Abstract
This dissertation examines why construction defects and major failures continue to recur despite extensive documentation of previous incidents and ostensibly robust quality frameworks. Through a systematic literature synthesis, this study identifies three interconnected domains contributing to the persistence of construction failures: technical and management deficiencies, weak organisational learning mechanisms, and inadequate accountability structures. The analysis reveals that poor workmanship, insufficient supervision, communication failures, and design coordination problems remain consistently dominant across international contexts. Furthermore, project-based organisations routinely prioritise short-term competitiveness and profitability over reflective learning, relegating lessons-learned activities to a secondary concern that is frequently sacrificed to immediate business pressures. Regulatory frameworks and client control mechanisms often prove insufficient to counterbalance contractor-dominated processes, whilst fragmented digital systems and latent defect characteristics impede effective knowledge transfer. The findings demonstrate that breaking the cycle of repeated failures requires fundamental restructuring of incentive systems, embedding lessons-learned processes within operational workflows rather than retrospective reports, strengthening independent quality control mechanisms, and establishing comprehensive data-driven feedback loops connecting operational experience to design practice.
Introduction
The construction industry occupies a paradoxical position within contemporary society. As the sector responsible for creating the built environment upon which modern civilisation depends, it simultaneously maintains one of the poorest records for learning from past failures among major industries. High-profile structural collapses, widespread residential defects, and recurring quality failures continue to emerge with troubling regularity, despite decades of incident investigation, regulatory reform, and technological advancement (Love, Lopez and Edwards, 2013). This persistent pattern raises fundamental questions about the industry’s capacity for meaningful improvement and the structural factors that impede effective knowledge transfer between projects.
The significance of this issue extends far beyond academic interest. Construction defects impose substantial economic burdens through remediation costs, litigation, and project delays. The human consequences can prove catastrophic when structural failures occur, whilst even minor defects in residential and commercial buildings affect occupant health, safety, and wellbeing. Environmental implications arise through material waste, premature demolition, and the embodied carbon associated with reconstruction activities (Karunasena et al., 2025). Understanding why lessons from major failures repeatedly fail to prevent their recurrence in new projects therefore constitutes an imperative with profound practical, social, and environmental dimensions.
The construction industry’s project-based organisational structure creates inherent challenges for knowledge retention and transfer. Unlike manufacturing industries where continuous production enables iterative improvement within stable organisational configurations, construction projects bring together temporary coalitions of firms and individuals who disperse upon project completion. This fundamental characteristic shapes information flows, accountability relationships, and learning opportunities in ways that distinguish construction from other sectors (Chiponde, Gledson and Greenwood, 2022).
Contemporary construction additionally operates within increasingly complex regulatory, contractual, and technological environments. The proliferation of building systems, materials, and construction methods has outpaced the development of quality assurance mechanisms capable of ensuring consistent performance. Simultaneously, commercial pressures have intensified competition, compressed delivery schedules, and created incentive structures that may inadvertently discourage investment in quality and learning (Yap, Abdul-Rahman and Chen, 2017).
This dissertation addresses the critical question of why construction defects persist and why accountability mechanisms fail to prevent the repetition of known failure modes in new projects. By synthesising evidence from international research, the study illuminates the systemic factors underlying this phenomenon and identifies pathways toward more effective prevention strategies.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically examine the factors contributing to the recurrence of construction defects and major failures despite extensive prior documentation of similar incidents, and to evaluate the effectiveness of current accountability and learning mechanisms within the construction industry.
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide the investigation:
1. To identify and analyse the persistent technical and management causes that contribute to recurring construction defects across different contexts and project types.
2. To evaluate the effectiveness of organisational learning mechanisms, including lessons-learned systems, in preventing the repetition of known failure modes in construction projects.
3. To critically assess the role of accountability structures, regulatory frameworks, and quality control mechanisms in addressing construction defects and enabling corrective action.
4. To examine barriers to effective knowledge transfer between construction projects and between operational phases and design practice.
5. To propose evidence-based recommendations for strengthening defect prevention, accountability, and learning within the construction industry.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to examine the factors contributing to recurring construction defects and failures. Literature synthesis represents an appropriate methodological approach for this investigation, enabling the integration of findings across multiple empirical studies, theoretical frameworks, and geographical contexts to develop comprehensive understanding of a complex phenomenon (Tranfield, Denyer and Smart, 2003).
