Defects liability management by design

Abstract

An action learning project was undertaken to empower small- and medium-sized construction companies to define the agenda for performance improvement and to take a leading role in the process of industry change. Whilst achievement of zero defects was an ultimate aim, smaller construction firms identified the shorter-term need to deal effectively with defects during the post-construction phase. Project activities explored problems and identified ways of improving the management of the defects liability period. Proposed solutions ranged from simple modifications to management procedures, through innovative methods of working with tenants to more fundamental changes in design and construction processes. Construction firms and housing associations recognized the importance of working together to improve procedures. Small- and medium-sized construction firms can address performance issues in practical ways and have a potentially valuable role to play in promoting industry improvement. Action learning can support the process of change being instigated by Egan in 1998 and solutions generated by action learning have the potential for wider dissemination and use

Relationship between Construction Safety and Quality Performance

“…On a systematic level, researchers have indicated that the design stage is a major source of rework, with as much as 79% of rework created during design (Burati et al 1992). This is why Davey et al (2006) suggests that defects could be reduced through design changes early in project development. Most recently, researchers have taken a systems view and theorized that causal factors such as schedule pressure and client requirements combine with technical issues and cognitive mistakes to produce rework (Love et al 2008).…”

LDA-Based Model for Defect Management in Residential Buildings

“…It is common practice for a construction company, which is the business entity, to take responsibility for the quality assurance of the apartment in the event of defects for a certain period of time [11]. In this regard, existing studies revealed the measures to efficiently operate the warranty system [10,12,31]. Davey et al (2006) derived the problems during the DLP and emphasized the need for a short-term processing plan to effectively respond to the defects that occur during the handover stage.…”

“…In this regard, existing studies revealed the measures to efficiently operate the warranty system [10,12,31]. Davey et al (2006) derived the problems during the DLP and emphasized the need for a short-term processing plan to effectively respond to the defects that occur during the handover stage. To address this issue, they proposed measures such as improving the management during the DLP as well as improving the procedures through the cooperation of contractors, consultants, and customers [12].…”

“…However, conflicts and disputes between residents and contractors can arise due to differences in the interpretations and perceptions of defects that occur after the houses are transferred [9]. Many countries have institutionalized the defect liability period (DLP) to minimize the social losses caused by the defects [10][11][12][13]. In the case of the United Kingdom, the DLP is arbitrarily implemented, while in Japan, the DLP is mandatory.…”

“…Due to this characteristic of the DLP, the contractor should identify various defect risks, including the lack of knowledge of residents, daily wear and tear, and construction failures, while managing the defects efficiently during the warranty period. Furthermore, occupants need to recognize any defects that may occur within the DLP and secure their rights to minimize the defects [12].…”