POST-OCCUPANCY DEFECTS IN PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS IN

NAIROBI, KENYA: THE CAUSES AND RATINGS.

Ochieng’ R.O, Diang’a S.O . and Wanyona G.

Department of Construction Management,

School of Architecture and Building Sciences

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology

P.O.Box 62000-00100,Nairobi,Kenya

Corresponding e-mail: rochieng06@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

An insight into the budgets for maintenance programmes for Public Office Buildings in Kenya

and many other developing countries reveals budgetary deficits leading to ever increasing

defects backlog. The major consequence of this sad situation is the un-checked deteriorated

state of the public office buildings stock resulting to disruption of delivery of public services

through equipment breakdowns or/and building element or component failures. The aim of this

study is therefore to determine and rate causes of common buildings defects with a view of

formulating appropriate strategies for managing them. The common buildings defects were

established through inspections of sampled public office buildings located in the Nairobi City.

A qualitative research strategy was crafted to obtain perceptions of sampled maintenance

experts in the public sector on eight possible causes of buildings defects. The ranking of the

eight possible causes of common buildings defects. The ranking of the eight possible causes

was analysed in a Likert Scale of 1 in 8 through computation of the mean item scores. The

findings established that poor supervision, negligence, vandalism and design deficiency are

major contributors to common defects. The findings are expected to aid policy makers put in

place preventive strategies to minimize the manifestation of common defects with the purpose

of drastically reducing maintenance workscope and budgets.

Key Words:

Public Office Buildings, Building Maintenance, Defects Causes, Defects Ratings.

2

INTRODUCTION

The aging, utilization and exposure of all classes and categories of buildings to the weather

culminates to deterioration and reduced performance. The rationale behind building

maintenance is to increase service life of buildings by delaying deterioration, decay and failure

by extending usage (Idris et al, 2009). It is therefore imperative that factors that instigate and

accelerate the manifestation of defects are assessed.

Public office buildings provide infrastructure for the delivery of public services to citizens. The

need to have the spaces provided by this facilities in reasonable standards to achieve the

desirable functionality requirements is paramount (Maver, 1971 and Ozguner, 1986). This is

however not the case in the developing world, thus challenging key policy makers to engage a

paradigm shift from contemporary maintenance systems bedeviled with in-efficiency and low

budgetary provision.

A desirable maintenance system would incorporate an effective/efficient building maintenance

framework that would meet maintenance targets within optimal budgets. In-adequate budgetary

allocation for maintenance programmes of public facilities in Malaysia has consequently made

it difficult to meet maintenance targets (Lateef 2009 and Ishak et al, 2009). This is the

situation in Kenya that has led to un-checked deterioration of the public office building stock

(Republic of Kenya, 2011). With the ever increasing public office buildings stock coupled with

no commensurate budgetary backup, it is only necessary that appropriate strategies are put in

place to bring down maintenance workscope, key of which to manage impacts of causes of

common defects.

The study therefore attempts to investigate causes of common defects with a view of crafting

appropriate preventive maintenance strategies to effectively manage their impacts with the long

term goal of minimizing maintenance workscope. The resultant reduced maintenance

workscope would lower maintenance budgets, a scenario that is appropriate for Kenya and

other third world countries where budgets for public building maintenance programmes are

constrained.

3

BUILDING DEFECTS, CAUSES AND RATINGS

Several definations of a building defect have been coined by various experts in the building

maintenance fraternity. Diyana (2009) defines a defect as non-conformity with a specified

standard or characteristic. www.buildingdefect.com.au,2009 however defines a building defect

as non-compliance with the building code for newly constructed buildings and non-compliance

with maintenance standards for old buildings. A defect is therefore a material, component or

finish which does not meet its expected performance criteria.

