Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction

Peter, E; Love, D and Heng, L I (2000) Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 18(4), pp. 479-490. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

Very few construction companies and consulting firms in Australia measure their costs of quality. Consequently, it is difficult for them to prove that systems for preventing quality failures are cost-effective. Although the direct costs of a quality system can be quantified with some accuracy (salaries, costs of documentation, audits, etc.), the corresponding benefits are far more difficult to assess. Indeed quality failures have become an endemic feature of the procurement process in construction and invariably lead to time and cost overruns in projects. Thus, in order to improve the performance of projects it is necessary to identify the causes and costs rework. The research presented in this paper quantifies the causes, magnitude and costs of rework experienced in two construction projects that were procured using different contractual arrangements. The causes and costs of rework projects are analysed and discussed. The findings reveal that the cost of rework for the case study projects was 3.15% and 2.40% of their project contract value. Changes initiated by the client and end-user together with errors and omissions in contract documentation were found to be the primary causes of rework. It is recommended that construction companies and consultant firms (particularly design consultants) implement quality management practices as well as place emphasis on coordinating project documentation during the design development process so that the amount of rework in projects can be reduced or even eliminated.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Australia; prevention; qa; quality costs; rework
Index terms: project documentation, construction project, quality management practice, contract documentation, procurement process, accuracy, construction company, documentation, rework, prevention, design development, direct cost, case study, Australia, audit, consultant firm, cost overrun
Subjects: financial risk, design process, professional development, Geography, production management, economics, performance measurement, management, financial and cost management, project planning, contractual arrangements, operations management, organization, data collection methods
Topics: Quality Management, Design Practice, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Project Management, Geographical Context, Information Management, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Procurement
Descriptive scope: 3 PCE

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here