Building Condition Assessment for New Houses: A Case Study in Terrace Houses

Abstract

This study determines the types of defects often detected in residential buildings based on the criteria set by the Construction Industry Standard (CIS) 7: 2006-Quality Assessment System for Building Construction Work. Twenty-two terraced two-story houses located in Selangor, Malaysia were visually inspected and assessed in terms of building condition, and results were reported based on the Condition Survey Protocol 1 Matrix. Assessment findings were consolidated with those of defective groups based on the criteria of CIS 7: 2006 to determine the defect type, building component, and construction field in which defects often occur. Results show that most of the inspected houses are dilapidated even though they were recently completed. The most severe building defects are detected in the architecture. Furthermore, floors and walls are major contributors to building defects. Mainly as a result of poor workmanship, the most common defects involve finishing, alignment and evenness, and joint and gap. Thus, this study proposes a method to ensure high-quality workmanship.

Full text

70:1 (2014) 43–50 | www.jurnalteknologi.utm.my | eISSN 2180–3722 |
Full paper
Jurnal
Teknologi
Building Condition Assessment for New Houses: A Case Study in Terrace
Houses
Adi Irfan Che Ani*, Norngainy Mohd Tawil, Suhana Johar, Mohd Zulhanif Abd Razak, Hafsah Yahaya
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
*Corresponding author: adiirfan@gmail.com
Article history
Received :4 April 2014
Received in revised form :
4 July 2014
Accepted :15 August 2014
Graphical abstract
Abstract
This study determines the types of defects often detected in residential buildings based on the criteria set
by the Construction Industry Standard (CIS) 7: 2006–Quality Assessment System for Building Construction
Work. Twenty-two terraced two-story houses located in Selangor, Malaysia were visually inspected and
assessed in terms of building condition, and results were reported based on the Condition Survey Protocol
1 Matrix. Assessment findings were consolidated with those of defective groups based on the criteria of
CIS 7: 2006 to determine the defect type, building component, and construction field in which defects often
occur. Results show that most of the inspected houses are dilapidated even though they were recently
completed. The most severe building defects are detected in the architecture. Furthermore, floors and walls
are major contributors to building defects. Mainly as a result of poor workmanship, the most common
defects involve finishing, alignment and evenness, and joint and gap. Thus, this study proposes a method
to ensure high-quality workmanship.
Keywords: Condition survey; building inspection; CSP 1 Matrix; CIS 7: 2006; QLASSIC; building defects
in Malaysia
Abstrak
Kajian ini menentukan jenis-jenis kecacatan yang biasa ditemui pada bangunan kediaman berdasarkan
kriteria yang ditentukan dalam Construction Industry Standard (CIS) 7: 2006–Quality Assessment System
for Building Construction Work. Sebanyak 22 buah rumah teres dua tingkat yang terletak di Selangor,
Malaysia diperiksa secara visual dan laporan keadaan bangunan dibuat berdasarkan Matriks CSP1.
Penemuan pemeriksaan dibandingkan dengan kriteria CIS:7 bagi menentukan jenis kecacatan, komponen
bangunan, dan bidang pembinaan yang sering berlaku kecacatan. Keputusan menunjukkan keadaan hampir
semua bangunan yang diperiksa adalah usang walaupun baru siap dibina. Bidang yang paling terjejas adalah
Seni Bina manakala lantai dan dinding adalah penyumbang terbesar kepada kecacatan bangunan.
Disebabkan mutu kerja yang lemah, kecacatan yang tertinggi adalah melibatkan kemasan, penjajaran dan
kerataan, dan sambungan dan jurang. Maka, kajian ini mencadangkan kaedah untuk memastikan kualiti
mutu kerja adalah baik.
Kata kunci: Pemeriksaan keadaan; pemeriksaan bangunan; Matriks CSP1; CIS:7 2006; QLASSIC;
kecacatan bangunan di Malaysia
© 2014 Penerbit UTM Press. All rights reserved.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Given the high demand for housing, the industry of residential
building construction is developing rapidly. This development is
beneficial for developing countries because it fulfills the basic
human need for shelter. Despite the quick progress of the industry,
however, the quality of constructed residential buildings is poor,
especially that of recently completed houses.1 Poor construction
quality means that project objective cannot be accomplished, does
not meet customers’ need and does not meet the specification.1
The result of survey by Zamharira et al. (2012) demonstrated
that customers’ satisfaction affect by construction work and
building material.2 Therefore, construction quality must be
evaluated to ensure that houses meet the specified requirements.