The existing situation in the third world reveals that despite government’s commitments

toward building maintenance, Public buildings have not been effectively maintained. For

instance, Ahmad et al (2006) claims that public buildings in Malaysia lack adequate attention

even though the government has allocated enormous resources to finance maintenance

activities. In Kenya, the situation is worse as maintenance targets cannot be met culminating to

serious defects backlog rendering most public buildings in deplorable conditions. (Republic of

Kenya, 2011). This state of events calls for a review, re-evaluation and re-assessment of the

current maintenance systems to mitigate on its shortcomings. One of the key areas in

maintenance considered for investigation in this study to partly achieve the objective is to

determine and rate causes of building defects so as to be able to reduce maintenance workscope

through appropriate preventive maintenance strategies.

Chartered Institute of Buildings (1990) propagates that the key rationale behind maintenance is

to keep, restore and improve facility of building and its services to set standards through

appropriate management of defects. The determination and rating of causes of common

building defects therefore provides an insight on the preventive maintenance mechanisms

required to minimize their impacts.

Thorough and accurate defects analysis is key to successful maintenance as this is a sure way

of diagnosing their root causes (Chohan et al, 2011). This will therefore certainly provide the

appropriate prescriptions for managing the defects rather than treating the symptoms.

In general, there are several building defects spread in various building elements or component.

Akasha et al (2007) states that maintenance activity covers the whole building envelope which

include structural systems, roofing, exteriors/interiors, walls. In addition, electrical/mechanical

services and the surround of buildings are also key components of a building envelope. A

comprehensive building maintenance strategy must therefore target defects in all components.

4

Past studies reveal the existence of various classes of defects in the post-occupancy stage of

buildings attributed to various reasons. Chohan et al (2011), Desai (2008), Kamal et al (2007),

Diyana (2009), Ahmad (2004), Teo et al (2006), Chong et al (2006),Lounis et al (2000) and

www.resource4constructiondefects.com/topics/causesofdefecs.html conducted studies on

defects on various building types from residential properties to office buildings including

historical ones, the most prevalent of which include:-

Crazing/Cracklines

Delamination

Algae growth

Hairy and structural cracks

Spalling

Corrosion of exposed reinforcement

bars

Sinking or deflection of structural

members

Efflorescence

Fallen/loose plaster

Façade deterioration

Leakage as a result of roof envelope

failure

Honey combing

Defective electrical fittings

General vandalism

Termite infestation on timber.

Chalking

Paint peeling

Dampness/Water seapage

Falling of concrete cover

Deflection or sagging of structural

elements

Salty deposits/stains on surface

Holes in walls

Disintegration of mortar joints

Defective rain water goods

Leaking plumbing/drainage fittings

Defective joinery fittings

Fallen off/broken glass panes

Warped/rotten timber

Blocked storm water/sewer drains

Unustable foundation

5

These defects are therefore common and appear from building to building calling for need

to strategise on how to manage their manifestation in order that maintenance workscope

and costs are controlled.

Establishing and managing the root causes of building defects is significant in minimizing

building maintenance cost, a strategy that could do well in the developing world where

financing of maintenance of public buildings is a major challenge. This fact is confirmed

by Lee (1987), Al-Khatam (2003), Ahmad (2004) and Kamal et al (2007) who argue that

building defects should not just be managed through treatment of symptoms but through

accurate diagnosis of their root causes for either elimination or minimization. Chong and

Low (2006) however indicates that eliminating building defects altogether can be an uphill

task. Timely and accurate diagnosis of defects is therefore a fundamental strategy towards

effective management of maintenance of public office buildings.

While www.buildingdefects.com.au,2009 cites substandard workmanship, lack of

expertise, non-compliance with standards, lack of adequate maintenance, aging, lack of

professional supervision and insect infestation are major catalysts for defects manifestation.

