Assessment of Risks in Building Inspection Services

during and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic

Hamdi Tekin, Ph.D. 1

Abstract: The building industry has been deeply affected by the Covid-19 pandemic due to the cessation of many businesses and the
changes in working methods. Building inspection is of great importance for ensuring safety and well-functioning steps in the building life
cycle. This study aimed to determine the potential dangers threatening building inspection services during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Accordingly, a risk assessment method based on a three-stage survey conducted with mainly construction inspection experts working in the
Turkish construction industry was applied. Within this scope, both quantitative and qualitative data were utilized. An analysis of all findings
concluded that careless inspection due to the shortening of site visits, unreliable remote inspection ways, and the everlasting paper-based
bureaucratic steps of the system are the most threatening risk factors for building inspection mechanisms. All these risks have potential
consequences, such as loss of life, crucial defects in building services, and the spread of the pandemic. Indirect risks are mainly caused
by financial difficulties. In order to avoid all potential risks, standards should be introduced and technology-based precise remote control
mechanisms should be improved through online tools and applications. Moreover, public bodies should provide adequate financial support.
This study suggested immediate actions to be taken by the relevant parties against the impacts of Covid-19 by highlighting potential cases and
their risks with regard to building inspection services. The implementation of such actions may enable practitioners to conduct more reliable
inspections during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. DOI: 10.1061/AJRUA6.0001214. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Building inspection; Quality control; Risk analysis; Covid-19 pandemic; Building safety.

Introduction
Nowadays, people expect much more from where they live, to-
gether with a rapid pace of intervention and change. Although the
first aim of sheltering, in the early ages, was mainly protection
against natural events, the concept of housing and residence has
undergone significant changes over time, and buildings are now
constructed in line with the physical and physiological require-
ments of modern life (Foroughi 2021; Hacıbaloğlu 2003). Classi-
cally, the term building refers to place where many facilities, such
as housing, trade, education, health, or manufacturing, are carried
out (Çelik and Ünal 2017). However, nowadays, it refers not only
to the place where we live but also the place where we express
our values and aspirations (Gelernter 2001). With rapid economic
development, living standards have improved (Yin and Ruan 2021),
and, in turn, comfort and aesthetics have become important ex-
pectations. Although population growth and economic and social
dynamics play important roles in how we design and approach
buildings (Marino 2020), safety is always the priority.
In modular construction, quality control plays an important role
in meeting quality requirements, leading to the achievement of the
schedule and cost plans of a project (Bae and Han 2021). Construc-
tion control has a direct influence on building quality, which is one
of the most important success criteria of a construction project
1 ture systems, and the economy, has led to or amplified international
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
and Architecture, Istanbul Arel Univ., Türkoba Mahallesi, Erguvan Sokak
No:26/K, Tepekent Büyükçekmece, Istanbul 34537, Turkey. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1480-9452. Email: hamditekin@arel.edu.tr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 2, 2021; approved on
October 21, 2021; published online on January 22, 2022. Discussion per-
iod open until June 22, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk
and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering,
© ASCE, ISSN 2376-7642.
(Abas et al. 2015; Ko and Li 2014). Quality problems are still
common in construction (Wawak et al. 2020) because enabling
quality management in a construction setting is a more difficult task
due to industry-specific factors such as the market and its structure
(Tam et al. 2000). In order to ensure safety, quality management,
and well-functioning building engineering services, the building
inspection mechanism should work very well. The building inspec-
tion process covers all efforts to ensure compliance with relevant
legislation, standards, contractual obligations, and specifications
from the design phase to the end of construction considering ecol-
ogy, functionality, and the economy depending on the building type
(Kural and Ünal 2015; Merritt and Ricketts 2001; Vo-Tran and
Kanjanabootra 2013).
The goal of inspection is to diagnose the status of a construction
project’s components and determine the need to approve, reject, or
modify such components (Ochoa et al. 2011). Because building
control has a direct relationship with safety, careless inspections
can result in loss of life in earthquakes. Construction quality is also
a crucial factor in the acceptance of the project (Battikha 2003).
Therefore, quality management plays an important role in complet-
ing the project both on time and on budget (Tsai et al. 2014).
Typically, defects experienced during the construction phase are
costly (Akinci et al. 2006) and can cause long-term problems in
terms of building engineering services as well.
Covid-19, which has significantly affected society, infrastruc-
economic and social crises (Gulzar et al. 2021; Denny-Smith et al.
2021). Considering the loss of commerce, trade, and tourism, as
well as the major impacts on global supply chains, the economic
impacts of the outbreak will be vast throughout the world (Ayittey
et al. 2020). The pandemic has put labor-intensive industries, such
as the construction industry, at risk (Zheng et al. 2021). Because a
significant proportion of Covid-19 cases are based on occupational
exposure (Koh 2020), the pandemic has influenced all kinds of