This assessment not only protects buyer interests, but also improves
the workmanship quality of developers and contractors.
In response to this situation, the government of Malaysia has
established numerous Construction Industry Standards (CIS)
through the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB),
including a quality assessment system for construction works. This
system is known as the Quality Assessment System for Building
Construction Work (QLASSIC) and guides the evaluation of the
quality of construction works in Malaysia.

44 Adi Irfan Che Ani et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 70:1 (2014), 43–50
QLASSIC is the system used for assessing the quality of the
finished construction product. Therefore, there are limitations to
asses any design defect and failure. Thus, the assessment focus on
workmanship quality, not design quality. Based on the criteria of
CIS 7: 2006, this study assesses the condition of double-story
terrace houses, especially in term of workmanship quality.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
The construction industry is the engine of economic development
in the country and affects several industries, such as manufacturing,
finance, and education.3 This statement supported by Solis-Carcano
and Arcudia-Abad (2013) stating that construction activities
contribute significantly in the national economy and provides a
wide range of jobs.4 The construction industry is divided into four
main categories, namely, landed and stratified housing and public
and special public buildings.5 Housing provision stabilizes the
society and the economy of all countries.6
In Malaysia, housing construction is initiated by the
government and by private property developers. The government
has launch affordable housing programs to help the people to own
their own homes. However, this programs affected by the existence
of a report on quality problems and defects.7 In Spain, the quality
of residential construction problems is due to inexperienced
workers and long chain of sub-contractors.8
In the construction industry, failures and defects are common.9
The number of defective houses has recently increased in Malaysia,
where people renovate their homes to enhance property value and
increase space for living comfort.10 Ahmad et al. (2011) reported
that 30% of their study respondents are dissatisfied with the sizes
of their kitchens, with extra land, and with humidity.10 Therefore,
most home buyers are discontent with their homes despite the high
price paid. The quality of housing provision is important because it
is associated with the quality of life of residents. 10,11,12 Hence,
buyer interests must be protected.
Building defects may include any problem that reduces the
value of a property, including houses.9 Josephon and Hammarlund
(1999) state that a defective construction processes may influence
building defects at either the operational or maintenance stages.13
Other factors that may lead to building defects and failures are
design errors by the architect, manufacturing flaws, defective
materials, the improper use or installation of materials, deviation
from the design by the contractor, or a combination of these factors.
Climate conditions, building location, construction materials,
building type and change in usage, building maintenance, faulty
design, corruption, and lack of supervision also contribute to
defects and failures.9 Besides, analysis conducted by Love et al.
(2014) showed that the average cost of design errors is 14.2% of
the original value of the contract.14
There are many problems that affect the quality of
construction projects such as standard reduction, increased cost,
projects delay, unskilled workers and less qualified construction
technologists.1 Besides, some physical aspects affect building
quality, including design, size, the material used, and the finishing
of the houses.15 Other factors that worsen construction quality are
the poor specification of materials, workmanship, and quality of
technical elements and services.16 Mohd Zaki (2006) determined
that some defects are induced by design and construction errors, as
well as building misuse.17 According to Ramly (2004), the five
main factors in structural defects in concrete are building material,
geo-technique, and design, construction, and unpredicted errors.18
However, the main factor that contributes to poor workmanship is
lack experience and competency of labors.3
The most common building defect and failure is blemish.9
Blemishes in concrete come in the form of scaling, honeycomb, air
pockets, and bolt holes. These blemishes are caused by unskilled
workers, lack of supervision, and rushed construction. Thus,
construction materials and poor workmanship are the main
contributing factors to building defects and failures. Most defects
identified by the buyer after handover due to poor work quality and
related to construction errors and missing.8
Building qualities are also related to safety.19 Yau (2006)
confirmed that safety is a quality factor.20 Moreover, Husin et al.
(2011) conclude that the safety of a building is strongly associated
with building quality because the occupants are endangered if the
construction quality does not meet standards.16
To ensure that households are satisfied with the provided
housing and the relevant services, Varady and Carrozza (2000)
pointed out that the measurement of housing quality is important.21
In both the UK and USA, local governments conduct regular
surveys of tenant satisfaction surveys. Housing assessment not only
protects the interests of home buyers and guarantees safety, but it
also collects feedback on current projects and feed forward for
future projects.22
Most of the defects in residential buildings are induced by
poor workmanship, which is closely related to developers and
contractors.8 Thus, assessing the satisfactions of home buyers are
necessary.23 Prior to turnover, home buyers in Malaysia typically
inspect the house. However, most home buyers are technically
unschooled on building defects.6 As a result; they overlook some
of these defects. Therefore, buyers must be accompanied by a
professional surveyor during inspection.
