Impacts of design deficiencies on maintenance cost of high-rise residential buildings and mitigation measures

• Main Authors: Islam, Rashidul, Hassan, Nazifa Tasnia, Mohammed, Sarajul Fikri, Zishan, Momotazul Arefin, Mohd. Yusof, Zakaria, Mong, Sylvia Gala
• Format: Article
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 2021
• Subjects: HD1394-1394.5 Real estate management
• Online Access: http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/94661/; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102215

The building design has drawn great attention in recent years because of its large impact on many aspects of the functionality and maintenance activities in high-rise residential buildings (HRRB). These buildings include innovative and exciting design solutions that increase project complexity and produce substantial unexpected design deficiencies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify and examine the design deficiencies' impact on maintenance cost and investigate the mitigation strategies in reducing this cost. To fulfill the aim of this study, 42 design deficiencies and 11 mitigation measures were identified through a comprehensive literature review. This was followed by a questionnaire that was developed and administered to collect data, and 118 respondents graded the identified design deficiencies and mitigation measures using a five-point Likert scale during this online survey. Then the ranking analysis was done utilizing mean value and standard deviation (SD). The analysis revealed that architectural design deficiencies group has the most impact on increasing maintenance cost. Among 42 design deficiencies, only 23 were recognized as critical design deficiencies (CDD). Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA) test result showed that statistically insignificant differences in rankings were observed for two design deficiencies: non-availability of specific building materials in the market and difficult to reach and maintain fenestration. The Mann-Whitney test revealed that the building supervisors and facility managers had different opinions for these two design deficiencies compared to three other groups of the respondents. Furthermore, applying the factor analysis technique, 23 CDD were categorized into six groups: poor quality of design, inaccessibility for maintenance work, inappropriate material selection, lack of designer's responsibility, lack of designer's experience, and improper design scheme. Finally, the relationships between the 23 CDD and the mitigation measures were identified using the Spearman correlation test. This study is worthy of industry-wide attention and its implementation can be greatly advantageous for the construction industry professionals.