The research process commenced with systematic identification of relevant peer-reviewed literature through academic databases including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Search terms encompassed combinations of keywords including “construction defects,” “building failures,” “lessons learned,” “quality management,” “accountability,” and “organisational learning.” Additional sources were identified through backward citation tracking from key papers and forward citation analysis to capture recent contributions.
Inclusion criteria prioritised peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers from recognised academic venues, and reports from authoritative governmental and international bodies. Studies were selected based on their relevance to the research objectives, methodological rigour, and contribution to understanding the mechanisms underlying recurring construction failures. Geographical diversity was sought to establish whether identified patterns transcend specific national or regulatory contexts.
The analytical approach followed thematic synthesis principles, involving systematic coding of extracted findings according to emergent themes and subsequent integration into coherent explanatory frameworks. Three primary thematic domains emerged from this process: technical and management causes of defects, organisational learning and knowledge transfer mechanisms, and accountability and regulatory structures. Within each domain, sub-themes were identified and relationships between factors were mapped.
Critical appraisal of included studies considered methodological approaches, sample characteristics, analytical rigour, and potential limitations. The synthesis aimed to identify both consensus findings supported by multiple studies and areas of divergence requiring further investigation. This approach enables the development of nuanced understanding that acknowledges contextual variation whilst identifying generalisable patterns.
Limitations of this methodology include reliance on published literature, which may exhibit publication bias toward significant findings and novel contributions. Additionally, the heterogeneity of included studies regarding methodology, context, and focus introduces complexity in synthesis. However, these limitations are mitigated through transparent reporting, critical appraisal, and acknowledgement of uncertainty where appropriate.
Literature review
Technical and management causes of construction defects
Research consistently identifies a core set of technical and management factors underlying construction defects across diverse geographical and project contexts. Poor workmanship emerges as a dominant cause in virtually all systematic investigations of defect origins. Studies conducted in Australia, Malaysia, Ethiopia, and Indonesia report workmanship deficiencies among the most frequent contributors to building defects, suggesting this factor transcends specific regulatory or cultural environments (Sandanayake et al., 2021; Hassan et al., 2022; Awasho and Alemu, 2023; Arman et al., 2024).
Weak supervision and inadequate competence compound workmanship problems. The construction workforce frequently lacks sufficient training in contemporary building systems and materials, whilst site supervision resources are often insufficient to ensure consistent quality execution. This creates conditions where errors propagate undetected through construction sequences, becoming embedded within building elements where subsequent identification and rectification prove difficult or impossible (Arman et al., 2024).
Design-related factors constitute another persistent defect source. Improper specifications, coordination failures between design disciplines, and errors in design documentation generate defects that manifest during construction or subsequent occupation. The increasing complexity of contemporary buildings, incorporating multiple interacting systems for structure, envelope, mechanical services, and controls, amplifies coordination challenges. When design information proves incomplete, inconsistent, or erroneous, construction teams face impossible requirements that frequently result in defective outcomes (Yap, Abdul-Rahman and Chen, 2017; Sassu et al., 2025).
Frequent design changes during construction exacerbate these problems. Changes introduced after construction commencement disrupt planned sequences, require rework of completed elements, and create interfaces between original and modified components that prove vulnerable to defects. Research demonstrates strong correlations between change frequency and defect rates, yet commercial and programme pressures continue to drive late modifications (Love, Lopez and Edwards, 2013).
Communication failures represent a cross-cutting factor influencing multiple defect categories. Effective construction requires continuous information exchange among numerous stakeholders including clients, designers, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and regulatory bodies. Fragmented project teams, with participants drawn from different organisations operating under distinct commercial arrangements, face inherent coordination challenges. When communication proves ineffective, critical information fails to reach those requiring it, decisions are made on incomplete bases, and conflicts between requirements go unresolved until manifesting as physical defects (Yu et al., 2019; Karunasena et al., 2025).
The distribution of process control among project stakeholders significantly influences defect outcomes. Research on offsite construction and residential building demonstrates that contractors typically exercise dominant control over construction processes, whilst owners and independent surveyors possess weak, late, or ineffective oversight capacity. This asymmetry enables defects to become embedded within building elements before external parties gain meaningful inspection access, fundamentally compromising quality assurance (Yu et al., 2019; Aibinu and Paton-Cole, 2022).