The assessment of building condition is a technical inspection
conducted by a competent assessor to evaluate the physical state of
building elements and services and to determine the maintenance
needs of the facility.24 A professional building surveyor can
examine building conditions comprehensively, and the generated
detailed report can protect the interests of new home buyers,
especially with respect to technical aspects such as workmanship
and material. Moreover, property developers can consider this
report in managing building defects.6
Building and facilities management activities such as
planning, implementation and maintenance are important criteria in
ensuring the sustainability of buildings can be achieved.25 They
classified the maintenance activities into two types such as
scheduled maintenance and condition-based maintenance.
However, both approach required building inspection to assess the
condition of building before taking further action. Information
obtained from the building inspection used to make decisions about
repair work.26
Thus, the assessment of building condition is important in
evaluating building quality. To indicate building quality, assessed
buildings must be rated. A rating is a set of categorization scales
designed to expound on the quantitative or qualitative attributes of
an object.27 Using a standard, a building inspector can evaluate the
status of the building objectively for a property manager.28 The
CIDB has therefore introduced a system called QLASSIC to
measure construction quality and evaluate workmanship quality in
Malaysia. The quality standards of building construction consist of
four main components, namely, structural, architectural,
mechanical and electrical (M&E), and external works. However,
only the architecture, M&E fittings, and external works are
considered in the assessment of building construction quality in
completed projects. Through this system, all defects have been
categorized into specific groups.
3.0 METHODS
In this research, 22 recently completed terrace houses in Selangor,
Malaysia are surveyed in terms of building condition. All 22 houses

45 Adi Irfan Che Ani et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 70:1 (2014), 43–50
were built under the same development phase, same set of
contractor and consultant. The selection of the houses to make sure
that all the factors that may be affect the construction quality can
be controlled. The surveys are conducted using protocol 1 (visual
inspection) techniques without destructive testing, and the
buildings are inspected based on the criteria of CIS 7: 2006
(QLASSIC) for recently completed buildings.
3.1 Building Condition Survey (Protocol 1)
CSP1 Matrix system has been used as the assessment tool because
it provides numerical analysis in determining overall building
condition. The statistical result from the analysis is helpful to
interpret all data from the survey. The statistic also used to classify
the overall building condition.
First, external building conditions are surveyed, followed by
internal inspection. Houses are generally inspected in descending
order starting from the roof. In this research, however, the roof is
inspected from outside the building because of limited access and
as a safety precaution. Therefore, internal inspection begins at the
first floor.
This study follows the above mentioned inspection rules
because external defects may affect the interior of the house.
Similarly, defects at the top level of the house may influence the
lower levels. These inspection rules therefore simplify the
determination of possible causes of internal defects.
Building spaces are composed of three main parts, namely, the
ceiling, wall, and floor. Doors and windows comprise the wall,
although they are regarded as special components because they
possess unique characteristics and are made of different materials.
Each space is then inspected from the top down. For example, the
ceiling of a master bedroom is first examined, followed by the walls
and the floor. All detected defects are captured by a camera and
tagged on the building plan. To facilitate referral and the structured
and systematic tagging of defects on the plan, space inspection is
conducted either in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction,
and this sequence must be consistent for each house.
3.2 CIS 7: 2006 (QLASSIC)
To assess the workmanship quality of building projects, QLASSIC
was developed as an independent method based on the CIS 7: 2006
standard. It is a standard Malaysian quality assessment. QLASSIC
aims to benchmark the quality of the work produced by the
Malaysian construction industry, to evaluate the workmanship
quality of building projects according to a standard system of
quality assessment, to assess the workmanship quality of a building
project based on approved standards, to evaluate contractor
performance based on workmanship quality, and to obtain data for
statistical analysis.
Standards of building construction quality are divided into
four main categories, namely, structural, architectural, M&E, and
external works. However, only the architecture, M&E fittings, and
external works are considered in the quality assessment of
completed construction projects. Each category corresponds to
several groups of defects based on its characteristics.5
As per CIS 7: 2006, these groups of defects should be aligned
using the Condition Survey Protocol (CSP) 1 Matrix as
reconfigured by researchers (as provided in th e Results and
discussion section). The criteria from the CIS 7: 2006 standard can
then be used to analyze the CSP 1 Matrix inspection results, which
are arranged according to defect group. Based on these data, the
most common defects can be determined.
