See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305983381

Investigation of Generic House Components and Their Practical Assessment

during Defect Liability Period (DLP) in Malaysia

Conference Paper · February 2016

CITATIONS READS

0 777

6 authors, including:

Norfarahayu Kariya Hairuddin Mohammad

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
2 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   
40 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Yaman Siti Khalijah Nor Haslinda Abas

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
28 PUBLICATIONS   88 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   88 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improving Thermal Conductivity of Fired Clay Brick using Sawdust Waste View project

Economies of Scale (EOS) in Construction Industry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hairuddin Mohammad on 24 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Congress on Technology, Engineering, and Science (IConTES 2016),
February 13th & 14th, Vistana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Generic House Components and Their Practical Ways to Assess By House

Buyers during Defect Liability Period (DLP)

Norfarahayu Kariyaa*, Zaid Yaakobb, Mohammad Nor Mohd Sairia, Hairuddin Mohammada, Siti Khalijah
Yamana, Nor Haslinda Abasa

*Corresponding author: farahayu92@gmail.com

aFaculty of Civil Engineering and Environment, University of Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia.
bEmbedded System Department, MARA Japan Industrial Institute of Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.

ABSTRACT
The newly built residential house basically had undergone a period where any defects toward the house will be rectified by the particular developer.
Defect Liability Period (DLP) which commenced from the day of Vacant Possession (VP) by house owners generally in effect between eighteen
(18) months and twenty four (24) months. During DLP, new house owner have the right to issue any complaints regarding the quality of the said
building. Unfortunately, complaints were believed to widespread in the recent era where profitability is the main concerned for most of the
developers. Since the quality of the finished product is of minor consideration, added with less knowledgeable new house owners on issues of house
defect, the situation is going from bad to almost heedless. To add salt to the wound, scarcity on research and dissemination of knowledge were
deemed to shut the issue until almost no existence. Therefore, the research is taking a leap by focusing on sense perceptions house components that
received recurring complaints and provides corresponding practical ways to check for defects on behalf of new house owners. A mixed method of
methodology has been imposed, starting with literature analysis, questionnaire survey, and structured interview, respectively. Questionnaire surveys
were conducted using online distribution towards developers and contractors within southern states, namely; Johor, Melaka, and Negeri Sembilan.
Meanwhile, the latter method was accomplished by interviewing several senior construction practitioners. In order to ease the analysis processes,
SPSS, and NVivo were used as main software. Finally, the findings suggest that, sense perceptions, house components consist of several important
parts such as roof, walls, and floors, along with their sub-components. However, not all components received similar trend of complaints from the
house buyers. Further, interestingly, most of the senior construction practitioners proposed several unique and unaware practical ways for defect
identification, such as by using torch light, water, and other simple testing methods. Last but certainly not least, the research embarks on application-
based software as knowledge management and distribution effort, which is anchored on Android by Google Incorporation.

Key words: Defect Liability Period, House Components, Practical Ways to Assess, House Buyer.