Organisational learning mechanisms and their limitations
The construction industry has long recognised the importance of capturing and transferring lessons from project experiences. Formal lessons-learned systems exist within many construction organisations, particularly those undertaking large or complex projects. However, research consistently reveals significant limitations in the effectiveness of these mechanisms for preventing defect recurrence (Carrillo, 2005).
Post-project reviews, the primary mechanism for structured learning in many organisations, suffer from multiple deficiencies. These activities typically occur late in project lifecycles, after key personnel have departed for subsequent assignments and detailed recollections have faded. Attendance is frequently poor, with commercial pressures directing staff toward active projects rather than retrospective analysis of completed work. Documentation from review sessions often proves superficial, capturing generic observations rather than specific, actionable insights applicable to future projects (Aisheh and Issa, 2021).
More fundamentally, lessons captured through formal systems are rarely accessed or applied in subsequent projects. Knowledge management systems accumulate documentation that remains effectively dormant, neither consulted during project planning nor integrated into standard procedures. This pattern of capturing but not using lessons means organisations repeatedly “reinvent the wheel,” encountering problems that predecessors solved and making errors that prior experiences should have eliminated (Carrillo, 2005).
Research examining organisational priorities illuminates why learning mechanisms underperform. Project-based organisations operate within competitive markets where survival depends on winning contracts, delivering projects profitably, and maintaining reputational standing. These immediate business imperatives dominate organisational attention and resource allocation. Learning from failure, whilst acknowledged as valuable, occupies a subordinate position analogous to “self-actualisation” in needs hierarchies—a higher-order concern that is routinely sacrificed when it conflicts with pressing operational demands (Chiponde, Gledson and Greenwood, 2022).
The separation between construction and operational phases creates additional barriers to learning. Facility managers accumulate extensive knowledge regarding building performance, including recurring problems, design inadequacies, and maintenance challenges. This operational experience could inform design improvements preventing similar problems in new projects. However, feedback mechanisms connecting operational knowledge to design practice remain underdeveloped. Design teams rarely receive systematic information about how previous projects perform in use, preventing the closing of learning loops that could drive meaningful improvement (Murguía, Felix and Guerra, 2020).
Mega-projects present particular learning challenges despite their scale and visibility. Research on large construction programmes identifies persistent barriers including poor documentation practices, weak strategic focus on learning objectives, and high staff turnover that disperses accumulated knowledge. These factors enable errors to repeat across projects within the same programme, let alone across different organisations or contexts (Yap and Shavarebi, 2019; Yılmaz et al., 2025).
Accountability, regulation and data infrastructure
Accountability mechanisms play crucial roles in deterring defective practices and incentivising quality investment. However, research reveals significant limitations in current accountability structures within construction. Regulatory frameworks, designed to ensure minimum quality standards through inspection and enforcement, often prove ineffective in practice (Aibinu and Paton-Cole, 2022).
In residential construction particularly, regulatory controls frequently fail to counterbalance contractor-dominated processes. Building inspections occur at specified hold points but cover limited aspects of construction quality. Between inspections, contractors exercise substantial discretion over methods, materials, and quality standards. The asymmetric information between builders and regulatory inspectors, combined with resource constraints limiting inspection frequency and depth, creates conditions where defective work can proceed undetected (Aibinu and Paton-Cole, 2022).
Client controls similarly prove insufficient in many contexts. Mechanisms such as retention—withholding portions of contract payments pending defect rectification—theoretically provide financial leverage to enforce quality. However, retention practices have weakened in many jurisdictions, reducing client capacity to incentivise defect resolution. When defects emerge after practical completion, pursuing rectification through contractual and legal mechanisms proves costly, time-consuming, and uncertain, deterring clients from enforcement actions that might otherwise impose accountability (Aibinu and Paton-Cole, 2022).
The characteristics of construction defects complicate accountability. Many defects remain latent, manifesting only after extended periods or under specific conditions. The elapsed time between defective work and defect manifestation obscures causal relationships and enables responsible parties to dispute liability. Dispersed defect data, fragmented across building owners, contractors, insurers, and regulators, impedes systematic analysis that might identify patterns and target improvement efforts (Sandanayake et al., 2021; Milion et al., 2021).
Digitalisation offers potential for enhanced data infrastructure supporting defect prevention and accountability. Building information modelling, sensor systems, and integrated project databases could enable more comprehensive defect documentation, pattern identification, and feedback to design practice. However, research indicates that digitalisation remains incomplete across the construction sector, with particular gaps in residential and smaller commercial projects. Low digital maturity limits the data foundation required for evidence-based improvement (Milion et al., 2021).