3.3 Data Analysis
This stage is important because defect patterns in recently
completed houses can be identified. First, the defects detected in
each house are determined and categorized according to the
construction areas specified in the CIS 7: 2006 standard. Important
information regarding these defects includes the number of defects
in each area, defect type, and the percentage of defectiveness. After
analysis, all of the recorded defects are grouped based on defect
type.
4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This section discusses the results of house analysis in this study,
including overall findings, the results generated according to
construction field, and the findings as categorized based on defect
group. Figure 1 show defect an example of defect analysis by using
CSP1 Matrix system.
Figure 1 Defect analysis by using CSP1 Matrix system
4.1 Overall Results
Overall, there are 377 defect found in the 22 inspected houses.
CSP1 Matrix for each houses were determined and presented in
Figure 1. Based on Figure 2, the majority 18 of the houses rated at
Dilapidated Condition (Red color). Meanwhile two of the houses
are at Good Condition (Green Color) and other two houses were at
Fair Condition (Yellow Color). This shows that the quality of
workmanship in this development phase is poor.

46 Adi Irfan Che Ani et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 70:1 (2014), 43–50
Figure 2 CSP1 Matrix rating for each houses
Table 1 shows the number of defects in the 22 inspected
houses. These defects are categorized under architecture, M&E
fittings, and external works. The table also indicates that H09 had
the most defects at 37, whereas H05 and H06 were the least
defective at four defects each. The average number of defects in
each house is 17.14. These findings are discussed in detail in the
next section.
Table 1 Number of defects in each house
House No.
Number of
Defects
House No.
Number of
Defects
H01
7
H12
34
H02
24
H13
25
H03
13
H14
19
H04
27
H15
18
H05
4
H16
17
H06
4
H17
12
H07
13
H18
13
H08
10
H19
5
H09
37
H20
9
H10
31
H21
10
H11
20
H22
14
Total Number of Defects
377
4.2 Results Based on Construction Field
According to the analysis, the 377 recorded defects are related to
three construction fields, namely, architecture, M&E fittings, and
external works. Table 2 lists the number of defects according to
these fields.
Table 2 Number of defects based on construction fields
No.
Fields
No. of
defects
Percentage
(%)
1
Architecture
325
86.21
2
M&E fittings
18
4.77
3
External works
34
9.02
Total
377
100
As indicated in this table, the majority of defects is associated
with architecture at 86.21%. M&E fittings and external works
constitute 4.77% and 9.02% of overall defects, respectively. This
result suggests that in terms of the number of defects, architecture
is dominant over M&E fittings and external works.
4.2.1 Architecture
The field of architectural works has four main components, namely,
floor and wall (internal and external), ceiling, door and window,
and roof. A total of 325 defects are recorded for this field, and Table
3 distributes these defects according to architectural components.
Table 3 Distribution of defects according to architectural components
No.
Components
No. of
defects
Percentage
(%)
1
Floor and wall
(internal/external)
207
63.69
2
Ceiling
25
7.69
3
Door and window
86
26.46
4
Roof
7
2.15
Total
325
100
As presented in this table, the component of floor and wall has
the most defects at 63.69%, followed by the component of door and
window at 26.46%, ceiling at 7.69%, and roof at 2.15%. This result
suggests that the floor and the wall are prone to defects. The
probability of defectiveness is also higher for doors and windows
than for the ceiling and the roof.
a) Floor and Walls (Internal/ External)
In the architecture field, the floor and the wall incurred a total of
207 defects. These defects are categorized into five groups, namely,
finishing, alignment and evenness, crack and damage, hollowness
and delamination, and joint and gap. Table 4 shows the number of
defects in each group.
Table 4 Number of defects in each group (architecture—floor and wall)
No.
