is provided to workers, Evaluation of rework is discussed after jobs are completed, information concerning rework in completed jobs is recorded in my company, and trades share their findings about recurrent defects across the industry in the next group. Communication and information sharing about defects is not necessary, as the industry relies on individual experience to solve defect-related problems and Recording construction defects is a time-consuming task that I prefer to avoid, with mean values of 2.49 and 2.84, respectively, which are the two most disagreed upon. However, as both statements were constructed using a negative sentence format, the results show that respondents agreed that communication and information sharing about defects is necessary; similarly, the construction trade respondents also agreed that recording construction defects is not to be avoided.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics results – knowledge management usage by trade practitioners to manage residential construction defects.
These results suggest a general preference for informal communication of knowledge and experiences, with the more formal KM activities of keeping registers and training receiving significantly less approval than ‘communication’, ‘review’, ‘knowledge’, ‘discussion’, and ‘sharing’.
Potential defect management strategies by trade
Trade practitioners were asked to provide three management strategies for a maximum of three most recurrent residential construction defects. Lack of space precludes the presentation of all the results, so just a sample of the Builder, Carpentry, and Painting and Decorating trades are given here. The full results are available on request from the lead author.
Management strategies for the Builder trade
The three most recurring defects assigned to the Builders trade are 1) Concrete driveways and paths installation and workmanship defects, 2) Guttering and eaves construction defects (rainwater plumbing), and 3) Stormwater drainage pipework installation and workmanship defects.
Defect 1: concrete driveways and paths installation and workmanship defects
Of the 487 management mitigation strategies provided, 258 were by the 190 builder respondents. These causes were then grouped into 31 categories, as shown in . shows the five most cited by the respondents.
Figure 1. Defect 1: concrete driveways and paths installation and workmanship defects.
Table 4. Recommended management strategies for concrete and paths defects.
Defect 3: storm water drainage pipework installation and workmanship defects
The 380 management strategies provided by the 160 builder trade respondents are grouped into 37 categories, as shown in , with showing the five most popular Management strategies for the Carpentry trade.
Figure 2. Defect 3: storm water drainage pipework installation and workmanship defects.
Table 5. Categorization of management strategies for stormwater drainage pipework installation and workmanship defects.
The most frequent defects for the Carpentry trade are 1) cupboard installation and workmanship defects, 2) stairs and balustrade defects, and 3) timber doors and windows installation and workmanship defects.
Defect 1: cupboard installation and workmanship defects
The 54 management strategies provided by the 18 carpentry trade respondents are grouped into 21 categories, as shown in , with showing the five most frequently cited.
Figure 3. Defect 1: cupboard installation and workmanship defects.
Table 6. Categorization of management strategies for cupboard installation and workmanship defects.
Management strategies for the painting and decorating trade
The three most recurrent residential construction defects for the painting and decorating trade are 1) External wall linings – cement render installation and workmanship defects, 2) Internal paint application and substrate preparation defects, and 3) External paint application and substrate preparation defects.
Defect 1: external wall linings – cement render installation and workmanship
The 37 management strategies provided by the 13 carpentry trade respondents are grouped into 13 categories, as shown in , with showing the five most frequently cited.
Figure 4. Defect 1: external wall linings – cement render installation and workmanship.
Table 7. Categorization of management strategies for External wall linings – cement render installation and workmanship.
Discussion
How do current practitioners manage residential construction defects?
For the current study, a total of 292 trade respondents, representing 68% of the survey sample, have 1–4 employees in their organization, indicating that the majority of Queensland’s residential construction firms are individual trade-qualified licensees running small businesses. The results of this study show that trade licenses in the residential construction industry are based on a ‘hands-on’ model of learning to acquire experience and develop skills. Thus, the industry largely relies on the transference of knowledge processes to carry out construction works rather than using established procedures for defect management. As the literature generally identifies flawed defect management methods as leading to key defects being undetected during construction (Chong and Low Citation2005; Kim et al. Citation2008; Park et al. Citation2013), it seems likely that this is general lack of established procedures may be in part responsible.