International perspectives on defect causation
Comparative analysis across international contexts reveals both consistent patterns and contextual variations in construction defect causation. Studies from Australia, Malaysia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and various European countries identify remarkably similar top-ranked causes, with workmanship, supervision, and communication featuring prominently across jurisdictions. This consistency suggests fundamental factors rooted in construction industry characteristics rather than context-specific regulatory or cultural conditions (Sandanayake et al., 2021; Hassan et al., 2022; Awasho and Alemu, 2023; Arman et al., 2024; Sassu et al., 2025).
Developing country contexts present additional challenges including more severe resource constraints, less developed regulatory infrastructure, and greater prevalence of informal construction practices. Research from Ethiopia documents defects arising from inadequate maintenance regimes alongside construction-phase causes, highlighting the extended temporal dimension of building quality management in resource-constrained settings (Awasho and Alemu, 2023).
However, developed country contexts demonstrate their own distinctive problems. Australian research identifies systemic failures in residential building quality despite ostensibly robust regulatory frameworks, suggesting that regulatory sophistication does not guarantee effective defect prevention. The gap between regulatory intent and practical implementation emerges as a consistent theme across jurisdictional contexts (Sandanayake et al., 2021; Aibinu and Paton-Cole, 2022).
Discussion
The synthesis of evidence across multiple research domains reveals construction defect recurrence as a systemic phenomenon driven by interconnected factors operating at technical, organisational, and institutional levels. This discussion critically analyses these findings in relation to the research objectives and examines their implications for theory and practice.
Understanding persistent technical and management causes
The remarkable consistency of top-ranked defect causes across international contexts suggests fundamental rather than contingent factors underlie construction quality problems. Poor workmanship and weak supervision persist despite extensive awareness of their significance, indicating that knowledge alone proves insufficient to drive improvement. This pattern aligns with broader organisational theory regarding the gap between knowing and doing—organisations frequently understand what constitutes good practice yet fail to implement it consistently (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000).
Several factors explain this knowing-doing gap in construction contexts. Commercial pressures create incentives that may conflict with quality investment. When competitive tendering drives price-based contractor selection, margins compress and resources available for supervision, training, and quality assurance diminish. The construction supply chain, with multiple tiers of subcontracting, further complicates quality management as main contractors exercise limited direct control over workforce deployment and supervision (Yap, Abdul-Rahman and Chen, 2017).
Design coordination failures similarly reflect structural industry characteristics rather than individual incompetence. The fragmented organisation of design services, with separate firms responsible for architecture, structural engineering, mechanical systems, and other disciplines, creates coordination challenges that integrated design organisations would avoid. Whilst building information modelling offers potential for enhanced coordination, its effective implementation requires organisational and contractual arrangements that remain incompletely developed (Sassu et al., 2025).
The dominance of contractor control over construction processes, with limited effective oversight by owners and regulators, fundamentally shapes quality outcomes. This distribution of control reflects historical industry development, contractual conventions, and regulatory philosophies emphasising contractor responsibility. However, it creates conditions where commercial interests potentially conflict with quality interests, and where those most affected by defects—building owners and occupants—exercise least influence over the practices determining outcomes (Yu et al., 2019; Aibinu and Paton-Cole, 2022).
Evaluating organisational learning mechanisms
The evidence regarding lessons-learned systems presents a troubling picture of mechanisms that capture rather than apply knowledge. The persistence of this pattern across organisations, project types, and jurisdictions suggests systematic rather than idiosyncratic causes. Understanding these causes requires examining the incentive structures and organisational dynamics shaping learning behaviour.
The hierarchy-of-needs framework applied to project-based organisations illuminates why learning remains subordinate to immediate operational concerns. Organisations facing competitive pressures, profitability requirements, and reputational management necessarily prioritise activities directly contributing to these objectives. Learning from failure, whilst potentially valuable for long-term improvement, does not directly advance current project delivery or financial performance. In resource-constrained environments, this lower priority translates into reduced attention, inadequate staffing, and perfunctory execution (Chiponde, Gledson and Greenwood, 2022).