1. INTRODUCTION Buyers, Datuk Zainuddin Bachik, defects that happen

The development of the construction industry has
generated a lot of new housing constructions either in
urban or rural areas like mushrooms after the rain. The
increasing of construction industry can be proved by
the statistics released by the Construction Industry
Development Board Malaysia (CIDB) in 2013, where
the country's construction sector has contributed a total
of RM108.29 billion to federal government
expenditure (KDNK) [1]. According to the Secretary
General of the Ministry of Works, Datuk Seri Zohari
Akob, housing construction, non-residential and
infrastructure projects is the sectors that contributed to
the construction industry [2]. The impact of
construction development has put Malaysia on par
with other developed countries. But despite the
grandeur and the rapidity of the housing construction
sector in Malaysia, there are complaints of
dissatisfaction with houses that have been completed,
either in terms of quality of work or materials used.
Cases like this are believed to increase every year in
line with developments of construction sector due to
the high demand for housing needs. According to a
statement by the chairman of the Association of House
because of messy construction work, is a major
complaint received from most of the buyers of 46
housing projects across the country, involving more
than 10,000 newly built house owners [3].
In addition, relating to a defect liability period,
the clause has been provided in each construction
contract standard. As a common example, clause 48.1
(a) in the form PWD 203 states that any defect,
imperfection, shrinkage or any other damages that
arise during DLP is the responsibility of the
constructor [4]. From the emphasized statement in
each construction contract, it can be clearly seen that
the provision of liabilities defects in construction need
to be addressed by the contractor. In fact, it indirectly
becomes a liability for developers and new house
buyers to co-responsibility in the repair of these
defects [5]. However, when referring to new house
buyers, it is believed that they are typically focused on
components of a house that can be inspected through
sense perception (i.e. vision, hear, touch, and smell).
However, grief is seen where a complete list of generic
house components is limited, and it was observed that
developers were much likely handed a very limited
scope in term of complaint form right after the said
 International Congress on Technology, Engineering, and Science (IConTES 2016),
February 13th & 14th, Vistana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
vacant possession (i.e. starts of DLP). This will
directly impacted the inspection that will be carried
out by the house buyers, which is often than not,
components that usually always receive complaints
will be ignored. To add salt to the wound, lack of
practical guidance offered by the industry are
indirectly hampered the effectiveness of the particular
inspection.
Thus, as far as the study is concerned, the need
to delve into the issue of defects of house components
during DLP period is indeed crucial in order to solve
the problems faced by new house buyer. Therefore, as
a preliminary study, several major questions were
posed in order to unravel this problem, namely; what
are the generic components of house, what are the
frequencies of complaints for generic house
components during DLP, and what are the practical
ways for assessing generic house components during
DLP. The findings from the research are believed to
shed some light on the particular issues, and to a
certain extent paved the direction for subsequent
study. Through the end of the research, a mechanism
of disseminating the knowledge is provided in order to
give direct benefits towards the end users.
2. PROBLEMATIC OF HOUSE COMPONENTS
DURING DLP
The structure of a house is an extremely important
component of the house. House component is the
arrangement or part of the house that carries the weight
of the house to its supporting element, such as wall,
floor, ceiling, roof, footings and foundation. In this
research, the main focus is on house components
including the overall house fixtures that received
recurring complaints which can be identified through
the sense of hearing, smelling, touching and seeing.
Defects or damage to house component was a
common event that frequently occurs in the structures
of the building. Therefore, the quality of the
construction is emphasized to avoid defects or damage
to structures which may affect the trust of house buyer.
It also describes the attitude or negligence that in
charge and will cause various implications. In general
terms defects or defective works is where the standard
and quality of workmanship and materials as specified
in the contract is deficient. Defects can be classified
into two main categories, Patent Defects and Latent
Defects. Patent defects are defects that can be
discovered by normal examination or testing, whereas
Latent Defects are defects that are not discovered by a
normal examination or testing which manifests itself
after a period of time [5]. Based on recent study
conducted by Md. Dalib [6], there are some defects of
house component that frequently received complaint
by the Customer Support & Service (CSS) within 14
days after the date of submission of keys to house
owners, which are floor, wall, door, window, ceiling,
roof and fixtures for toilet and shower.
Apart, the Construction Industry Development
Board of Malaysia (CIDB) has developed Quality
Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC) for
measuring and assessing the quality of a construction
job as according to the relevant standard requirement.
However, preliminary observation shows that this
system is too complicated for those who have no
history of learning in technical fields (especially in
civil and construction realms). Quite a number of
jargons and technicalities were found scattered in the
system. Besides, the usage of complicated tools were
further hampered the practicality of the assessment
towards layman. Therefore, it is wiser to limit the
reference which embedding generic house
components and their practical ways to inspect by
using sense perception such as vision (through eye;
e.g. for any surface defects such as cracks, and
unevenness), hear (through ear; e.g. for any
hollowness sound mostly towards construction
finishing materials), touch (through hand; e.g. for any
unevenness and testing of small house components),
and smell (through nose; e.g. for any unpleasant
odours related to house finishes).
3. METHODOLOGY
This paper embarked in mixed qualitative and
quantitative approaches, comprising literature
analysis, questionnaire survey and structural interview
(see Table 1), which mostly guided by the work of
Creswell [7]. In literature review process, list of house
components obtained from numerous published
sources (e.g. journals, guidelines, government reports,
and past research documents) was subsequently
analysed through a screening process called ‘Multi-
layered Thematic Process’ to ensure the data are
within the scope. These process (Fig. 1) is the process
of producing an output from a combination one or
more different layers of themes beforehand [7, 8, 9].
These screening process consist of two part which are
the generic components of the house after completion,
and components that were able to be checked by using
sense perception (i.e. visual, hear, touch and smell).
After that, the house components were gathered and
the completed list of house components was
documented.
 International Congress on Technology, Engineering, and Science (IConTES 2016),
February 13th & 14th, Vistana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