The National Building Agency (1985) attributes causes of defects primarily as design

deficiency and poor supervision. Kamal et al (2007) refers to five main factors that include

designs not being sensitive to climatic and geological conditions, subjecting the buildings

to the functions and loads for which they were not designed for, inadequate maintenance to

check further deterioration of building elements and gross neglect arising out of failure to

regularly inspect/carry out maintenance. According to www. resourceconstructiondefects.

com the major causes of common defects include improper soil analysis, adoption of

defective building materials, negligent construction and construction deficiencies. Studies

by Al-Khatam (2003) reveal that most building defects arise out of faulty designs, poor

workmanship and poor management attributed to designers, maintenance experts and

contractors expertise; experience and non compliance with specifications, a scenario that is

also projected by Ramly et al (2007) and Chohan et al (2010). Olubodem and Mole (1999)

also argues in favour of design criteria but however includes ageing as a major contributor

to general wear and tear in public buildings. Olubodun (2001) however cites vandalism and

improper use of property as major instigators of defects in public buildings, an aspect that

has resulted to the dilapidated condition of public office buildings in Kenya. An

investigation done by Diyana (2009) concludes that poor workmanship as a result of in-

effective supervision during the construction stage is a major contributor to defects

manifestation confirming the fact that buildings whose construction do not allow for

appropriate quality control measures have major defects at post-occupancy stage. In-

6

adequate funding of maintenance programmes leads to defects backlogs and can in essence

trigger more severe and costly defects that could even cause total structural failure

(Bowles et al (1997), Chanter and Swallow (2007), Adenuga et al (2007).

That the maintenance funding allocations for public buildings is never adequate is also

experienced in Kenya and has significantly contributed to the dilapidated state of Public

buildings (Republic of Kenya, 2011). This has been compounded by the other factors

discussed above that instigate defects in various ratings. The factors that cause defects in

public office buildings can therefore be summarized as normal tear/wear through aging,

vandalism, design deficiency, negligence, natural phenomena, termite infestation,

management problems and poor supervision. The study aims to rate these factors in order

of severity to determine those with significant impacts for prioritization for management

which in the long run will minimize maintenance costs of public office buildings in Kenya .

RESEARCH METHDOLOGY

A qualitative strategy with a cross section survey design was adopted for the study. Ninety (90)

experts were identified through a simple random sampling technique from a target population

of one hundred and twenty (120) maintenance experts across the public sector based in the

Nairobi City. The common buildings defects were established through an inspection of thirty

nine (39) public office buildings sampled from a target population of fifty two (52) builidngs

by means of a stratified random sampling technique. Structured questionnaires were

administered to the sampled maintenance experts to obtain their perceptions on the ratings of

the common possible factors identified. The respondents ranked these factors on a 1in 8 Likert-

scale. The data was then analysed qualitatively using SPSS software to arrive at mean item

scores.

FINDINGS/DISCUSSIONS

An inspection of the sampled buildings revealed defects of more or less similar characteristics

from one building to another that include leakages, broken glass panes , defective

joinery/plumbing/electrical fittings, discoloured surfaces, worn out floors, cracks, blocked

drains and vandalized fittings.

Maintenance experts from the public service were asked to state and rank causes of these

common defects. A list of possible causes of common defects was included in the

questionnaire which acted as a basis for ranking. The list included normal wear and tear,

7

vandalism, design deficiency, negligence, natural phenomena, infestation by termites,

management problems and poor supervision.

The ranking was done in order to establish causes of defects with the highest impact to be

targeted for management in maintenance cost minimization. The mean item scores for the

factors was then computed. The results are displayed in Table 1 and graphically represented in

Figure 1.

Table 4.3: Rating of Causes of Common Building Defects

Source: Field Data

Normal tear

& wear Vandalism

Design

deficiency Negligence

Natural

Phenomena

Termite

infestation

Mgt.

problems

Poor

supervision

Mean

Item

Score 0.49 0.59 0.57 0.63 0.40 0.38 0.53 0.63

Figure 1: Graphical Representation of Rating of Causes of Common Buildings Defects

Source: Field Data

99% of the sampled maintenance experts responded and ranked the various causes of common

building maintenance defects in a Likert Scale of 1 in 8 at different ratings. The ratings were

computed in the form of mean item scores placing poor supervision and negligence on top as

the most significant contributors to common buildings defects at 0.63 with natural phenomena

lying last at 0.40. Rating for other causes include vandalism at 0.59, design deficiency at 0.57,

management problems at 0.53, in addition to normal wear and tear at 0.49. The rating of the

8

causes of defects was necessary to prioritize the causes with most impact for management so as

to minimize maintenance costs in the long run.