The project-based organisational structure compounds these difficulties. Temporary project teams disperse upon completion, taking embedded knowledge with them. Staff turnover between projects means those who encountered problems may not participate in subsequent projects where similar challenges arise. Formal documentation cannot fully capture the tacit knowledge, contextual understanding, and relational insights that enable effective problem recognition and response. Even well-designed lessons-learned systems struggle against this structural fragmentation (Carrillo, 2005).
The disconnection between operational experience and design practice represents a particularly consequential learning failure. Buildings perform over decades, accumulating operational histories that reveal design adequacies and deficiencies. Facility managers develop intimate knowledge of how buildings actually function, including problems that recur despite repeated attention. This knowledge could inform design improvements preventing similar problems, yet feedback mechanisms remain underdeveloped. Designers work from codes, standards, and their own project experience, rarely accessing the operational insights that could enhance their practice (Murguía, Felix and Guerra, 2020).
Assessing accountability and regulatory structures
The analysis reveals accountability mechanisms operating below their potential effectiveness across multiple dimensions. Regulatory inspection regimes, whilst providing baseline quality assurance, prove insufficient to prevent defective work in the intervals between inspection points. The information asymmetry between builders possessing detailed process knowledge and inspectors conducting periodic assessments fundamentally limits oversight effectiveness (Aibinu and Paton-Cole, 2022).
Contractual accountability mechanisms similarly underperform. Retention practices, theoretically providing financial incentives for defect rectification, have diminished in significance as industry norms and legislative changes reduced retention amounts and durations. The transaction costs associated with pursuing defect claims through contractual and legal channels deter enforcement, particularly for residential owners lacking resources and expertise for such actions. This creates conditions where defective work may proceed with limited practical consequence for those responsible (Aibinu and Paton-Cole, 2022).
The latent character of many construction defects complicates accountability assignment. When defects manifest years after construction, establishing causation requires investigation that may prove inconclusive. Responsible parties may have ceased trading, limiting recovery options. Insurance mechanisms, whilst providing compensation pathways, do not directly incentivise quality improvement at the organisational level unless premium structures effectively reflect defect histories (Milion et al., 2021).
Data infrastructure gaps impede both accountability and improvement. Defect information dispersed across building owners, contractors, insurers, and regulators cannot support the pattern identification and trend analysis required for targeted intervention. Without systematic evidence regarding defect prevalence, causes, and costs, resources cannot be efficiently directed toward the most significant problems. The construction industry thus operates with limited evidence bases relative to sectors where centralised data systems enable continuous performance monitoring (Sandanayake et al., 2021).
Barriers to knowledge transfer
The research illuminates multiple barriers operating at different levels to impede effective knowledge transfer. At the individual level, cognitive limitations affect learning from experience. People tend to attribute outcomes to their own actions when successful but to external factors when unsuccessful, impeding accurate diagnosis of personal contributions to problems. Memory decay means detailed understanding fades before formal capture processes occur. Expertise can paradoxically limit learning when experienced practitioners apply familiar solutions to novel problems requiring different approaches (Love, Lopez and Edwards, 2013).
Organisational barriers include the prioritisation structures previously discussed, alongside cultural factors shaping attitudes toward failure and learning. Organisations that stigmatise failure discourage the honest reporting required for effective learning. When admitting problems creates career consequences, individuals rationally conceal difficulties rather than expose them for collective learning. Conversely, organisations maintaining psychological safety, where problems can be raised without penalty, enable the transparency supporting improvement (Love, Lopez and Edwards, 2013).
Inter-organisational knowledge transfer faces additional challenges. Competitive relationships between firms create disincentives for knowledge sharing that might advantage rivals. Intellectual property concerns limit circulation of proprietary processes and solutions. Even collaborative project relationships operate under contractual frameworks emphasising liability allocation rather than collective learning. Professional boundaries between disciplines—architects, engineers, contractors, facility managers—create communication barriers and limit knowledge flow across the project lifecycle (Yap, Abdul-Rahman and Chen, 2017).
Technological solutions offer partial remediation of these barriers. Digital platforms can capture, organise, and disseminate knowledge more effectively than paper-based systems. Building information models can propagate design changes across disciplines, reducing coordination failures. Data analytics can identify patterns in defect occurrence, supporting targeted improvement. However, technology implementation faces its own barriers including cost, capability gaps, and resistance to workflow changes. Technology alone cannot overcome the incentive structures and cultural factors that impede learning (Yılmaz et al., 2025).