Defect management opportunities
This study’s results show some opportunities for specific management strategies for trades to mitigate common defects. These need to be developed and communicated to the workers. Moreover, radical changes are needed at the organizational level to improve behavioral factors within the workforce; for example, ‘promoting a care of works attitude amongst tradesmen’ – reported as a key management strategy by the survey participants. Similarly, Jingmond and Ågren (Citation2015) found strategies imparted at the organizational level to be one of the most effective techniques for influencing human behavior, while Love and Smith (Citation2016) found that organizations have an important influence on collective learning-enacting behaviors. Further findings of this study also show that focusing on planning and scheduling activities, accounting for tradesmen’s good practices, reinforcing education, and providing regular workmanship training are potential strategies for reducing the key causes of defects.
Some management strategies focus on stricter licensing to enforce qualified trade worker requirements and provide regular workmanship training. This last management technique is one of the most important preventative strategies, aiming to reinforce the workforce’s education and reduce the amount of defective work due to incompetence. The main means to gaining construction experience currently is in real-world practice, where learning by mistakes can be costly in terms of quality and defects. This aligns with previous findings showing that the industry highly adheres to the rule of thumb principle (Roy et al. Citation2005; Manrique et al. Citation2015; Ye et al. Citation2015), missing out on the opportunity to innovate further (Dubois and Gadde Citation2002; Blayse and Manley Citation2004; Yusof et al. Citation2017) their practices to improve learned techniques (Shokri-Ghasabeh and Chileshe Citation2014), and open the channels for the adoption of innovative technology (Hartmann et al. Citation2012; Memari et al. Citation2014; Son et al. Citation2015; Jacobsson et al. Citation2017; Sepasgozar and Davis Citation2018).
Conclusion
The novel contributions of this study include establishing a comprehensive, ranked set of defects in Queensland’s residential construction work and their strategic management according to their frequency of occurrence. Also explored is whether KM and technologies could provide the means to solve the issue of construction defects, finding that KM platforms are far from being adopted by residential construction SMEs. The findings suggest an undue reliance on the traditional rule-of-thumb type of practice, mostly guided by informally transmitted ways of doing things rather than any set of procedures. Confinement to transmitted knowledge without questioning why it is done in this way or how it can be improved is a major restrictive factor in responding to the challenges and limitations of technical constructability. Workmanship training should help to prevent mistakes. Consequently, a greater investment in improving workers’ skills and understanding should provide a conceptual starting point for improving worker learning. In short, the main theoretical contribution of the study is in providing insights into current defect management strategies, highlighting trade-specific approaches, emphasizing communication, and identifying improvement opportunities, with the practical significance lying in its potential to enhance defect management practices in the residential construction industry. By identifying prevalent strategies, trade-specific approaches, and improvement opportunities, the study provides valuable insights for industry professionals and policymakers. Implementing effective defect management strategies can lead to improved construction quality, reduced rework, and enhanced customer satisfaction.
An obvious limitation is that the study is restricted to the State of Queensland, Australia, and the residential construction sector in particular. In addition, as the knowledge gap identified in the literature review indicated that research would be beneficial to enhance defective management responses during the construction phase, the (important) study of defect management during the design and post-construction phases is outside the scope of the present study. Similarly, being restricted to the construction phase of projects means that the liability of the defect is confined to that of the contractor in this management system. Further research is needed to address both these aspects. Future research also needs to investigate the management of defects in terms of the control mechanism needed and how to combine the sequence of the three categories or layers of strategies, possibly through the use of Reason’s (Citation1990) Swiss cheese model to examine how these strategies interact.
Disclosure statement
The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.
Data availability statement
The data are available from the lead author on request.
Notes
1 Refers to the techniques and processes used to identify, assess, and mitigate risks in construction projects.
2 Involves capturing, organizing, and utilizing knowledge within an organization to improve performance and decision-making.
References
- Aljassmi H, Perera J, Han S. 2013. Identifying and analyzing the correlations and inter-causalities of the root causes of construction defects. IJET. 5(4):469–472. doi: 10.7763/IJET.2013.V5.599.
- Alshboul O, Shehadeh A, Hamedat O. 2023. Development of integrated asset management model for highway facilities based on risk evaluation. Int J Construct Manag. 23(8):1355–1364. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2021.1972204.
