FMJ Facilities Management magazine providing industry-specific intelligence to FM and property professionals
A new study by PlanRadar, a leading platform for digital documentation, communication and reporting in construction, facility management and real estate projects, reveals a clear contradiction at the heart of quality management.
Companies rank quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) among their top priorities when construction begins, with more than 70 per cent of companies beginning QA/QC processes from day one of construction, yet 77 per cent still report inconsistent documentation that varies across projects, sites and trades. This fragmentation pushes costs into the shadows and exposes projects to cascading disruption – from rework and schedule slippage to disputes and warranty claims.
The findings, detailed in PlanRadar’s new industry report, Construction QA/QC Impact Report, provide a comprehensive snapshot of QA/QC execution across Europe, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. A total of 811 qualified professionals who directly perform or oversee QA/QC participated, spanning project and construction consultancies, general and specialty contractors, architecture firms, developers/owners and other construction entities across 13 countries.
The report traces how inconsistent QA/QC turns into reduced visibility, putting projects at risk of higher costs and lower margins. “Different standards across sites and trades” is the most common problem cited by respondents (56 per cent), and over half (55 per cent) acknowledge they lack enforceable processes. Where no common standard exists, cost visibility disappears: companies without defined QA/QC are nearly twice as likely to have no view of rework costs (43 per cent vs 22 per cent).
The same data shows the upside of consistency. Companies that apply QA/QC systematically are 28 per cent more likely to report margins above three per cent (60 per cent vs 47 per cent) and are far more likely to keep rework under five per cent of budget (56 per cent vs 37 per cent). In practice, that advantage often comes down to eliminating variability: when approvals, forms and evidence are captured the same way on every site, leaders gain the defensibility and foresight to prevent small issues from growing into month-long setbacks.
Additionally, the report finds that quality misses can cause cascading challenges throughout projects, with two in three companies (67 per cent) linking QA/QC failures to delays. Among those able to quantify the impact on project schedules, nearly six in 10 say quality issues add more than two weeks on average, and almost one in four report delays extend beyond a month. Commercial exposure doesn’t stop there: firms without consistent standards are over 50 per cent more likely to face warranty risk (54 per cent vs 35 per cent) and are 23 per cent more likely to encounter subcontractor disputes (43 per cent vs 35 per cent).
UK’s Perspective on Market Challenges
The study’s UK-specific findings reveal particular challenges for British construction firms and highlight key differences from the global outlook.
Significantly, 78 per cent of UK respondents agreed that better QA/QC would improve their margins, with 36 per cent identifying reducing rework and costs as their top priority for improving quality processes.
When things go wrong, UK respondents said the main impact is project delays and lost time, with 75 per cent reporting this, whereas globally the emphasis is on rework that could have been avoided (71 per cent).
Furthermore, when delays do happen, UK firms see the greatest cost as damage to client relationships (72 per cent), while globally the top concern is the added labour and overtime costs (76 per cent).
In short, the UK view of QA/QC is more people-centric and client-oriented, with challenges framed around team compliance, project timelines, and client trust. Globally, the emphasis is more on structural complexity and financial cost – different standards, rework, and extra labour.
Rob Norton, UK Director at PlanRadar, commented: “These findings reflect what we’re seeing across UK construction sites daily. The industry recognises that consistent QA/QC is fundamental to profitability, yet most firms are struggling with the practical execution. When 61 per cent of UK companies can’t ensure their teams follow the QA/QC plan, and only 22 per cent achieve consistent documentation, we’re looking at a systemic challenge that’s directly hitting margins and client relationships. The 72 per cent who report that quality delays damage client relationships understand the real cost – it’s not just about immediate rework expenses, it’s about long-term business sustainability. The solution lies in moving beyond paper-based processes to unified digital standards that teams can actually follow consistently across every site and trade.”
Sander van de Rijdt, PlanRadar’s Co-Founder and CEO, commented: “QA/QC is a top priority in the construction industry. The challenge is making it consistent. Our research shows that when every site and trade follows a different playbook, quality outcomes become chance – and costs become unpredictable. The path forward is clear: unified, enforceable QA/QC standards that create visibility, reduce disputes and protect margins.”
The way we work has changed – yet, many organisations are still relying on rigid, one-size-fits-all tools to manage desks and meeting rooms, according to a new study from workplace management solutions provider, Matrix Booking.
Spreadsheets, calendars, and generic booking software may have worked once, but they’re struggling to keep pace with today’s flexible, hybrid workforce. The result? Wasted time, frustrated employees, and expensive underutilised space.
Matrix Booking’s new study, ‘One-size-fits-all booking systems don’t work for today’s workforce’, explores why current systems are falling short – and how organisations can reimagine workspace management to boost efficiency, employee experience, and cost savings.
To download your FREE copy click here.