Toward evidence-based recommendations
Synthesising across these analytical domains suggests several directions for strengthening defect prevention and accountability. First, accountability structures require redesign to align incentives more closely with quality outcomes. This might include enhanced retention mechanisms, extended liability periods for latent defects, and insurance structures that effectively link premiums to quality performance. Regulatory frameworks require resources and authorities commensurate with oversight responsibilities, potentially including more frequent inspection, broader inspection scope, and meaningful penalties for non-compliance.
Second, lessons-learned systems require transformation from retrospective documentation exercises to embedded operational processes. Rather than capturing lessons in post-project reports rarely consulted, organisations should integrate learning into ongoing project workflows. This might include systematic pre-project reviews of relevant prior experience, continuous improvement processes identifying and addressing emerging problems, and post-phase reviews occurring while staff remain engaged and memories fresh (Yılmaz et al., 2025).
Third, feedback loops connecting operational experience to design practice require deliberate construction. This necessitates mechanisms for capturing operational knowledge, translating it into design-relevant formats, and conveying it to design teams for subsequent projects. Building information models maintained through operational phases could provide vehicles for this feedback, though realising this potential requires extending BIM use beyond current norms and developing protocols for operational data capture (Murguía, Felix and Guerra, 2020).
Fourth, enhanced data infrastructure would support both accountability and improvement. Centralised defect databases, combining information from building owners, contractors, insurers, and regulators, could enable pattern identification and trend analysis currently impossible with fragmented data. Digital systems capturing defect information in structured formats would facilitate analysis, whilst appropriate governance arrangements would address confidentiality and competition concerns (Sandanayake et al., 2021).
Fifth, multi-stakeholder quality control mechanisms could counterbalance contractor-dominated processes. This might include enhanced roles for independent inspectors, owner representatives with genuine process access, and regulatory bodies with expanded authorities. The specific mechanisms would require adaptation to jurisdictional contexts, but the underlying principle of distributing quality control across parties with diverse interests and perspectives offers promise for improved outcomes (Yu et al., 2019).
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined why construction defects and major failures continue to recur despite extensive documentation of previous incidents. Through systematic literature synthesis, the research has addressed each stated objective, revealing interconnected factors at technical, organisational, and institutional levels that perpetuate quality problems within the construction industry.
The first objective, identifying persistent technical and management causes, has been achieved through analysis demonstrating that poor workmanship, weak supervision, design coordination failures, and ineffective communication emerge consistently across international contexts. These causes persist not from ignorance but from structural industry characteristics including fragmented organisation, competitive pressures, and misaligned incentives that impede consistent quality achievement.
The second objective, evaluating organisational learning mechanisms, has been addressed through examination of lessons-learned systems and knowledge management practices. The evidence reveals that whilst mechanisms for capturing lessons exist, they fail to translate captured knowledge into prevented defects. Project-based organisational structures, commercial pressures prioritising immediate operational concerns, and the knowing-doing gap combine to limit learning effectiveness.
The third objective, assessing accountability structures, has been fulfilled through analysis of regulatory frameworks, contractual mechanisms, and enforcement patterns. Current accountability mechanisms prove insufficient to deter defective practices, with regulatory inspection limitations, weakened financial retention, and high enforcement costs enabling quality problems to persist without adequate consequence.
The fourth objective, examining knowledge transfer barriers, has been achieved through identification of individual, organisational, and inter-organisational factors impeding effective knowledge flow. The disconnection between operational experience and design practice emerges as particularly consequential, preventing the feedback that could drive meaningful improvement.
The fifth objective, proposing evidence-based recommendations, has been addressed through synthesis of improvement directions including accountability structure redesign, embedded learning processes, operational-to-design feedback mechanisms, enhanced data infrastructure, and multi-stakeholder quality control.
The significance of these findings extends beyond academic contribution to practical implications for industry improvement. Breaking the cycle of repeated failures requires fundamental restructuring rather than incremental adjustment. Incentive systems must align with quality outcomes; learning must be embedded in operations rather than relegated to retrospective documentation; accountability must impose meaningful consequences for defective practices; and feedback loops must connect those experiencing building performance with those determining future designs.
Future research should examine specific interventions implementing these principles, evaluating their effectiveness in achieving quality improvement. Comparative studies across jurisdictions with different regulatory approaches could identify effective policy mechanisms. Longitudinal research tracking organisations implementing enhanced learning systems could assess whether these interventions achieve their intended outcomes. Investigation of digital technologies’ potential for enabling improved data infrastructure and feedback mechanisms would inform technology investment decisions.