© ASCE 04022003-1 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
 service industries including building inspection. During this phe-
nomenon, any risk in the service of building inspection may have
a greater impact on the building life cycle. Although the building
industry has entered a major recession in this period, new hospitals
were quickly built worldwide speedily due to the rapid spread of
the coronavirus. For example, a 1,000-bed pandemic hospital was
built in 10 days in Wuhan, China (CNN Türk 2020; Xiaowai 2020),
and three emergency hospitals were completed in 45 days in Turkey
(TRT Haber 2020). In order to ensure access into health care serv-
ices during the pandemic, a temporary unit, namely the Regional
Pandemic Response Unit, having approximately 70 beds and an
8,000 sq-ft (743.22 m2) modular structure at the Royal Victoria
Regional Health Center was under construction in Canada (RVH
2020). Considering the time limitations of such projects, perform-
ing building inspections and ensuring construction quality have
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
become more difficult.
This study mainly focuses on analyzing the potential risks that
may arise in building inspection services and discuss what measures
can be taken against risks during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.
Literature Review
During and after the pandemic era, various studies have determined
the major problems of the building industry. According to the
results of a survey conducted by the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE 2020), around two-thirds of ASCE members had
experienced delays or cancellations regarding their contracts, and
approximately half of them had cash flow challenges. Pirzadeh
and Lingard (2021) carried out a study based on a survey of work-
ers in the Australian construction industry who were required to
work from home on alternate weeks and reported that the key issues
expressed by participants were receiving a high amount of corre-
spondence at irregular times, attending too many online meetings,
experiencing additional work pressure, and difficulty in coordinat-
ing onsite work remotely. According to the study of Alsharef et al.
(2021), which was based on telephone interviews carried out with
34 construction experts in the US, significant delays in projects, an
inability to secure materials on time, a reduction in productivity
rates, and escalations in prices of materials were reported as the
adverse effects. Assaad and El-adaway (2021) reported negative
impacts such as labor shortages, increasing unemployment, short-
ages in the supply of materials and equipment, and contractual
risks. Concerns about health and safety in the construction work-
force were more challenging than ever due to the obligation of
adapting to a new workstyle (Pamidimukkala et al. 2021). A survey
conducted with 702 construction practitioners in China by Zheng
et al. (2021) showed that many respondents (15%) were unsure or
wrong about the human-to-human transmission of the virus.
On the other hand, the pandemic has enabled technology adop-
tion, better collaboration among project stakeholders, cleaner
workplaces, and more reliance on diversified and local suppliers
and manufacturers Assaad and El-adaway (2021). New technolo-
gies, models, simulation techniques, and systems may be crucial
for avoiding the drawbacks of outbreaks and other phenomena.
McDonald et al. (2018) expressed the importance of models for
a high-level integrated analysis of a pandemic influenza outbreak
with the addition of a disease progression simulation. In addition,
Iqbal et al. (2021) emphasized the importance of safety practices at
construction sites and crisis management framework for construc-
tion productivity during the pandemic.
Because the quality of a product depends on multiple variables
(Hayter and Tsui 1994), there are problems with quality control in
all sectors. The building inspection system, which ensures the
© ASCE 04022003-2
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
quality control of buildings, also suffers from such problems.
A standard building inspection, which is always based only on a
visual inspection used for detecting structural defects to rehabilitate
buildings, prevents the identification of hidden and recurrent prob-
lems in systems (Bortolini and Forcada 2020; Liu et al. 2021).
Shariq and Hughes (2020) highlighted the importance of revolu-
tionizing inspection techniques because current methods of large-
scale inspection are generally labor-intensive, time-consuming,
costly, and inefficient. Rouhanizadeh and Kermanshachi (2020)
emphasized that inspection challenges have increased proportion-
ally or at an even higher rate with the increasing number of trans-
portation construction projects in the US over the last several
decades. Erdiş (2012) determined the main problems encountered
in the building inspection processes in Turkey as follows: lack of
documentation, lack of qualified inspectors, lack of feedback or
reports regarding deficiencies, inadequate number of site visits,
and careless inspection.
Abas et al. (2015) statistically examined the factors affecting the
quality of construction projects in Pakistan by surveying construc-
tion experts and determined the order of importance of these fac-
tors, among which the critical ones were continuous improvement,
joint working, communication, technical staff availability, ISO cer-
tification, and the procurement unit of the contractor. In their study,
Gordon et al. (2007) emphasized the deficiencies in construction
control planning and mentioned the necessity of formalism in this
regard. Vo-Tran and Kanjanabootra (2013) addressed the main
causes of information-sharing problems among stakeholders in the
construction inspection stage as follows: (1) multiple roles of stake-
holders that are not clearly defined, (2) different access and avail-
ability of information managing tools, (3) multiple methods of
information recording, (4) coding and storage, and gathering of in-
formation in an ad hoc manner, (5) shortened project timeline,
(6) differences in experiences or knowledge of participants, and
(7) differences in background and document version control.
Problems in the structures of building inspection firms can also
have negative impacts on building inspection mechanisms. The use
of unqualified inspectors who work for lower salaries and a lack of
self-improvement among inspectors negatively affect the building
inspection system (Çelik and Ünal 2017). In many countries, build-
ing inspection activities such as registration and official reports are
more or less paper-based; therefore, it takes a long time to collect
and share information about construction inspection and related
bureaucratic procedures (Ochoa et al. 2011; Valdes and Perdomo
2013). Due to everlasting procedures, building inspection firms
deal with high costs and face difficulties in getting their payments
on time (Sakallı 2008). Delays, which are crucial problems for con-
struction projects, can also be caused by belated inspection proc-
esses and work approvals (Aibinu and Odeyinka 2006; Ogunlana
et al. 1996). In addition, unethical behaviors such as trade relation-
ships and requests that do not comply with designs have bad effects
on inspection services (Yılmaz 2006; Sakallı 2008). Any kind of
deviation from the design during the construction phase causes
undesired loss of life and property.
Building inspection mechanisms are becoming more functional
as a result of developing technologies and new research. Tsai et al.
(2014) expressed the many advantages that Building Information
Modeling (BIM) could bring to construction inspection. Valdes
and Perdomo (2013) emphasized the benefits of portable computers
for inspection processes, especially in highway construction proj-
ects. Akinci et al. (2006) outlined a process of acquiring and up-
dating detailed design information, identifying inspection goals,
inspection planning, as-built data acquisition and analysis, and
defect detection and management. Tsai et al. (2020) proposed a
conversation-based system for supporting assessors in performing
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.
 inspections of existing school buildings. All of these developments
could help to diminish the pandemic’s impacts on building inspec-
tion services. Ribeiro et al. (2020) introduced a new methodology for
the remote inspection of reinforced concrete structures based on ad-
vanced digital image processing by using unmanned aerial vehicles.
Overview of Building Inspection Services Worldwide
The first application related to construction durability in terms of
building inspection originated in Mesopotamia 4,000 years ago,
and the concept of construction durability was mentioned in the
Code of Hammurabi (Karacaoğlu 2005). New quality management
systems and legislations have been adopted throughout the history
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of civilization. Countries have developed different systems depend-
ing on their cultures in building inspection services (Bayraktar
2001). In their study, Tam et al. (2000) determined that culture-based
factors have the most important effects on construction quality.
Fig. 1 shows the types of building inspection structures of vari-
ous countries. Although local administrations mainly deal with
building inspection processes in some countries, this responsibility
is given to insurance companies or inspection firms in other coun-
tries. Moreover, building inspection mechanisms can vary in public
and private projects. As can be seen in Fig. 1, local governments,
freelance inspectors, and insurance companies undertake the build-
ing inspection tasks in Europe, whereas these tasks are mostly car-
ried out by local administrations in Japan, and private-sector
projects are inspected by consulting companies in China. On the

Fig. 1. Building inspection systems worldwide. [Base map produced by the General Directorate of Map (GDM), reprinted with permission.]

© ASCE 04022003-3 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
 other hand, in the US, such inspections are mainly performed by
freelance inspectors and inspection firms. In Turkey, public projects
are inspected by either local authorities alone or supervision firms
hired by the administration. With regard to private projects, build-
ing inspection firms mostly ensure construction quality.
Data and Methodology
This study used a risk matrix method, based on a three-stage sur-
vey, to determine the risks caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Fig. 2
shows the flowchart of the study. Firstly, risk factors were deter-
mined based on the literature review. Next, a survey was conducted
to find the most important factors by using the Relative Index
Method. Afterwards, an interview-based survey was carried out to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
categorized. Twenty factors, listed in Table 1, were determined,
and a survey was formed in line with these factors. The survey was
carried out with the participation of 174 respondents working in the
building industry. The experts included in the survey were selected
from different project types and areas of building engineering
services. At least one question corresponding to each factor in
the survey was prepared in Likert-scale format, in which response
categories were applied in the survey as follows (Allen and Seaman
2007): (1) Strongly agree, (2) Agree, (3) Neutral, (4) Disagree, and
(5) Strongly Disagree. All the experts answered the questions ac-
cording to this format. Approximately 44% of the respondents had
1–5 years of experience, 39% had 6–10 years of experience, and the
remaining 17% had more than 10 years of experience. Approxi-
mately 30% of the respondents were involved in public projects,
and 70% worked for private-sector projects.

analyze the crucial factors, potential cases, and their risks. In ad-
dition, potential measures against such risks were also discussed.
Finally, a risk matrix was composed through a quantitative research
to evaluate the risk scores.
Survey Analysis Using the Relative Importance Index
Method
Firstly, the factors that cause problems in the building inspection
process mentioned in the literature review were identified and
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the study.
The survey results were examined and the importance level of
the factors was determined using the Relative Importance Index
method, which is used for calculating Relative Importance Indices
(RII) for each factor according to the formula as follows (Tikote
et al. 2017; Gündüz et al. 2013; Kometa et al. 1994; Sambasivan
and Soon 2007):
P
W
RII ¼ ð1Þ
ðA × NÞ
where W = weighting given to each factor by the respondents (rang-
ing from 1 to 5); A = highest weight (i.e., 5 in this case); N = total
number of respondents; and the RII value is between 0 and 1.
Five importance levels, namely high (H) (0.8 ≤ RII ≤ 1), high-
medium (HM) (0.6 ≤ RII ≤ 0.8), medium (M) (0.4 ≤ RII ≤ 0.6),
medium-low (ML) (0.2 ≤ RII ≤ 0.4), and low (L) (0 ≤ RII ≤ 0.2),
were transformed from RII values considering the studies of Chen
et al. (2010), Akadiri and Olomolaiye (2012), and Rooshdi et al.
(2018). Table 1 presents the factors, RII values, and importance
levels.
By analyzing Table 1, 6 factors with an RII value bigger than
0.8 were categorized as the main factors of further concern. These
factors were as follows: (1) Careless inspections (CI), (2) Everlast-
ing bureaucracy (EB), (3) Increasing costs of building inspection
processes (IC), (4) Delays in building inspection processes (DI),

Table 1. Survey analysis by using Relative Importance Index method

Rank Factors negatively affecting building inspection services RII Importance levels
1 Careless inspections 0.829885 High
2 Everlasting bureaucracy 0.810345 High
3 Increasing costs of construction inspection processes 0.806897 High
4 Delays in site control visits 0.802299 High
5 Paper-based inspection process 0.801149 High
6 Payment problems 0.800000 High
7 Inadequate control of inspection parties 0.782759 High-medium
8 Lack of qualified inspectors 0.772414 High-medium
9 Late delivery of feedback and control reports 0.771264 High-medium
10 Lack of usage of technological tools during inspection 0.649425 High-medium
11 Unplanned building inspection process 0.713793 High-medium
12 Contractors’ requests on construction not complying with the designs 0.757471 High-medium
13 Poor punishment mechanism 0.713793 High-medium
14 Unethical behaviors and relations 0.694253 High-medium
15 Lack of transparency in decisions and reports 0.670115 High-medium
16 Inadequate number of inspectors responsible for the related project 0.664368 High-medium
17 Problems in information sharing between stakeholders 0.649425 High-medium
18 Lack of documents during building inspection processes 0.629885 High-medium
19 Lack of inspection party’s experience 0.537931 Medium
20 Different knowledge about legislation 0.351724 Medium-low
Note: Bold factors indicate the highest importance levels.