The high rating for poor supervision agrees well with the findings from Al-Khatam (2003),

Diyana (2009), National Building Agency (1985) and www.buildingdefect.com.au, 2009. In

addition, negligence which tied with poor supervision in first ranking confirms findings from

Kamal et al (2007) and Olubodun. (2001). Photographs 1 and 2 below captures defects

attributed to poor supervision and negligence respectively as observed during an inspection of

the sampled public office buildings.

Photograph 1: Peeled off PVC Floor Photograph 2: Loose Electrical Power

Finish at Treasury Attributed to Poor socket at Works House Attributed to

Supervision During Construction. Negligent Movement of Furniture or Goods

This requires negligible effort to repair

The extent of vandalism in public office buildings as instigator of defects is demonstrated by

this study which mirrors the findings of Olubodun (2001). Photographs 3 and 4 depicts defects

generated through vandalism.

9

Photograph 3: Missing Firefighting Photograph 4: Missing Manhole Cover at

Hosereel Equipment at Jogoo House A NSSF Building Attributed to Vandalism

Attributed to Vandalism.

Although the study findings rank the design deficiency factor lowly at fourth position, this

does not agree with past findings from Oluboden and Mole (1999), Ramly et al (2007) and

Chohan et al (2010) who emphasizes on design deficiency as a major contributor to defects.

The main reason for this discrepancy could be as a result of the difference in scope of the

studies. This study focused in public office buildings where design quality is guaranteed as

opposed to the three past studies referred to above. Photographs 5 and 6 below highlights

design related defects captured during an inspection of sampled public office buildings.

Photograph 5: Defective Ceramic Floor Photograph 6: Damaged Kitchenette

Finish at Sheria House Attributed to Timber Work Top and Peeling Paint

In-appropriate Specification/Design. Due to Dampness at Jogoo House A

Attribured to Deficient Design.

10

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

The aim of this study was to identify public office building defects and causes. It further

included rating of factors that cause defects to enable maintenance managers prioritize those

with the most impact for management. Appropriate strategy for managing these defects

contributing factors is inevitable where there is greater need to minimize maintenance costs

either for low budgetary provision or some other constraints.

The defects identified are majorly on masonry, concrete, carpentry/joinery, finishes and

electrical/mechanical services. This include cracks, plant growth, corrosion, façade

deterioration, structural failure, leakages/dampness, peeling plaster/paint, cracked/fallen glass

panes, defective fittings, warped/rotten timber, termite infested timber and vandalized fittings.

The major causes of defects in order of ranking with the most rated first include poor

supervision, negligence, vandalism, design deficiency, management problems, normal

tea/wear, natural phenomena and termite infestation.

The implication of these findings is that poor supervision, negligence, vandalism and design

deficiency which has the most impact in instigating defects should be prioritized for

management in order that building maintenance costs are drastically reduced in the long run. It

is therefore recommended that further studies are directed to investigate appropriate strategies

that would minimize the impacts of the defects’ causing factors.

11

References

Adenuga OA, Odusami KT and Faremi Jo (2007),” Conference Paper on Assessment of

Factors Affecting Maintenance Management of Public Hospital Buildings in Lagos State,

Nigeria Presented to the Construction and Building Research Conference of the Royal

Institution of Chartered Surveyors Held Between 6th

– 7th

September, 2007 at Georgia

Tech. Atlanta, United States of America

Ahmad R, Nur AA, Nur HI (2006) “The Effects of Design on the Maintenance of Public

Housing Buildings in Malaysia” Journal of Buildings Engineer, April, 2006 Issue, Rualar

Kualar Lumpur, Malaysia

Akasah Z. A., Shamsuddin S.H.,Rahman I. A. and Alias M. (2007), “School Building

Maintenance Strategy: A New Management Approach”, Research Paper, University Tunn

Hussein Onn, Malaysia.