Defect group
No. of
defects
Percentage
(%)
1
Finishing
61
29.47
2
Alignment and
evenness
49
23.67
3
Crack and damage
17
8.21
4
Hollowness and
delamination
42
20.29
5
Joint and gap
38
18.36
Total
207
100
Table 4 shows that most of the defects are categorized under
the finishing group at 29.47%, followed by alignment and evenness
at 23.67%, hollowness and delamination at 20.29%, joint and gap
at 18.36%, and crack and damage at 8.21%. These percentages
suggest that most of the groups differ only slightly from one
another, with the exception of the crack and damage group. These
four groups are strongly related to workmanship quality, whereas
defects associated with crack and damage surface gradually as a
result of poor workmanship or materials, especially in concrete
structures. Thus, this group is associated with the smallest number
of defects.
b) Ceiling
The ceiling component is associated with a total of 25 defects,
which are divided into five defect groups , that is, finishing,
alignment and evenness, crack and damage, roughness, and joint
and gap. Table 5 lists the number of defects in each group.
15.7
15.2
19.7
17.4
15 15
18.518
15 15
4.55
3.62
20
15 15 15 15 15
20 20
9.6
9.86
0
5
10
15
20
25
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
H9
H10
H11
H12
H13
H14
H15
H16
H17
H18
H19
H20
H21
H22

47 Adi Irfan Che Ani et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 70:1 (2014), 43–50
Table 5 Number of defects in each group (architecture–ceiling)
No.
Defect group
No. of
defects
Percentage
(%)
1
Finishing
2
8.00
2
Alignment and
evenness
3
12.00
3
Crack and damage
18
72.00
4
Roughness
0
0.00
5
Joint and gap
2
8.00
Total
25
100
As exhibited in this table, the crack and damage group has the
highest percentage of defects at 72%, followed by alignment and
evenness at 12%, and the groups of finishing and joint and gap at
8% each. For the roughness group, no defects were recorded. The
crack and damage group varies significantly from the other groups
in terms of percentage of defects because defects in the first floor
damaged the ceiling of the ground floor. As discussed above, the
number of defects in the floor is high.
c) Door and Windows
The door and window component reports a total of 86 defects that
are split into five defect groups, namely, joint and gap, alignment
and evenness, material and damage, functionality, and accessory
defects. Table 6 distributes these defects based on defect groups.
Table 6 Number of defects in each group (architecture–door and window)
No.
Defect group
No. of
defects
Percentage
(%)
1
Joint and gap
12
13.95
2
Alignment and
evenness
10
11.63
3
Material and
damage
29
33.72
4
Functionality
34
39.53
5
Accessory defects
1
1.16
Total
86
100
The majority of the defects is related to functionality at
39.53%, followed by material and damage at 33.72%, joint and gap
at 13.95%, alignment and evenness at 11.63%, and accessory
defects at 1.16%. The groups of functionality and material and
damage are the dominant defect groups given the low quality of the
materials used to construct these components. Many of the
constructed doors and windows are difficult to open or close, and
some components are not functional as a result of damage.
d) Roof
At a total of seven, the number of defects related to the roof is the
lowest among those related to all of the components. These defects
are divided into five defect groups as shown in Table 7.
Table 7 Number of defects in each group (architecture–roof)
No.
Defect group
No. of
defects
Percentage
(%)
1
Finishing
5
71.43
2
Roughness,
unevenness, and
falls
0
0.00
3
Crack and
damage
2
28.57
4
Joint, sealant
content, and
alignment
0
0.00
5
Chockage and
ponding
0
0.00
Total
7
100
As presented in this table, defects were associated with only
two groups, namely, finishing at 71.43% and crack and damage at
28.57%. This result may be attributed mainly to the accessibility
factor. The examiner inspects only the areas that can be accessed
safely. Thus, the roofs cannot be examined comprehensively.
4.2.2 Defects in M&E Fitting
A total of 18 defects are related to M&E fitting, which corresponds
to the lowest percentage of defects in this field at 4.77% of total
defects. These defects are categorized into seven defect groups as
depicted in Table 8.
Table 8 Number of defects in each group (M&E fittings)
No.
Defect group
No. of
defects
Percentage
(%)
1
Joint and gap
1
5.56
2
Alignment and
evenness
1
5.56
3
Material and
damage
6
33.33
4
Functionality
2
11.11
5
Accessory defects
5
27.78
6
Accessibility
0
0.00
7
Safety
3
16.67
Total
18
100
This table indicates that the material and damage group is
linked to the most defects at 33.33%, followed by accessory defects
at 27.78%, safety at 16.67%, functionality at 11.11%, and the
groups of joint and gap and alignment and evenness at 5.56% each.
No defects are related to the accessibility group. M&E fittings
records the smallest number of defects because the fittings alone
are inspected and not the overall construction work on M&E, as
suggested in the CIS 7 assessment system for completed houses.