© ASCE 04022003-4 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
 (5) Paper-based inspection processes (PI), and (6) Payment prob-
lems (PB). Twelve factors with a HM importance level were also
taken into consideration for further analysis. The remaining factors,
with M and ML importance levels, were not completely ignored but
were less considered.
Data Collection and Analysis: Survey Based on
Interviews
The factors determined according to the survey analysis can be
considered as the major problems of the building inspection mecha-
nism in Turkey. Therefore, it is more likely that further impacts of
the pandemic will be observed on these issues. However, different
problems may arise due to this phenomenon. In order to highlight
the risks caused by the effects of the pandemic and to analyze the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
factors in more detail, interviews were conducted with 70 profes-
sionals, 48 of whom were building inspection and 22 of whom were
representatives from different construction sectors and building serv-
ices. The vast majority of experts selected for the interviews had
more than 5 years of experience and worked in Istanbul, because
most of the relevant firms are located in this city. However, inter-
views with professionals from various regions were also carried
out to identify crucial cases. Due to the pandemic, all interviews were
conducted via phone call. The six factors were investigated in detail
by focusing on the following six questions:
• What are the main cases of careless inspection during and after
the Covid-19 pandemic and their risks? How has the pandemic
changed your working style (if available, what percentage of site
visits have been shortened, remote inspection tools have been
used, etc.)? What measures can be taken against these risks?
• What are the main cases and their risks related to everlasting
bureaucracy during and after the Covid-19 pandemic? How
has bureaucracy changed (if available, by what percentage
has bureaucracy been simplified, etc.)? What measures can
be taken against these risks?
• What are the main cases and their risks related to the increasing
costs of building inspection processes during and after the
Covid-19 pandemic (if available, by what percentage have costs
increased, etc.)? What measures can be taken against these
risks?
• What are the main cases leading to delays in building inspection
processes during and after the Covid-19 pandemic and their
risks (if available, by what percentage have costs increased,
etc.)? What measures can be taken against these risks?
• What are the main cases and their risks related to the paper-
based inspection process during and after the Covid-19 pan-
demic (if available, what percentage of online applications have
been used in bureaucratic procedures, etc.)? What measures can
be taken against these risks?
• What are the main cases and their risks related to payment prob-
lems during and after the Covid-19 pandemic (if certain advan-
tages have been provided in terms of taxes and payments due to
the outbreak, if available, what is the percentage)? What mea-
sures can be taken against these risks?
Table 2 presents the profile of the interviewees and the outline of
the important data acquired from their answers to the aforemen-
tioned questions. The main cases and their determined risks are
given in Table 3.
According to the analysis of the interviews, the crucial findings
were as follows:
• Forty-three out of 48 (90%) building inspection firms had ben-
efited from tax advantages. Tax advantages were limited only to
the extension date of tax payments. Expected tax reductions
have not been made in broad strokes. Eighteen firms stated that
© ASCE 04022003-5
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
they had benefited from an average of 24.67% of the alleged tax
advantage.
• Thirty-four out of 70 professionals stated that remote inspection
methods had been used. According to 22 experts providing
more accurate information, an average of 34.09% of the inspec-
tions were conducted via remote inspection methods. Among
these, video calls and inspections based on presented photos
were commonly used. According to the majority of experts, re-
mote inspection is not sufficient to ensure the required safety. It
was observed that remote control methods were not commonly
used in large-scale projects, but were frequently used in rela-
tively low-budget projects. Although some firms preferred to
perform important inspections with onsite control and small cor-
rections by remote control, other firms preferred to carry out
most of the inspections through remote methods, such as video
calls and photo analysis. The better part of the interviewees
emphasized that remote control has serious risks. Due to the
pandemic, there has been a shortage of transportation to sites
located in some quarantine regions. For this reason, mostly re-
mote control inspections have been carried out.
• Only 16 out of 70 firms (23%) reported simplifications in their
bureaucratic procedures. Fourteen firms stated that there was a
29.64% simplification in bureaucratic transactions on average.
It was observed that there was no simplification in bureaucratic
procedures at all. In fact, some firms stated that certain admin-
istrations applied additional procedures due to the pandemic.
• Forty-nine firms, constituting 70% of the those involved, stated
that there have always been delays in building inspection proc-
esses. According to the information provided by 33 firms, on
average, 31.67% of any handled inspection process has various
delays. The most important cause of the delays stemmed from
municipalities. Due to the pandemic, many municipalities sig-
nificantly reduced their workforce. This has caused significant
problems in transactions. Another reason was disruptions in
transportation due to the pandemic.
• Fifty-nine out of 70 firms (84%) said that they shortened their
site visits. According to 37 firms that provided more detailed
information, there was an average of 37.84% shortening in site
visits. The most important reasons for such shortenings are as
follows: (1) less workload on construction sites due to the pan-
demic and the use of remote inspection methods, (2) skipping
ordinary conversations and coffee tea breaks, and (3) the desire
to perform inspections as quickly as possible.
• Forty-eight firms (49%) emphasized that online tools had been
used in bureaucratic transactions. According to 26 experts, ap-
proximately 50% of these transactions had been carried out via
online tools. The experts said that although this rate was very
high and that the use of online tools has sped up processes, this
did not considerably simplify the bureaucracy because of the
high number of procedures. On the other hand, this usage has
minimized paper-based work, which, in turn, has helped to mit-
igate the spread of the pandemic.
• The majority of firms stated that they had had financial difficul-
ties due to the pandemic. Due to the recession in the construc-
tion sector, building inspection firms either could not get their
progress payments or received those payments too late. In ad-
dition, delays due to the municipalities and the lack of state sup-
port had been the main concern of these firms.
Considering all these findings, the major factors obtained from
the quantitative survey analysis were discussed as follows:
1. Careless inspections: This was one of the most significant dan-
gers encountered during the pandemic. The study showed that
many building inspection companies shortened their site visits
and used remote control methods, which hinders detailed
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.
 © ASCE

Table 2. Analysis of interviews

Distance Simplification of Delays in inspection Shortening of Online tools in
Tax advantages inspection bureaucracy processes site visits bureaucracy
Available (+) Available (+) Available (+) Available (+) Available (+) Available (+)
or not If given, or not If given, or not If given, or not If given, or not If given, or not If given,
Number Profile of the interviewees available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1 Civil engineer in a building − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + N/A + N/A

inspection firm in Istanbul
2 Civil engineer in a building − N/A + 80 − N/A + N/A + N/A − N/A
inspection firm in Istanbul
3 Representative of a building + N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + N/A + N/A
inspection firm in Eastern
Anatolian Region
4 Inspector in a building inspection − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + N/A + N/A
firm in Eastern Anatolian Region
5 Owner of a construction and − N/A + N/A − N/A + N/A − N/A − N/A
architectural firm in Istanbul
6 Representative of a building + 10 − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + N/A
inspection firm in Istanbul
7 Civil engineer in a building − N/A − N/A − N/A + 10 + 20 N/A N/A
inspection firm in Istanbul
8 Engineer in a in a building − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + 30 + 80
inspection firm in Istanbul
−
04022003-6