AL – Khatam J. A. (2003), “Building Maitenance Cost”, Masters of Engineering Report,

Department of Construction Engineering and Management, College of Environmental

Design, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Bowles G., Dagpunar J. S. and Gow H. (1997), “Financial Management of Planned

Maintenance for Housing Associations”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol.

15, No. 4

Building Defects: Inspections and Reports cited at www.buildingdefects.com.au, 2009 on 29th

May 2012

Causes of Construction Defects in Homes and Condos cited at

www.resourceforconstructiondefects.com on 29th

May 2012.

12

Chartered Institute of Building (1990), “Maintenance Management”, Chartered Institute of

Building, Berkshire, United Kingdom.

Chohan A.H, Che-Ani AI, Tahir M.M, Abbdullah N.A, Tawil M.M and Kamaruzzaman S.N

(2011), “Housing and Analysis of Design Defects: A Post-Occupational Evaluation of

Private Housing in Malaysia”, Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol 6 (2), Pg. 193 – 203,

18th

January, 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Chong W. K. and Low S.P. (2006), “Latent Building Defects: Causes and Design Strategies to

Prevent Them”, Journal of Performance of Construction Facilities, Vol.20, No. 3

Common Defects and their causes cited at www .resource 4 constructiondefects .com /topics /

causesofdefects.html on 29th May 2012.

Desai S (2008), “How Can Residents Stall the Dilapidation of their Buildings” cited at

http:/knowledgeadda4u.blogspot.com/ on 15th

April, 2010.

Diyana M. (2009), “Case Study of Taman Seri Indah, Pulau Pinang”, Bachelor of Civil

Engineering Degree Thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Earth Resources, University

Malaysia Pahang

Idrus A, Khamidi F and Lateef A (2009), “Value Based Maintenance Management Model for

University Buildings in Malaysia”, Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 2 (3) of

November, 2009.

Ishak N, Chohan A and Ramly A (2007), “Implications of Design Deficiency on Building

Maintenance at post-occupational Stage”, Journal of Building Appraisal, February, 2007,

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

13

Kamal K. S., Wahab L.A., Ahmed A. G. and Karim S. B. A. (2007) “A paper on Building

Conservation” Presented to International Conference on Built Environment in Developing

Countries held between 3rd

and 4th

December 2007, University Science Malaysia.

Lateef A (2010), “Case for Alternative Approach to Building Maintenance”, Journal of

Building Appraisal, February, 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Lounis Z and Vanier D.J (2000), “A multi-objective and Stochastic System for Building

Maintenance Management”, Journal of Computer Aided Civil and Infrastructure

Engineering, Vol.15 (5), pp 320-329.

Marver TW (1971), “Building Services Design”, Aden of Mowbray Ltd, Oxford, United

Kingdom

National Building Agency (1985), “Building Defects: Diagnosis and Remedy”, Construction

Press, London, United Kingdom.

Olubodum F. (2001), “A Multivariate Approach to the Prediction of Maintenance Needs in

Public Housing”, Structural Survey, Vol 19, No. 2

Olubodem and Mole (1999), “Evaluation of Defect Influencing Factors in Public Housing in

the United Kingdom”, Structural Survey, Vol. 17. No. 3

Ozguner O (1986) “Philosophy of Tall Buildings: Tall Buildings in the Urban Context,” Dieter

Acknnecht and Sadi Asset, UPM Press, 1986, PP11

Republic of Kenya (2011), “Draft National Building Maintenance Policy, Ministry of Housing,

Nairobi, Kenya.

Teo EA and Harikrishna N (2006), “A Quantitative Model for Efficient Maintenance of

Plastered and Painted Facades”, Department of Building, National University of Singapore,

Singapore.