The construction industry creates the built environment within which society functions. Achieving consistent quality in this endeavour requires confronting the systemic factors that currently impede learning and accountability. This dissertation has illuminated these factors and outlined pathways toward improvement. Realising this potential requires sustained commitment from industry practitioners, regulators, clients, and researchers working collaboratively toward the shared goal of buildings that consistently meet the expectations of those who commission, construct, and occupy them.
References
Aibinu, A. and Paton-Cole, V., 2022. Project and regulatory control strategies for minimizing and resolving defects and conflicts in the low-rise residential home-building process. *Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction*, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/jladah.ladr-913
Aisheh, A. and Issa, Y., 2021. Lessons learned, barriers, and improvement factors for mega building construction projects in developing countries: review study. *Sustainability*, 13(19), p.10678. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910678
Arman, U., Melasari, J., Sari, A. and Sari, K., 2024. The causal factors of building construction defects. *CIVED*, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.24036/cived.v11i1.543
Awasho, T. and Alemu, S., 2023. Assessment of public building defects and maintenance practices: cases in Mettu town, Ethiopia. *Heliyon*, 9(4), p.e15052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15052
Carrillo, P., 2005. Lessons learned practices in the engineering, procurement and construction sector. *Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management*, 12(3), pp.236-250. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980510600107
Chiponde, D., Gledson, B. and Greenwood, D., 2022. Organisational learning from failure and the needs-based hierarchy of project-based organisations. *Frontiers in Engineering and Built Environment*, 2(3), pp.139-154. https://doi.org/10.1108/febe-10-2021-0051
Hassan, S., Hamid, M., Zaini, M., Senin, S., Zakariah, Z. and Hashim, M., 2022. Building defects assessment framework for Malaysian construction projects. In: *Structural Integrity*. Cham: Springer, pp.265-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85646-5_22
Karunasena, G., Gurmu, A., Shooshtarian, S., Udawatta, N., Savindi, C., Perera, R. and Maqsood, T., 2025. Effect of construction defects on construction and demolition waste management in building construction: a systematic literature review. *Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management*, 21(1), pp.233-244. https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjae026
Love, P., Lopez, R. and Edwards, D., 2013. Reviewing the past to learn in the future: making sense of design errors and failures in construction. *Structure and Infrastructure Engineering*, 9(7), pp.675-688. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.605369
Milion, R., Alves, T., Paliari, J. and Liboni, L., 2021. CBA-based evaluation method of the impact of defects in residential buildings: assessing risks towards making sustainable decisions on continuous improvement activities. *Sustainability*, 13(11), p.6597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116597
Murguía, D., Felix, K. and Guerra, M., 2020. An approach to capture design and construction lessons learned from facility managers. In: *Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction*, pp.997-1008. https://doi.org/10.24928/2020/0067
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I., 2000. *The knowing-doing gap: how smart companies turn knowledge into action*. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Sandanayake, M., Yang, W., Chhibba, N. and Vrcelj, Z., 2021. Residential building defects investigation and mitigation – a comparative review in Victoria, Australia, for understanding the way forward. *Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management*, 29(9), pp.3735-3759. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-03-2021-0232
Sassu, M., Ariu, M., Doveri, F. and Ferrini, M., 2025. Case studies on construction defects in civil construction: evidence and possible solutions. *Buildings*, 15(4), p.514. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15040514
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. *British Journal of Management*, 14(3), pp.207-222.
Yap, J., Abdul-Rahman, H. and Chen, W., 2017. Collaborative model: managing design changes with reusable project experiences through project learning and effective communication. *International Journal of Project Management*, 35(7), pp.1253-1271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.010
Yap, J. and Shavarebi, K., 2019. Enhancing project delivery performances in construction through experiential learning and personal constructs: competency development. *International Journal of Construction Management*, 22(3), pp.436-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1629864
Yılmaz, A., Akcay, E., Dikmen, I. and Birgonul, M., 2025. An activity-based lessons learned model to support scheduling decisions in construction. *Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management*. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-06-2024-0729
Yu, T., Man, Q., Wang, Y., Shen, G., Hong, J., Zhang, J. and Zhong, J., 2019. Evaluating different stakeholder impacts on the occurrence of quality defects in offsite construction projects: a Bayesian-network-based model. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, 241, p.118390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118390