9 Representative of a building + 30 + 20 + 20 + 20 + 20 N/A

inspection firm in Eastern
Anatolian Region
10 Owner of a construction and − N/A − N/A − N/A + 30 + 35 − N/A
architectural firm in Istanbul
11 Representative of a building + 30 + 20 + 25 − N/A + 40 + 70
inspection firm in Istanbul
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

12 Engineer in a building inspection − N/A + 45 + 30 − N/A + 50 + N/A

firm in Istanbul
13 Site chief in a building inspection + N/A − N/A + 5 + 30 + 50 + 80
firm in Southeast Anatolian Region
14 Site chief in a construction firm in + N/A − N/A − N/A + 30 + 30 + 20
Aegean Region
15 Inspector in a building inspection + 20 − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + N/A
firm in Marmara Region
16 Site chief in a construction firm in − N/A − N/A + N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A
Istanbul
17 Owner of a building inspection firm + N/A + N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A − N/A
in Black Sea Region
18 Manager at a building inspection − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A − N/A
firm in Southeast Anatolian Region
19 Representative of a building + 10 + 10 − N/A + N/A + 50 + 50
inspection firm in Istanbul
20 Manager at a building inspection − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A + 50
firm in Marmara Region
21 Owner of a building inspection firm − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
 © ASCE

Table 2. (Continued.)
Distance Simplification of Delays in inspection Shortening of Online tools in
Tax advantages inspection bureaucracy processes site visits bureaucracy
Available (+) Available (+) Available (+) Available (+) Available (+) Available (+)
or not If given, or not If given, or not If given, or not If given, or not If given, or not If given,
Number Profile of the interviewees available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

22 Representative of a building + N/A + 25 + 10 + 20 + 50 + 15

inspection firm in Central
Anatolian Region
23 Representative of a building + N/A + 35 − N/A + 40 + 40 − N/A
inspection firm in Istanbul
24 Manager at a construction firm in + N/A − N/A − N/A + 45 + 35 + 85
Istanbul
25 Civil engineer in a construction + N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A
firm in Istanbul
26 Representative of a building − N/A + 30 − N/A + 20 + 30 + 65
inspection firm in Southeast
Anatolian Region
27 Civil engineer in a building + N/A + N/A − N/A + 35 + N/A + N/A
inspection firm in Black Sea
Region
28 Representative of a construction + N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + N/A
firm
−
04022003-7

29 Representative of a construction + N/A + N/A N/A + 20 + 30 + 40

firm in Eastern Anatolian Region
30 Administrator in a building − N/A + 35 − N/A − N/A + N/A − N/A
inspection firm in Istanbul
31 Owner of building inspection firm − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + N/A − N/A
in Eastern Anatolian Region
32 Administrator in a building − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A − N/A − N/A
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

inspection firm in Istanbul

33 Technician in a building inspection − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A − N/A − N/A
firm in Ankara
34 Civil engineer in a building + 50 − N/A + 50 + 40 + 50 + 100
inspection firm in Istanbul
35 Owner of a building inspection firm − N/A + 10 + 70 + 10 + 50 + 60
in Black Sea Region
36 Owner of a construction firm in + N/A − N/A + 60 + 40 + 20 + 20
Eastern Anatolian Region
37 Representative of a building + N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A + 20 + 10
inspection firm in Istanbul
38 Control engineer in a building + 30 + 20 + 25 − N/A + 40 + 70
inspection firm in Central
Anatolian Region
39 Site chief in a construction firm in + N/A + 25 − N/A − N/A + 20 + N/A
Marmara Region
40 Inspector in building inspection − N/A − N/A + 10 + 20 + 10 + 20
firm in Marmara Region
41 Manager at a construction firm + N/A − N/A + 50 + 25 + 20 + 70
42 Administrator in a building + N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + 20 + N/A
inspection firm

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
 © ASCE

Table 2. (Continued.)
Distance Simplification of Delays in inspection Shortening of Online tools in
Tax advantages inspection bureaucracy processes site visits bureaucracy
Available (+) Available (+) Available (+) Available (+) Available (+) Available (+)
or not If given, or not If given, or not If given, or not If given, or not If given, or not If given,
Number Profile of the interviewees available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

43 Civil engineer in a construction + N/A + N/A − N/A + 35 + 50 − N/A

firm in Ankara
44 Representative of a building + 10 − N/A − N/A − N/A + 30 − N/A
inspection firm
45 Representative of a building + N/A + N/A − N/A + 10 + N/A + 30
inspection firm in the
Mediterranean Region
46 Representative of a building + N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + N/A + N/A
inspection firm in Istanbul
47 Representative of a building + 25 + 40 − N/A + 30 + 50 + 40
inspection firm in Istanbul
48 Representative of a building − N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A + N/A − N/A
inspection firm in Istanbul
49 Representative of a construction + N/A + N/A − N/A − N/A + 50 + 50
firm in Istanbul
50 Civil engineer in a building + N/A + N/A − N/A + 20 + N/A − N/A
inspection firm in Marmara Region
− −
04022003-8

51 Representative of a building + N/A N/A N/A + N/A + N/A + N/A

inspection firm
52 Civil engineer in a building + N/A + 80 − N/A + 50 − N/A + N/A
inspection firm
53 Technician in a building inspection + N/A + N/A − N/A + 20 + N/A + N/A
firm
54 Technician in a building inspection + 25 − N/A − N/A + 20 + 35 + 70
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

firm
55 Representative of a construction − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A − N/A + 75
firm in Central Anatolian Region
56 Civil engineer in a building + N/A + N/A − N/A + 35 + 10 − N/A
inspection firm in Central
Anatolian Region
57 Representative in a building + 50 + 60 + 20 + 70 + 80 + N/A
inspection firm in the
Mediterranean Region
58 Civil engineer in a building + N/A + 70 + N/A + 50 + 90 + N/A
inspection firm in Istanbul
59 Owner of a building inspection firm + 50 + 70 + 25 + 50 + 80 − N/A
in Southeast Anatolian Region
60 Civil engineer in a building + N/A + N/A − N/A − N/A + N/A − N/A
inspection firm in Southeast
Anatolian Region
61 Owner of a construction firm in + N/A − N/A − N/A + 50 + 20 + 30
Black Sea Region
62 Civil engineer in a building + 10 + 10 − N/A + 30 + 50 + 50
inspection firm in Istanbul

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
 available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage available (−) percentage
If given,
inspection. The possible impacts of careless inspections are

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
35

25
quite serious. Any deviation from a design may cause a collapse
Online tools in
bureaucracy
that could lead to the loss of many lives and properties during an
earthquake. In addition, crucial defects may be encountered in
Available (+) building services.
or not 2. Everlasting bureaucracy: According to the experts, bureaucratic

−
+

+
procedures, the majority of which are dealt with by municipal-
ities, take quite a long time to complete. During the pandemic,
although some municipalities started to simplify their bureau-
If given,

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
cratic tasks, most of them did not. On the contrary, as the number

50

30

15
Shortening of

of employees in municipalities decreased and/or additional pro-

site visits

cedures were added due to the pandemic, the duration of bureau-

Available (+)

cratic procedures increased in many authorities. This is the main

or not

reason for most of the delays in building inspection processes.