4.2.3 Defects in External Works
External works covers the external fixtures within the gated area of
a home and the area outside the building. It is split into 10 defect
groups, as displayed in Table 9. This field is related to a total of 34
defects, which corresponds to 9.02% of the total defects.

48 Adi Irfan Che Ani et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 70:1 (2014), 43–50
Table 9 Number of defects for each group (external works)
No.
Defect group
No. of
defects
Percentage
(%)
1
Finishing
11
32.35
2
Alignment and
evenness
2
5.88
3
Crack and damage
8
23.53
4
Hollowness and
delamination
1
2.94
5
Joints and gap
6
17.65
6
Functionality
2
5.88
7
Material and damage
2
5.88
8
Accessory defects
2
5.88
9
Chockage and
ponding
0
0.00
10
Construction
0
0.00
Total
34
100
As exhibited in this table, the finishing group has the highest
percentage of defects at 32.35%, followed by crack and damage at
23.5%, joint and gap at 17.65%, and the groups of alignment and
evenness, functionality, material and damage, accessory defects,
and hollowness and delamination at 2.94% each. The groups of
chockage and ponding and construction are not associated with any
defects.
4.3 Discussion
Based on the inspection results, defects are linked to a total of nine
defect groups in the fields of construction and components. Table
10 presents the overall results according to defect groups.
Table 10 Number of defects according to defect groups
No.
Defect group
No. of
defects
Percentage
(%)
1
Finishing
79
20.95
2
Alignment and
evenness
65
17.24
3
Crack and
damage
45
11.94
4
Hollowness and
delamination
43
11.41
5
Joint and gap
59
15.65
6
Material and
damage
37
9.81
7
Accessory
defects
8
2.12
8
Functionality
38
10.08
9
Safety
3
0.80
Total
377
100
As per this table, the majority of defects are related to finishing
at 20.95%, followed by alignment and evenness at 17.24%, and
joint and gap at 15.65%. This result suggests that the groups of
finishing, alignment and evenness, and joint and gap are prone to
defects. These defect types are highly correlated with workmanship
quality, and most of the defects do not affect the houses
structurally. The safety group is associated with only 0.80% of
defects. This result corresponding with Forcada et al. (2013) stating
that the common defects found are improper installation,
appearance defects, and missing items or tasks mainly concerned
with finishing.8
Based on these findings, work quality should be improved.
Developers and professional consultants such as architects and
engineers must ensure that the appointed contractor constructs the
building in accordance with specifications dictated by their
respective fields. In particular, professional consultants are more
knowledgeable about construction quality than the developers
because they determine the construction specifications.
Furthermore, all houses built by a single contractor must be
professionally inspected because onsite construction workers have
various levels of skill and experience. Therefore, the construction
quality of each unit is likely to differ even if the units are in the
same phase of project development.
To make sure the high quality of workmanship, the process
show in Figure 3 should be practice. Based on Figure 3, periodic
inspection should be able to improve workmanship quality by
following three key words such as “Who”, “How” and “When”.
Figure 3 Process flow of inspection to ensure high workmanship quality.
According to “Who” in Figure 3, the following individuals are
qualified building inspectors: building surveyors, architects,
engineers, builders, and property managers.18 However, building
surveyors are the ideal inspectors because they specialize in the
diagnosis of building defects. There are numerous cases in which
architects issue the Certificate of Completion and Compliance, or
Certificate of Fitness, and yet the building found to be defective.29
As a result, the buyer receives a defective product. Therefore,
building inspectors must be knowledgeable and skilled with respect
to the evaluation and reporting of building condition. Even so the
certificate has been issued, there must be some form of “check and
balance” as to protect the buyer interest from getting defective
product, in this case is performing building inspection.
“How” to inspect? Inspections ensure high workmanship
quality; thus, an inspector should consider safety, functionality, and
aesthetics.30 Visual inspection is the method that should be used at
the first stage of inspection to detect any defect. Then, periodic
inspection can clarify building condition during and after
construction31 and detect building defects early. This advanced
detection prevents defects from intensifying or occurring in the first
place.32 Most importantly, latent defects are minimized. After
inspection, inspectors must generate a report on building condition
in case of disputes.
“When” to inspect? To control the workmanship quality of a
contractor, building inspection must begin in the construction phase
High quality
of
workmanship
Periodic
inspection
Who?
Building
Surveyor
Architect
Engineer
Builder
Property
Manager
How?
Visual
inspection
Periodical
inspection
Report
When?