- Blayse AM, Manley K. 2004. Key influences on construction innovation. Construct Innov. 4(3):143–154. doi: 10.1108/14714170410815060.
- Bordass B, Leaman A. 2005. Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 3: case studies of the use of techniques in the feedback portfolio. Buil Res Inform. 33(4):361–375. doi: 10.1080/09613210500162032.
- Chong WK, Low SP. 2005. Assessment of defects at construction and occupancy stages. J Perform Constr Facil. 19(4):283–289. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887).
- Dubois A, Gadde L-E. 2002. The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: implications for productivity and innovation. Construct Manag Econom. 20(7):621–631. doi: 10.1080/01446190210163543.
- Fhloinn N, Maire D. 2019. Remedies for defective housing: devising a model for legal redress and regulatory reform [Doctoral dissertation]. Trinity College Dublin. School of Law. Discipline of Law.
- Göçer Ö, Hua Y, Göçer K. 2015. Completing the missing link in building design process: enhancing post-occupancy evaluation method for effective feedback for building performance. Build Environ. 89:14–27. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.011.
- Gyamfi TA, Aigbavboa C, Thwala WD. 2022. Confirmatory factor analysis of organizational culture influence on Public-Private Partnership risk management in construction industry in Ghana. Int J Construct Supply Chain Manag. 12(1):183–200. doi: 10.14424/ijcscm120122-183-200.
- Hadjri K, Crozier C. 2009. Post‐occupancy evaluation: purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities. 27(1/2):21–33. doi: 10.1108/02632770910923063.
- Hartmann T, Van Meerveld H, Vossebeld N, Adriaanse A. 2012. Aligning building information model tools and construction management methods. Autom Constr. 22:605–613. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.12.011.
- Iqbal S, Choudhry RM, Holschemacher K, Ali A, Tamošaitienė J. 2015. Risk management in construction projects. Technol Econ Dev Econ. 21(1):65–78. doi: 10.3846/20294913.2014.994582.
- Jacobsson M, Linderoth HC, Rowlinson S. 2017. The role of industry: an analytical framework to understand ICT transformation within the AEC industry. Construct Manag Econom. 35(10):611–626. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2017.1315148.
- Jingmond M, Ågren R. 2015. Unravelling causes of defects in construction. Construct Innov. 15(2):198–218. doi: 10.1108/CI-04-2014-0025.
- Kim YS, Oh SW, Cho YK, Seo JW. 2008. A PDA and wireless web-integrated system for quality inspection and defect management of apartment housing projects. Autom Constr. 17(2):163–179. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2007.03.2006.
- Kutsch E, Hall M. 2010. Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. Int J Project Manage. 28(3):245–255. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.003.
- Lambers R. 2019. Development of a model to risk manage construction defects in the residential sector [Doctoral dissertation]. Queensland University of Technology.
- Lambers R, Lamari F, Skitmore M, Rajendra D. 2023. Key residential construction defects: a framework for their identification and correlated causes. CI. doi: 10.1108/CI-05-2022-0103.
- Lazzerini B, Pistolesi F. 2013. Profiling risk sensibility through association rules. Expert Syst Appl. 40(5):1484–1490. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.055.
- Liu JY, Zou PXW, Gong W. 2013. Managing project risk at the enterprise level: exploratory case studies in China. J Constr Eng Manage. 139(9):1268–1274. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000717.
- Love PED, Edwards DJ. 2013. Curbing rework in offshore projects: systemic classification of risks with dialogue and narratives. Struct Infrastruct Eng. 9(11):1118–1135. doi: 10.1080/15732479.2012.667419.
- Love PED, Edwards DJ, Irani Z, Walker DHT. 2009. Project pathogens: the anatomy of omission errors in construction and resource engineering project. Engineering. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 56(3):425–435. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2008.927774.
- Love PED, Lopez R, Edwards DJ. 2013. Reviewing the past to learn in the future: making sense of design errors and failures in construction. Struct Infrastruct Eng. 9(7):675–688. doi: 10.1080/15732479.2011.605369.
- Love PED, Smith J. 2016. Toward error management in construction: moving beyond a zero vision. J Constr Eng Manage. 142(11):04016058. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001170.