−

−
+

+
3. Increasing costs of building inspection processes: Many build-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ing inspection companies experienced economic problems due

to the pandemic. Factors such as the additional costs of personal
If given,

protection materials, tax responsibilities, and other increasing

Delays in inspection

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
75

15

20

30
direct and indirect costs are the main reasons for this situation,
processes

which affects the motivation of employers and employees and

can cause careless inspections and a loss of performance.
Available (+)

4. Delays in building inspection processes: Another issue that the

or not

+
experts highlighted is a decrease in the number of people work-
ing in inspection mechanisms due to the pandemic. Elderly peo-
ple over the age of 65 and those with a chronic disease have not
been employed due to potential risks. In addition, delays have
If given,

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

been caused by curfews and travel restrictions. Any delay in the

15
Simplification of
bureaucracy

inspection process means a delay in the related construction

project. This can also lead to a decrease in employee perfor-
Available (+)

mance based on motivation.

or not

5. Paper-based inspection process: Basically, a paper-based in-

−

−
+

spection mechanism extends all the tasks within the inspection

process. More dangerously, the novel coronavirus can remain on
paper surfaces. According to the study of Van Doremalen et al.
If given,

(2020), viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured on cardboard for up

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
15

15

15

20

to 24 h. A paper-based inspection system poses a serious danger

inspection
Distance

for the spread of the pandemic. Although many online tools

Available (+)

have been actively used, paper-based applications and proce-

dures requiring face-to-face meetings have been used in many
or not

regions. This is also a big danger in terms of promoting a faster

spread of the coronavirus.
6. Payment problems: Decreasing revenues due to cessation of
If given,

many construction projects have significantly affected inspec-

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A
10

10

tion companies. In addition, many firms emphasized that they

Tax advantages

either could not get their payments or got them very late. The
experts said that although some tax advantages have been intro-
Available (+)

duced, such as an extension of payment dates, expected tax re-

or not

ductions, in general, were not present. All of these factors may

−

−
+

cause firms to experience financial problems, including bank-

ruptcy. This situation could also cause employers to lose moti-
Site chief in a construction firm in

vation, which may lead to careless inspections.

Representative of a construction

Civil engineer of a construction

Profile of the interviewees

Representative of a building

Representative of a building

Representative of a building
inspection firm in Southeast
Civil engineer in a building

Civil engineer in a building

inspection firm in Istanbul

inspection firm in Istanbul

inspection firm in Istanbul

Formation of Risk Assessment Matrix

firm in Marmara Region
inspection firm in Izmir

After the analysis of the interview-based survey, 12 potential cases

based on six risk factors and their risk scores were determined as
Anatolian Region
firm in Istanbul

identified in Table 3. Then, using the findings, a risk assessment

Table 2. (Continued.)

matrix was formed as shown in Fig. 3. A risk matrix is basically

used to define and evaluate the level and acceptability of risk by
Istanbul

considering the degree of likelihood against the degree of conse-

quence severity during the risk assessment (Talbot 2017; Özkiliç
2005). An L-type risk matrix, which involves a 5 × 5 matrix show-
Number

ing the relations of impacts and probabilities within the risk element,
63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

is presented as in Fig. 3, and the risk score was calculated according

© ASCE 04022003-9 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
 Table 3. Potential cases and their risk scores
Degree of Degree of Risk
Factors Case Risk consequence likelihood score
CI-1 Careless inspections resulting from Poor-quality buildings, crucial structural 5 3 15
shortening site visits defects μ ¼ 4.63 μ ¼ 2.91
σ ¼ 0.66 σ ¼ 1.25
CI-2 Careless inspections resulting from Poor-quality buildings, crucial structural 5 2 10
insufficient remote controls defects μ ¼ 4.58 μ ¼ 2.24
σ ¼ 0.76 σ ¼ 1.10
EB-1 Everlasting bureaucracy due to decreasing Delays in project schedule, decrease in 3 4 12
number of employees in authoritative employee performance based on μ ¼ 3.37 μ ¼ 3.79
institutions and shortening of working motivation σ ¼ 1.04 σ ¼ 1.03
hours
EB-2 Everlasting bureaucracy due to additional Delays in project schedule, decrease in 3 4 12
steps applied by authorities employee performance based on μ ¼ 3.34 μ ¼ 3.67
motivation σ ¼ 1.10 σ ¼ 0.93
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

IC-1 Additional costs of protective equipment Financial problems, belated salary 3 3 9

and other obligatory pandemic procedures payments, decrease in employee μ ¼ 3.04 μ ¼ 2.95
performance based on motivation σ ¼ 1.25 σ ¼ 1.09
IC-2 Increasing direct costs under pandemic Financial problems, belated salary 3 4 12
circumstances payments, decrease in employee μ ¼ 3.18 μ ¼ 3.58
performance based on motivation σ ¼ 1.07 σ ¼ 1.02
DI-1 Delays due to decreasing number of Delays in project schedule, decrease in 3 3 9
employees in inspection firms employee performance based on μ ¼ 3.39 μ ¼ 3.35
motivation σ ¼ 1.07 σ ¼ 1.02
DI-2 Delays due to shortening of working hours Delays in project schedule, decrease in 3 3 9
and curfew restrictions employee performance based on μ ¼ 3.37 μ ¼ 3.38
motivation σ ¼ 1.04 σ ¼ 0.97
PI-1 Paper and wet ink signature-based Faster spread of the pandemic among 4 3 12
documentation employees μ ¼ 3.37 μ ¼ 3.38
σ ¼ 1.04 σ ¼ 0.97
PI-2 Signature procedure needing face-to-face Faster spread of the pandemic among 4 3 12
meetings employees μ ¼ 3.37 μ ¼ 3.38
σ ¼ 1.04 σ ¼ 0.97
PB-1 Payment problems due to financial Crucial financial problems, bankruptcy, 4 3 12
difficulties of the employers inability to pay salaries, drastic decrease in μ ¼ 3.52 μ ¼ 3.13
employee performance based on σ ¼ 1.14 σ ¼ 1.16
motivation
PB-2 Payment problems due to everlasting Crucial financial problems, bankruptcy, 4 3 12
procedures inability to pay salaries, drastic decrease in μ ¼ 4.06 μ ¼ 3.34
employee performance based on σ ¼ 0.91 σ ¼ 1.02
motivation

to the following equation (Talbot 2017; Özkiliç 2005; Ceylan and

Başhelvacı 2011):
Risk score ¼ Degree of likelihood × Degree of consequence ð2Þ

Degree of likelihood and Degree of consequence were deter-

mined as a result of a quantitative survey of 128 construction in-
spection experts. According to this survey, the mean (μ) and
standard deviation (σ) values of degree levels based on expert scor-
ing were calculated. In forming a risk assessment matrix, the pre-
cise calculated mean values were converted into rounded values and
the risk scores were found.

Results and Recommendations

Table 3 clearly presents the cases, their risk scores, and statistical
details. Considering the studies of Selçuk and Selim (2018),
Soykan (2018), and Koltan et al. (2015); the following points
can be made:
• If a case is in the range of the high level, crucial immediate mea-
sures should be taken as soon as possible and a considerable
Fig. 3. Risk assessment matrix.
number of resources should be allocated to minimize risks.

© ASCE 04022003-10 ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.

ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
 • If a case is in the range of the medium level, actions should be
taken in a very short time, and long-term measures must be
applied by considering costs.
The case of careless inspections due to the shortening of site
visits has the highest risk score, as can be seen in Table 3. Because
this case is in the range of the high-level risk category, immediate
strict measures are crucial for avoiding undesired consequences
such as poor-quality buildings and heavy losses during a potential
earthquake. Although other cases are in the range of the medium-
level risk category, a combination of such cases can be much
riskier. Therefore, measures should also be taken as soon as pos-
sible to minimize the impacts of the mentioned threats. Careless
inspections due to both the shortening of site visits and unreliable
remote control can be much more dangerous. Similarly, everlasting
paper-based bureaucracy may result in the spread of pandemic and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a decrease in performance based on motivation, resulting in care-
less inspections. Due to increasing costs, delays, and belated pay-
ments, inspection firms may carry direct risks, such as crucial
financial problems, failure to pay salaries, and bankruptcy, and
indirect risks causing careless inspection due to the loss of perfor-
mance based on motivation.
Some measures classified according to risk factors are as
follows:
1. Measures against careless inspections:
• At construction sites, many decisions are made regarding re-
sources, money, machinery/equipment, and materials (Dikmen
et al. 2011). Although site planning is carried out considering
all of these factors, the site program should be revised upon
requirement of the least number of site visits of inspection ac-
tivities. This enables inspectors move very effectively during
inspections.
• If a remote control mechanism must be used, then more pre-
cise Global Positioning System (GPS)-based measurement
devices should be preferred in addition to classical methods,
such as video calls and photo analysis.
• BIM, a leading factor in increasing production and efficiency
in the construction sector (Tekin and Atabay 2019), should
be used more often to ensure a lower need for site visits, re-
liable control, and better cooperation among stakeholders.
Construction quality applications based on BIM are benefi-
cial in quality compliance management (Chen and Luo
2014).
• Sensing technologies and integrated project models should
be used to ensure active quality control (Akinci et al. 2006).
• Standards regarding the use of technological tools and
remote systems should be developed. Remote inspection
services should be under the control of related authorities.
• Municipality/private sector/university collaborations should
be encouraged to realize technological uses in online systems
and onsite inspections that will ease building inspection mech-
anisms. Training should be commonly organized to provide
information access. Regions that lack online applications
should be prioritized.
2. Measures against everlasting bureaucracy:
• Simplifications should be made to shorten bureaucratic
procedures.
• The use of online systems should be encouraged as much as
possible.
• Thanks to the internet, web-based information management
solutions have facilitated information sharing (Wang 2008).
When authorities implement online systems in different
ways, they complicate the adaptation of building inspection
firms. Online systems should be standardized by the admin-
istrations and necessary training should be provided.
© ASCE 04022003-11
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
• Effective employment and distance working should be en-
couraged in municipalities and other authorities to reduce
bureaucracy.
• Shorter means of enabling contractors to access the reports
after the control should be preferred and bureaucratic steps
should be minimized. Transparency should be guaranteed in
all circumstances.
3. Measures against increasing costs of building inspection
processes:
• Inspection payments should be revised in case of unexpected
additional costs due to force majeure, or other factors.
• Authorities should introduce tax incentives and other
advantages.
• The effective use of equipment, machinery, and vehicles
should be encouraged to minimize costs.
4. Measures against delays in building inspection processes:
• Building inspection plans should be well prepared before site
visits to ensure effective inspection. In order to avoid delays in
construction projects, it is necessary to determine the project
route by taking measures in advance (Kazan and Yılmaz
2019). Checklists that can measure either products or proc-
esses during construction (Samuels 2000) should always be
used for better planning.
• Inspection can also be carried out either after working hours
or in the presence of only a few workers onsite.
• Uncrewed vehicles, such as robots and drones, should be
developed specifically for the use of building inspections.
5. Measures against paper-based inspection process:
• In order to minimize paper-based transactions, electronic
document management systems should be encouraged.
• Instead of paper-based documents, mobile phone and tablet
applications should be introduced, and electronic signatures
should be preferred.
• Online meetings should be preferred.
• Inspectors and other staff should pay utmost attention to the
use of protective equipment and follow social distance and
hygiene rules during face-to-face meetings when obtaining
signatures for formal paper-based bureaucracy. This should
be strictly controlled.
• Vaccination should be encouraged among all inspection
stakeholders, staff, and employees.
• Various sanctions should be applied to inspection companies
that do not comply with the rules and plans. These should be
ruled by local and national-level authorities.
6. Measures against payment problems:
• Tax reductions and exemptions that can reduce the financial
burden of building inspection companies should be applied.
• Payments should be strictly controlled by local authorities,
and unethical behaviours should be punished.
• The authorities should consider financial supports and
incentives.
• In order to ko keep motivation at a high level, personal rights
should be guaranteed in all circumstances. Inspection tasks
require significant care, and missing any point can cause
undesired consequences.
• Advantageous loan opportunities should be introduced.
Conclusion
The safety of buildings is directly linked to the quality control
mechanism of the building life cycle. In order to realize quality as-
surance, it is necessary to perform a careful inspection with the help
of a reliable and dynamic system and qualified staff. Furthermore,
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.
 ensuring a competitive building inspection mechanism that can han-
dle any challenge in any circumstances is a must for ensuring durable
structures and well-functioning building services. Although different
stakeholders are responsible for the inspection tasks in various coun-
tries, the major problems are very similar worldwide. In many coun-
tries, building inspection firms control building quality by visiting
sites and follow bureaucratic steps. Due to the pandemic, risks are
higher in this service and, immediate measures should be taken. In
order to determine applicable measures, risks should be analyzed in
detail.
In this study, firstly, a quantitative study based on a survey was
performed. The questions were determined after a literature review,
with which enabled the factors concerned were emphasized. In
total, 174 respondents participated in this study. Afterwards, a sur-
vey based on phone interviews with 70 experts was conducted to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
identify the main factors carrying high risks during the pandemic.
These main factors were evaluated within a risk assessment matrix,
and the potential cases and their risk scores were calculated as a
result of a survey carried out with 128 construction experts. All
survey participants worked in the Turkish construction industry.
It was observed that major risks are caused by careless inspec-
tion. Other risks were based on everlasting bureaucracy, increasing
costs, a paper-based inspection process, delays, and payment prob-
lems. In order to diminish the impacts of potential risks, measures
should be taken as soon as possible. The leading precautions should
be determined with the aim of reducing careless inspection due to
unreliable methods, which are caused mainly by the shortening of
site visits and by remote inspection. In addition, measures to reduce
everlasting paper-based bureaucratic tasks should be considered. In
this sense, the cooperation of various stakeholders should be encour-
aged under the supervision of public bodies. All steps against the
pandemic should be taken into consideration in accordance with
technology. Financial issues should also be considered to ensure staff
motivation. In order to minimize the time spent onsite, avoid delays
and conduct accurate inspections with fewer staff, technology-based
opportunities should be reviewed. BIM, sensor technologies, un-
crewed vehicles, and other technological tools should always be
considered.
The Covid-19 pandemic is not the only obstacle faced by the
