Tolerance-related defects — defects arising from dimensional and geometric variability that is mismanaged or exceeds specified limits — are among the most costly and recurring defect classes in construction, yet the literature offers only scattered and generic recommendations for them. A 2021 UK case study of two commercial/industrial building projects consolidated prior work with 16 semi-structured interviews, group interviews, direct observations, and document review to produce a list of 18 causes of tolerance issues, but its authors explicitly framed this list as tied to specific observed tolerance issues and projects, and called for research to find causes of tolerance issues in other projects — other project types and other countries — in order to develop a generalizable list of causes not tied to specific tolerance issues or projects, as the foundation for the holistic tolerance-management solution the field still lacks. The open problem is to establish that validated, project-independent catalogue of causes through empirical studies beyond the original UK commercial and industrial cases, with cause attribution that does not rest solely on interviewee accounts.

Background

In construction, a tolerance is the permitted deviation of a built element's dimensions or geometry from the nominal design values; national and industry standards (e.g., for concrete, steel, or floor finishes) specify such limits because manufactured components and site work inevitably vary. A tolerance issue (TI) is a defect or problem associated with dimensional and geometric variation — for example, elements that do not fit together as designed, surfaces outside flatness limits, or accumulated deviations that make it impossible to install subsequent systems. Tolerance issues drive costly rework (the source study reports estimates that more than 5 per cent of construction costs arise from rework due to tolerance issues) and are among the most common recurring defects in housing construction. Tolerance management (TM) is the set of processes by which tolerance requirements are identified, planned, communicated, and controlled across design and construction; the related approach of geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) is a symbolic language, standard in mechanical engineering, for communicating permissible geometry variation on drawings. Prior research on construction tolerances — including Scandinavian and US studies of dimensional accuracy in concrete and steel buildings and the source authors' own program (a critical review, a conceptual TM framework in Talebi et al. 2020a, and a GD&T-based communication language for construction in Talebi et al. 2020b) — was characterized by the source study as scattered and generic, with no holistic and widely accepted TM solution. The source study (Talebi et al. 2021, Journal of Management in Engineering) addressed the gap in causal understanding: from a literature review refined through a UK case study of two commercial/industrial projects (eleven observed tolerance issues, 16 semi-structured interviews, two group interviews, direct observations, and document review), it produced a list of 18 causes — including insufficient, inaccurate, and fragmented tolerance information in specifications; poor communication of tolerance information; ineffective quality control process; poor workmanship; and three causes new to the literature (inconsistency between tolerance requirements and project budget, an incomplete project brief, and inferior types of construction methods). The authors, however, state three limitations: the empirical work covered only commercial and industrial buildings; it was conducted in the UK; and the causes for each tolerance issue were inferred solely from interviewee accounts, so other causes are conceivable. They conclude that future research should find causes of tolerance issues in other projects in order to generalize — that is, to develop a list of causes without considering it in the context of a specific tolerance issue and project — because the non-existence of a holistic, widely accepted tolerance-management solution is arguably rooted in the lack of an in-depth understanding of the causes of tolerance issues. Related but distinct strands do not fill this gap: research on general construction defect causes (e.g., Jingmond and Ågren 2015 on Swedish housing defects) predates the study and is not tolerance-specific, and recent tolerance research is dominated by quantitative measurement and variation analysis rather than the organizational processes by which tolerances are defined, communicated, and enforced.

Problem Statement

Establish a generalizable catalogue of the causes of tolerance issues in construction — a list of causes stated independently of specific tolerance issues and specific projects and supported by an explicit, citable evidence base of documented projects and published empirical studies from beyond the original case setting — by investigating tolerance issues and their causes across construction projects beyond the original two UK commercial and industrial building case studies, covering at least three documented projects that span at least two project types other than commercial/industrial buildings (such as residential and infrastructure projects) and at least two national construction contexts other than the UK, with every cause in the catalogue traceable to cited, triangulated evidence, and by reconciling the findings with the 18-cause list of Talebi et al. (2021) (confirming, refining, refuting, or extending its entries, including its three novel causes). Cause attribution must not rest solely on interviewee accounts: it should be triangulated across at least two independent data sources such as direct observation, project documents, and measurement records, thereby addressing the source study's three stated limitations. The completed catalogue is intended to serve as the empirical foundation for the holistic and widely accepted tolerance-management solution that the source study identifies as lacking in the field; developing that solution itself is the motivating longer-term aim, not part of the bounded objective here.

References

  1. Talebi, S., Koskela, L., Tzortzopoulos, P., Kagioglou, M., Rausch, C., Elghaish, F., and Poshdar, M. (2021). 'Causes of Defects Associated with Tolerances in Construction: A Case Study.' Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(4), 05021005. DOI: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000914. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000914
  2. Valkonen, T., Lindberg, A., Alhava, O., Talebi, S., Koskela, L., and Seppänen, O. (2026). 'Tolerance management in prefabrication of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing installations.' Construction Management and Economics, 44(4), 279-299. DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2026.2626735. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2026.2626735
  3. Rausch, C., Talebi, S., Poshdar, M., Li, B., and Schultz, C. (2022). 'Tolerance management domain model for semantic enrichment of BIMs.' Automation in Construction, 141, 104394. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104394
  4. Hrischev, L., Ivanov, G., Zhishkina, E., Doneva, B., and Atanasov, I. (2026). 'Comparative Assessment of Geometric Tolerances in Installed Floor Screeds: A Case Study.' IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1349, 012011. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/1349/1/012011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1349/1/012011
  5. Talebi, S., Koskela, L., Tzortzopoulos, P., and Kagioglou, M. (2020a). 'Tolerance Management in Construction: A Conceptual Framework.' Sustainability, 12(3), 1039. DOI: 10.3390/su12031039. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031039
  6. Talebi, S., Koskela, L., Tzortzopoulos, P., Kagioglou, M., and Krulikowski, A. (2020b). 'Deploying Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing in Construction.' Buildings, 10(4), 62. DOI: 10.3390/buildings10040062. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10040062
  7. Jingmond, M., and Ågren, R. (2015). 'Unravelling causes of defects in construction.' Construction Innovation, 15(2), 198-218. DOI: 10.1108/ci-04-2014-0025. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-04-2014-0025