During
construction
(progress)
Before
handling over
(finished
product)

49 Adi Irfan Che Ani et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 70:1 (2014), 43–50
because potential hidden defects are impossible to trace once the
building is completed. Some defects also surface before building
completion.33 After completion, the building should then be
inspected again before it is turned over to a home buyer to ensure
that the buyer receives a house of acceptable quality that is worth
its price.
The inspection must be done periodically to prevent any
defect. Building defects has major implications and have a chain
effect. Firstly, building defect may cause uncomfortable living
environment. Then, the minor defect will spread to become major
defect and cause other new defect. This may increase the
maintenance cost. Major defect also can cause structural failure that
trigger building disaster. Finally, it will reduce property value of
the houses. These implications indicate that building defect have
significant adverse effects on environmental, social and
economical aspects.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The rapid development in housing construction meets the basic
human need for shelter. However, widespread defects in provided
housing are a public concern. Therefore, the quality of provided
housing must be evaluated. As per this research, the quality of
provided housing is significantly below standard. Most of the
defects are related to architecture at 86.21%. In this field, the floor
and the wall are the most defective, accounting for 63.69% of the
defects. In terms of defect groups, most defects are linked to the
groups of finishing, alignment and evenness, and joint and gap.
These types of defects have been asserted by Wai-Kiong and Sui-
Pheng (2005) that it is strongly associated with poor workmanship
quality.34 Therefore, workmanship quality should be enhanced to
reduce building defects and improve the quality of provided
housing.
Workmanship must be emphasized by the relevant parties to
improve construction quality. Developers and consultants must
monitor the work performed by the contractor to prevent the
generation of low quality buildings. Contractors must hire
construction workers who are skilled and responsible. Qualified
parties must also monitor works consistently on site. Building
inspection should be a priority for every housing development, and
it should be conducted by qualified person. Periodical visual
inspection and report should be done during and after construction
before the houses was turned over to the buyers.
References
[1] Ali, A. S. & Wen, K. H. 2011. Building Defects: Possible Solution for Poor
Construction Workmanship. Journal of Building Performance. 2(1): 59–
69.
[2] Zamharira Sulaiman, Azlan Shah Ali, Faizah Ahmad. 2012. Abandoned
Housing Project: Assessment on Resident Satisfaction toward Building
Quality. Open House International. 37(2): 72–80.
[3] Jamilus Hussein, Zuhairi Abdul Hamid and Mohd. Khairolden Ghani.
2009. Sustainable Construction within the Built Environment: Malaysian
Construction Industry Initiatives. The 11th International Surveyors’
Congress, Crowne Plaza Mutiara Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. 18-19 June 2009,
Plenary Session III – Paper 11.
[4] R. Solis-Carcano, & C. Arcudia-Abad. 2013. Construction-Related
Accidents in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
27(2): 155–162.
[5] CIDB. 2006. Construction Industry Standard; CIS 7: 2006. Quality
Assessment System for Building Construction Work, Construction Industry
Development Board Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
[6] N. A. M Radzuan, W. S. Z. W. Hamdan, M. Y. Hamid & A. H. Abdullah-
Halim. 2011. The Importance of Building Condition Survey Report for
New House Buyers. Procedia Engineering. 20: 147–153.
[7] H. Abdul-Rahman, C. Wang, L. Wood, & Y. Khoo. 2014. Defects in
Affordable Housing Projects in Klang Valley, Malaysia. J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 28(2): 272–285.
[8] N. Forcada, M. Macarulla, M. Gangolells, M. Casals, A. Fuertes & X.
Roca. 2013. Posthandover Housing Defects: Sources and Origins. J.
Perform. Constr. Facil. 27(6): 756–762.
[9] N. Ahzahar, N.A. Karim, S.H. Hassan & J. Eman. 2011. A Study of
Contribution Factors to Building Failures and Defects in Construction
Industry. Procedia Engineering. 20: 249–255.
[10] H. Ahmad, M. Y. Fadlie, N. A. Yahaya & J. Abu. 2011. The Means of
Escaping for Occupants for Renovation Works of Terrace Houses in
Malaysia. Procedia Engineering. 20: 188–192.
[11] Nurizan Yahaya. 1998. Kualiti Perumahan dan Kualiti Hidup. Analisis.
5(1&2): 133–149.