future of the building industry. It should be noted that the changing
climate may increase the frequency or intensity of natural hazards,
resulting in increased infrastructure damage (Stewart and Deng
2015). In order to prepare for new phenomena in the post-pandemic
era in terms of ensuring safety and better building services world-
wide, new technologies and unique models should be planned and
developed with the help of new research initiated with the partici-
pation of various stakeholders. In order to ensure building quality,
which is of utmost importance for creating safe buildings in this
period, the negative impacts of the pandemic on building inspection
services should be minimized. By highlighting possible immediate
actions to be taken during the outbreak, this study aimed to help
prevent negative effects on building inspection systems, which is
crucial for safety and effective building services.
Data Availability Statement
No data, models, or code were generated or used in this study.
References
Abas, M., S. B. Khattak, I. Hussain, S. Maqsood, and I. Ahmad. 2015.
Evaluation of factors affecting the quality of construction projects.
Taxila, Pakistan: Univ. of Engineering and Technology.
© ASCE 04022003-12
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
Aibinu, A. A., and H. A. Odeyinka. 2006. “Construction delays and their
causative factors in Nigeria.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (7):
667–677. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:7(667).
Akadiri, P. O., and P. O. Olomolaiye. 2012. “Development of sustainable
assessment criteria for building materials selection.” Eng. Constr.
Archit. Manage. 2012 (Nov): 9. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981211
277568/full/html.
Akinci, B., F. Boukamp, C. Gordon, D. Huber, C. Lyons, and K. Park.
2006. “A formalism for utilization of sensor systems and integrated
project models for active construction quality control.” Autom. Constr.
15 (2): 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2005.01.008.
Allen, I. E., and C. A. Seaman. 2007. “Likert scales and data analyses.”
Qual. Prog. 40 (7): 64–65.
Alsharef, A., S. Banerjee, S. M. Uddin, A. Albert, and E. Jaselskis. 2021.
“Early impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States con-
struction industry.” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (4): 1559.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041559.
ASCE. 2020. “ASCE survey: COVID-19 continues to cloud industry
future.” Accessed June 24, 2021. https://source.asce.org/asce-survey
-covid-19-continues-to-cloud-industry-future/.
Assaad, R., and I. H. El-adaway. 2021. “Guidelines for responding to
COVID-19 pandemic: Best practices, impacts, and future research
directions.” J. Manage. Eng. 37 (3): 06021001. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000906.
Ayittey, F. K., M. K. Ayittey, N. B. Chiwero, J. S. Kamasah, and C. Dzuvor.
2020. “Economic impacts of Wuhan 2019-nCoV on China and the
world.” J. Med. Virol. 92 (5): 473–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv
.25706.
Bae, J., and S. Han. 2021. “Vision-based inspection approach using
a projector-camera system for off-site quality control in modular
construction: Experimental investigation on operational conditions.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 35 (5): 04021012. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000978.
Battikha, M. G. 2003. “Quality management practice in highway construc-
tion.” Int. J. Q. Reliab. Manage. 2003 (Jul): 1. https://doi.org/10.1108
/02656710310476516/full/html.
Bayraktar, S. 2001. “Yapı Denetiminin Dünyadaki Uygulamaları ve
Türkiye’deki Gelişim Süreci.” Doctoral dissertation, Instıtute of Science
and Technology, Istanbul Technical Univ.
Bortolini, R., and N. Forcada. 2020. “Analysis of building maintenance
requests using a text mining approach: Building services evaluation.”
Build. Res. Inf. 48 (2): 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218
.2019.1609291.
Çelik, G. T., and C. Ünal. 2017. “Yapı Denetim Firmalarının Sorunlarının
Belirlenmesi ve Adana Örneği” [Determination of problems in building
inspection companies and the Adana example]. Çukurova Üniversitesi
Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 32 (4): 71–78.
Ceylan, H., and V. S. Başhelvacı. 2011. “Risk değerlendirme tablosu
yöntemi ile risk analizi: Bir uygulama” [Risk analysis with risk assess-
ment table method: An application]. Uluslararası Mühendislik
Araştırma Ve Geliştirme Dergisi 3 (2): 25–33.
Chen, L., and H. Luo. 2014. “A BIM-based construction quality manage-
ment model and its applications.” Autom. Constr. 46 (Oct): 64–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.009.
Chen, Y., G. E. Okudan, and D. R. Riley. 2010. “Sustainable performance
criteria for construction method selection in concrete buildings.” Autom.
Constr. 19 (2): 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2009.10.004.
CNN Türk. 2020. “10 günde inşa edildi: İşte Çin'in 'koronavirüs hasta-
nesi” [Built in 10 days: Here is China's 'coronavirus hospital].
Accessed July 10, 2020. https://www.cnnturk.com/dunya/10-gunde
-insa-edildi-iste-cinin-koronavirus-hastanesi?page=2.
Denny-Smith, G., R. Y. Sunindijo, M. Loosemore, M. Williams, and L.
Piggott. 2021. “How construction employment can create social value
and assist recovery from COVID-19.” Sustainability 13 (2): 988. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13020988.
Dikmen, S. Ü., R. Akbıyıklı, O. Aytekin, and S. Baradan. 2011. “İş ve yapı
denetim yasalarının iş sağlığı ve güvenliği açısından bütünleşik incelen-
mesi” [Evaluation of labor and construction supervision laws with
respect to occupational health and safety]. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üni-
versitesi Mühendislik ve Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 24 (2): 117–132.
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.
 Erdiş, E. 2012. “Yapi Denetim Sürecinde Karşilaşilan Sorunlar Ve Çözüm
Önerileri” [Problems and solution suggestions In construction inspec-
tion process]. Eng. Sci. 7 (1): 291–298.
Foroughi, S. 2021. “Characteristics analysis of the Iranian architectural
patterns in modern spaces planed housing buildings.” In Proc.,
4th Int. Conf. on Architecture, Arts and Applications ICONFAAA.
Moscow: Russian Academy of Arts.
GDM (General Directorate of Mapping). 2020. “Türkiye’nin Üyesi Olduğu
Teşkılatlar Atlası.” [In Turkish.] Accessed July 5, 2020. https://www
.harita.gov.tr/urunler/indirilebilir-urunler/14.
Gelernter, M. 2001. A history of American architecture: Buildings in their
cultural and technological context. Lebanon, NH: University Press of
New England.
Gordon, C., B. Akinci, and J. H. Garrett. 2007. “Formalism for construction
inspection planning: Requirements and process concept.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 21 (1): 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(2007)21:1(29).
Gulzar, S., Y. Richard Kim, C. Castorena, and B. Shane Underwood. 2021.
“COVID-19, uncertainty, and the need for resilience-based thinking in
pavement engineering.” J. Transp. Eng. Part B Pavements 147 (1):
02520001. https://doi.org/10.1061/JPEODX.0000235.
Gündüz, M., Y. Nielsen, and M. Özdemir. 2013. “Quantification of delay
factors using the relative importance index method for construction
projects in Turkey.” J. Manage. Eng. 29 (2): 133–139.
Hacıbaloğlu, D. 2003. “Building inspection in Turkey.” Master’s thesis,
Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Middle East
Technical Univ.
Hayter, A. J., and K. L. Tsui. 1994. “Identification and quantification in
multivariate quality control problems.” J. Qual. Technol. 26 (3):
197–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224065.1994.11979526.
Iqbal, M., N. Ahmad, M. Waqas, and M. Abrar. 2021. “COVID-19
pandemic and construction industry: Impacts, emerging construction
safety practices, and proposed crisis management.” Braz. J. Oper. Prod.
Manage. 18 (2): 1–17.
Karacaoğlu, Ö. 2005. “Dünyada ve Türkiye’de yapı denetim sistemleri ile
sigorta uygulamaları” [Building control systems and insurance applica-
tions in the world and in Turkey]. Master’s thesis, Institute of Banking
and Insurance, Marmara Univ.
Kazan, E., and İ. C. Yılmaz. 2019. “Discovering hidden patterns in Turkish
construction projects delays related to project characteristic.” J. Sustain-
able Constr. Mater. Technol. 4 (2): 372–378. https://doi.org/10.29187
/jscmt.2019.41.
Ko, C. H., and S. C. Li. 2014. “Enhancing submittal review and construc-
tion inspection in public projects.” Autom. Constr. 44 (Aug): 33–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.03.027.
Koh, D. 2020. “Occupational risks for COVID-19 infection.” Occup. Med.
70 (1): 3. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqaa036.
Koltan, A., H. Y. Orhon, S. Yılmaz, M. Altay, S. Yılmaz, and İ. Çay. 2015.
“Risk Değerlendirmede Kullanilan L Tipi Karar Matrisi Yönteminin
Işçi Sağliğina Uygunluğunun Değerlendirilmesi” [Evaluation of the
suitability of the L-type decision matrix method used in risk assessment
to occupational health]. Mesleki Sağlık ve Güvenlik Dergisi 10 (38).
Kometa, S. T., P. O. Olomolaiye, and F. C. Harris. 1994. “Attributes of UK
construction clients influencing project consultants’ performance.”
Construct. Manage. Econ. 12 (5): 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01446199400000053.