- Macarulla M, Forcada N, Casals M, Gangolells M, Fuertes A, Roca X. 2013. Standardizing housing defects: classification, validation, and benefits. J Constr Eng Manage. 139(8):968–976. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000669.
- Manrique JD, Al-Hussein M, Bouferguene A, Nasseri R. 2015. Automated generation of shop drawings in residential construction. Autom Constr. 55:15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2015.03.004.
- Memari AM, Huelman PH, Iulo LD, Laquatra J, Martin C, McCoy A, Nahmens I, Williamson T. 2014. Residential building construction: state-of-the-art review. J Archit Eng. 20(4):B4014005. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000157.
- Okoye C. 2022. Risk management and quality projects delivery in Nigeria’s construction industry. IJCECEM. 10(2):1–51. https://tudr.org/id/eprint/1022. doi: 10.37745/ijcecem.14/vol10n2151.
- Osei-Kyei R, Jin X, Nnaji C, Akomea-Frimpong I, Wuni IY. 2023. Review of risk management studies in public-private partnerships: a scientometric analysis. Int J Construct Manag. 23(14):2419–2430. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2063013.
- Ozorhon B, Karatas CG, Demirkesen S. 2014. A web-based database system for managing construction project knowledge. Proc Soc Behav Sci. 119:377–386. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.043.
- Park C-S, Lee D-Y, Kwon O-S, Wang X. 2013. A framework for proactive construction defect management using BIM, augmented reality and ontology-based data collection template. Autom Constr. 33:61–71. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.09.010.
- Partlett DF. 2007. Defective structures and economic loss in the United States law and policy.
- Pham HT, Pham T, Truong Quang H, Dang CN. 2023. Supply chain risk management research in construction: a systematic review. Int J Construct Manag. 23(11):1945–1955. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2022.2029677.
- Reason J. 1990. Human error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Rostami A, Sommerville J, Wong IL, Lee C. 2015. Risk management implementation in small and medium enterprises in the UK construction industry. Eng Construct Architect Manag. 22(1):91–107. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-04-2014-0057.
- Roy R, Low M, Waller J. 2005. Documentation, standardization and improvement of the construction process in house building. Construct Manag Econom. 23(1):57–67. doi: 10.1080/0144619042000287787.
- Royal S, Lehoux N, Blanchet P. 2022. New home warranty schemes: developing a theoretical comparative framework using qualitative content analysis. IJBPA. 40(4):499–522. doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-10-2020-0090.
- Royal S, Lehoux N, Blanchet P. 2023. Comparative case study research: an international analysis of nine home warranty schemes. IJBPA. 41(4):789–824. doi: 10.1108/IJBPA-04-2021-0058.
- Sami Ur Rehman M, Thaheem MJ, Nasir AR, Khan KIA. 2022. Project schedule risk management through building information modelling. Int J Construct Manag. 22(8):1489–1499. doi: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1728606.
- Sepasgozar SM, Davis S. 2018. Construction technology adoption cube: an investigation on process, factors, barriers, drivers and decision makers using NVIVO and AHP analysis. Buildings. 8(6):74. doi: 10.3390/buildings8060074.
- Shokri-Ghasabeh M, Chileshe N. 2014. Knowledge management: barriers to capturing lessons learned from Australian. Construct Contract Perspect Construct Innov. 14(1):108–134. doi: 10.1108/CI-06-2013-0026.
- Son H, Lee S, Kim C. 2015. What drives the adoption of building information modeling in design organizations? An empirical investigation of the antecedents affecting architects’ behavioral intentions. Autom Constr. 49(Part A):92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2014.10.012.
- Ye G, Jin Z, Xia B, Skitmore M. 2015. Analyzing causes for reworks in construction projects in China. J Manage Eng. 31(6):04014097. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000347.
- Yildiz AE, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT. 2014. Using expert opinion for risk assessment: a case study of a construction project utilizing a risk mapping tool. Proc Soc Behav Sci. 119:519–528. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.058.
- Yusof NA, Lai KS, Kamal EM. 2017. Characteristics of innovation orientations in construction companies. JEDT. 15(4):436–455. doi: 10.1108/JEDT-06-2016-0037.