[12] N. Idrus & C.S. Ho. 2008. Affordable and Quality Housing through the
Low Cost Housing provision in Malaysia. Proceedings of Seminar of
Sustainable Development and Governance, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
26 June 2008. 1–21.
[13] P. E. Josephon & Y. Hammarlund. 1999. The Causes and Costs of Defects
in Construction: A Study of Seven Building Projects. Automation in
Construction. 8: 681–687.
[14] P. Love, R. Lopez, J. Kim, & M. Kim. 2014. Influence of Organizational
and Project Practices on Design Error Costs. J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
28(2): 303–310.
[15] A. H. Hashim. 2003. Residential Satisfaction and Social Integration in
Public Low Cost Housing in Malaysia. Journal of Social Science &
Humanities. 11(1): 1–10.
[16] H. N. Husin, A. H. Nawawi, F. Ismail. & N. Khalil. 2011. Development of
Hierarchy for Safety Elements and Its Attributes for Malaysia’s Low Cost
Housing. Procedia Engineering. 20: 71–79.
[17] Mohd Zaki Mokhtar. 2006. Kerosakan dan Kemerosotan Struktur Konkrit
di Malaysia. Dissertation. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai.
[18] A. Ramly. 2004. Panduan Kerja-kerja Pemeriksaan Kecacatan Bangunan.
Building & Urban Development Institute (BUDI). Malaysia: Hizi Print
Sdn. Bhd.
[19] D. C. C. K. Kowaltowski, V. G. Silva, S. A. M. G. Pina, L. C. R. Labaki,
C. Ruschel & D. C. Moreira 2006. Quality of Life and Sustainability Issues
as Seen by the Population of Low-income Housing in the Region of
Campinas, Brazil. Habitat International. 30: 1100–1114.
[20] Y. Yau. 2006. The Safety Performance of Apartment Buildings: Empirical
Evidence from Hong Kong. PhD Unpublished Dissertation, The University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
[21] D. P. Varady & M. A. Carrozza. 2000. Towards a Better Way to Measure
Customer Satisfaction Levels in Public Housing: A Report from
Cincinnati. Housing Studies. 15(6): 797–825.
[22] W. F. E. Preiser, H. Z. Rabinowits & E. T. White. 1988. Post Occupancy
Evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company CRS Sirrine
Houston, TX.
[23] M. Abdul Mohit, M. Ibrahim & Y.R. Rashid. 2010. Assessment of
Residential Satisfaction in Newly Designed Public Lowcost Housing in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat International. 34: 18–27.
[24] JKR. 2009. Condition Assessment and Asset Performance. Kuala Lumpur:
PWD.
[25] C. Au-Yong, A. Ali & F. Ahmad. 2014. Significant Characteristics of
Scheduled and Condition-Based Maintenance in Office Buildings. J.
Perform. Constr. Facil. 28(2): 257–263.
[26] N. Tirpude, K. Jain & B. Bhattacharjee. 2014. Decision Model for Repair
Prioritization of Reinforced-Concrete Structures. J. Perform. Constr.
Facil. 28(2): 250–256.
[27] N. A. A. A. Salim & N. F. Zahari. 2011. Developing Integrated Building
Indicator System (IBIS) (A Method of Formulating the Building Condition
Rating). Procedia Engineering. 20: 256–261.
[28] A. Straub. 2009. Dutch Standard for Condition Assessment of Building.
Structural Survey. 27(1): 23–35.
[29] Yong Kum Weng. 2013. Architect’s Certification: A Problem? Asia
Pacific Network for Housing Research 2013. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-
22 August 2013.
[30] Ahmad Rashidi Mohd Nasir. 2013. Penilaian Prestasi Bangunan: Analisis
Ruang Tandas Bangunan Institusi Pengajian Tinggi. Disertasi Sarjana,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi.
[31] S. Lavy. 2008. Facility Management Practices in Higher Education
Buildings. A Case Study. Journal of Facilities Management. 6(4): 303–
315.
[32] Briffet, C. 1995. Building Maintenance Technology in Tropical Climate.
Singapore: University Press.
[33] Nik Elyna Myeda, Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman & M. Pitt. 2011.
Measuring the Performance of Office Buildings Maintenance Management
in Malaysia. Journal of Facilities Management. 9(3): 181–199.

50 Adi Irfan Che Ani et al. / Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering) 70:1 (2014), 43–50
[34] Wai-Kiong Chong and Sui-Pheng Low. 2005. Assessment of Defects at
Construction and Occupancy Stages. Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities. 19(4): 283-289.doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2005)19:4(283).