Kural, R., and O. Ünal. 2015. “İnşaat sektöründe yapı denetimi ve Afyon-
karahisar ilindeki uygulamaların araştırılması” [Investigation of the ap-
plications in Afyonkarahisar Province and the building inspection in
construction sector]. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik
Bilimleri Dergisi 15 (3): 1–10.
Liu, D., X. Xia, J. Chen, and S. Li. 2021. “Integrating building information
model and augmented reality for drone-based building inspection.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 35 (2): 04020073. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CP.1943-5487.0000958.
Marino, M. 2020. “Re-writing modern buildings. Conservative transforma-
tion of Convitto and regeneration of Società Umanitaria.” [In Turkish.]
Master’s thesis, School of Architecture Urban Planning Construction
Engineering, Polytechnic Univ. of Milan.
© ASCE 04022003-13
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
McDonald, M., S. Mahadevan, J. Ambrosiano, and D. Powell. 2018. “Risk-
based policy optimization for critical infrastructure resilience against a
pandemic influenza outbreak.” J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. Part A:
Civ. Eng. 4 (2): 04018007. https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000942.
Merritt, F. S., and J. T. Ricketts. 2001. Building design and construction
handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ochoa, S. F., G. Bravo, J. A. Pino, and J. Rodríguez-Covili. 2011.
“Coordinating loosely-coupled work in construction inspection
activities.” Group Decis. Negotiation 20 (1): 39–56.
Ogunlana, S. O., K. Promkuntong, and V. Jearkjirm. 1996. “Construction
delays in a fast-growing economy: Comparing Thailand with other
economies.” Int. J. Project Manage. 14 (1): 37–45. https://doi.org/10
.1016/0263-7863(95)00052-6.
Özkan, G. 2005. “Türkiye’de yapı denetim sistemi ile ilgili yaklaşımlar,
Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü” [Approaches re-
lated to building inspection systems in Turkey]. Doctoral dissertation,
Graduate School of Sceince and Engineering, Yıldız Technical Univ.
Özkiliç, Ö. 2005. İş Sağliği ve Güvenliği, Yönetim Sistemleri ve Risk
Değerlendirme Metodolojileri [Occupational health and safety, man-
agement systems and risk assessment methodologies]. Ankara, Turkey:
TİSK Yayınları.
Pamidimukkala, A., S. Kermanshachi, and T. Jahan Nipa. 2021. “Impacts of
COVID-19 on health and safety of workforce in construction industry.” In
Proc., Int. Conf. on Transportation and Development 2021, 418–430.
Reston, VA: Transportation & Development Institute of ASCE.
Pirzadeh, P., and H. Lingard. 2021. “Working from home during the
COVID-19 pandemic: Health and well-being of project-based construc-
tion workers.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 147 (6): 04021048. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002102.
Ribeiro, D., R. Santos, A. Shibasaki, P. Montenegro, H. Carvalho, and R.
Calçada. 2020. “Remote inspection of RC structures using unmanned
aerial vehicles and heuristic image processing.” Eng. Fail. Anal.
117 (Apr): 104813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104813.
Rooshdi, R. R. R. M., M. Z. A. Majid, S. R. Sahamir, and N. A. A. Ismail.
2018. “Relative importance index of sustainable design and construc-
tion activities criteria for green highway.” Chem. Eng. Trans. 63 (May):
151–156.
Rouhanizadeh, B., and S. Kermanshachi. 2020. “Challenges and
strategies incorporated with transportation construction inspection.”
In Proc., Construction Research Congress 2020: Project Manage-
ment and Controls, Materials, and Contracts, 446–454. Reston,
VA: ASCE.
Sakallı, F. 2008. “Yapı denetim sisteminde yaşanan sorunlar, 4708 sayılı
Yapı Denetim Hakkında Kanun’daki eksiklikler ve çözüm önerileri”
[Problems of structure control system, deficiencies of numbered law
about structure control and suggestions for solution]. Doctoral disser-
tation, Institute of Science and Technology, Istanbul Technical Univ.
Sambasivan, M., and Y. W. Soon. 2007. “Causes and effects of delays
in Malaysian construction industry.” Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (5):
517–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.007.
Samuels, A. F. 2000. “Quantified checklists for construction inspection
examination.” Transp. Res. Rec. 1712 (1): 177–184. https://doi.org/10
.3141/1712-21.
Selçuk, S., and H. H. Selim. 2018. “Mücevherat sektöründe kullanılan iş
sağlığı ve güvenliği risk analiz yöntemlerinden l tipi matris yöntemi"
[Occupational health and safety risk analysis methods in the jewellery
sector]. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Teknoloji ve Uygulamalı Bilimler
Dergisi 1 (1): 21–27.
Shariq, M. H., and B. R. Hughes. 2020. “Revolutionising building inspec-
tion techniques to meet large-scale energy demands: A review of the
state-of-the-art.” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 130 (Apr):
109979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109979.
Soykan, O. 2018. “Endüstriyel balıkçı gemilerinde L tipi matris yöntemi ile
risk değerlendirmesi ve kullanılabilirliği” [Risk assessment in industrial
fishing vessels by L type matrix method and its usability]. Su Ürünleri
Dergisi 35 (2): 207–217.
Stewart, M. G., and X. Deng. 2015. “Climate impact risks and climate
adaptation engineering for built infrastructure.” J. Risk Uncertainty
Eng. Syst. Part A: Civ. Eng. 1 (1): 04014001. https://doi.org/10.1061
/AJRUA6.0000809.
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.
 Talbot, J. 2017. “What’s right with risk matrices?” Accessed July 10, 2020.
https://www.juliantalbot.com/post/2018/07/31/whats-right-with-risk
-matrices.
Tam, C. M., Z. M. Deng, S. X. Zeng, and C. S. Ho. 2000. “Quest for con-
tinuous quality improvement for public housing construction in Hong
Kong.” Construct. Manage. Econ. 18 (4): 437–446. https://doi.org/10
.1080/01446190050024851.
Tekin, H., and Ş. Atabay. 2019. “Building information modelling roadmap
strategy for Turkish construction sector.” In Proc., Institution of Civil
Engineers-Municipal Engineer. London: Thomas Telford.
Tikote, R., M. Magdum, and M. Khandare. 2017. “Delay analysis in
industrial projects by using relative importance index method.” Int.
Res. J. Eng. Technol. 4 (6): 1982–1988.
TRT Haber. 2020. “45 gün içinde Türkiye'ye yeni hastaneler kazandırıldı”
[New hospitals were built in Turkey in 45 days]. Accessed July 10,
2020. https://www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/45-gun-icinde-turkiyeye
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 14.161.13.91 on 04/10/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
-yeni-hastaneler-kazandirildi-488828.html.
Tsai, M. H., H. Y. Chan, and L. Y. Liu. 2020. “Conversation-based school
building inspection support system.” Appl. Sci. 10 (11): 3739. https://
doi.org/10.3390/app10113739.
Tsai, Y. H., S. H. Hsieh, and S. C. Kang. 2014. “A BIM-enabled approach
for construction inspection.” In Computing in civil and building engi-
neering. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Valdes, D., and J. L. Perdomo. 2013. Using mobile computers to automate
the inspection process for highway construction projects. New York:
Univ. Transportation Research Center.
Van Doremalen, N., et al. 2020. “Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-
CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1.” N. Engl. J. Med. 382 (16):
1564–1567. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2004973.
© ASCE 04022003-14
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng., 2022, 8(2): 04022003
Vo-Tran, H., and S. Kanjanabootra. 2013. “Information sharing
problems among stakeholders in the construction industry at the in-
spection stage: A case study.” In Proc., 19th CIB World Building
Congress. Ottawa: International Council for Research and Innovation
in Building and Construction.
Wang, L. C. 2008. “Enhancing construction quality inspection and
management using RFID technology.” Autom. Constr. 17 (4): 467–479.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.08.005.
Wawak, S., Ž. Ljevo, and M. Vukomanović. 2020. “Understanding the
key quality factors in construction projects—A systematic literature
review.” Sustainability 12 (24): 10376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1224
10376.
Xiaowai, X. 2020. “Demystifying the hospital built in 10 day.” https://news
.cgtn.com/news/2020-04-24/Demystifying-the-hospital-built-in-10-days
–PWDKNw6nC0/index.html.
Yin, Y., and X. Ruan. 2021. “Analysis of construction quality problems of
indoor drainage installation.” J. World Archit. 5 (2): 4. https://doi.org/10
.26689/jwa.v5i2.2025.
Yılmaz, H. 2006. “Türkiye’de 1980’den Sonra Kent Planlaması Hizmetler-
inin Özel Kesime Gördürülmesi Eğilimleri: Yapı Denetim Kuruluşları
Örneği” [Trends in outsourcing urban planning services to the private
sector in Turkey after 1980: The example of building inspection insti-
tutions]. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Social Sciences,
Ankara Univ.
Zheng, L., K. Chen, and L. Ma. 2021. “Knowledge, attitudes, and practices
towards COVID-19 among construction industry practitioners in
China.” Front. Public Health 8 (1): 599769. https://doi.org/10.3389
/fpubh.2020.599769.
Zou, P. X. 2006. “Strategies for minimizing corruption in the construction
industry in China.” J. Constr. Dev. Countries 11 (2): 15–29.
ASCE-ASME J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst., Part A: Civ. Eng.