larger audiences with minimal cost. The likert scale

Figure 1. Multi-layered thematic process of document
analysis
Apart, the recurring complaints of house
components during DLP is carried out by using the
quantitative approach through a questionnaire survey
towards construction practitioners who are mostly
engaged in building housing schemes (i.e. contractors,
and developers) in the southern states of Malaysia,
namely; Johor, Melaka and Negeri Sembilan.
Understandable that complaint’ records were deemed
confidential for most developers, and pursuing new
house owners for data requires greater substances, the
authors believed that the chosen approach were
appropriate. Purposive respondents were selected
randomly based on information published by the
Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia
(CIDB) and Real Estate and Housing Developers'
Association Malaysia (REDHA). It was then
distributed by using online method in order to reach
was used to evaluate the frequency of complaints
received by them during DLP (1= no complaint to 5 =
very often received complaints). Besides asking on
typical questions towards their demographics,
additional comments on the house components were
put forward. The data were analysed using descriptive
analysis and inference analysis with the help of the
SPSS software.
After the previous processes were ended,
subsequent structured interviews has been conducted
to capture practical ways towards assessing house
components on behalf of the house owner. The
interview has been done towards four purposely
selected senior construction practitioners based on
their specific experience and knowledge on house
construction. Checklist was prepared from previous
data collection, which eventually became the basis for
interview questions (i.e. the practical ways to check
for house components defects). In order to ensure the
interview data will not be missed, audio recording was
employed during the interview sessions. Further,
guided by the works of Gibbs [10] and Welsh [11], the
data were transcribed and analysed using qualitative
approach with the help of NVivo software [12]. This
software allows users to classify, sort and arrange
information, examine relationships in the data, and
combine analysis with linking, shaping, searching and
modelling [13]. The results were in the form of word
frequencies, where it was displayed according to the
most recurring words recorded from the interviews.

TABLE 1: Summary of research methodology

Objective Approach Method Unit of analysis Analysis Output

To identify generic house Qualitative Literature Past literatures Multi-layered Complete list of generic
components according to analysis Thematic house components
sense perceptions Process

To analyse the frequency of Quantitative Questionnaire Construction SPSS Means of recurring

complaints for generic house Survey practitioners (i.e. Software complaints of house
components during DLP housing developers components’ defect during
and contractors) DLP
To propose practical ways Qualitative Structural Selected senior NVivo Practical ways for assessing
for assessing generic house Interview construction Software defect on house components’
components during DLP practitioners during DLP

4. RESULT AND ANALYSIS 4.1. Result and Analysis: Objective 1

This chapter presents the results and analysis Through multi-layered thematic analysis, a complete
according to predetermine objectives, respectively. list of generic house components with frequency
Subsequent discussion on the findings can be found in number of reviews that were gathered from several
the next chapter (Chapter 5). literatures [14-38] are documented (see Table 2).

TABLE 2: List of generic house components

List of component (from sense perception)
 International Congress on Technology, Engineering, and Science (IConTES 2016),
February 13th & 14th, Vistana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Component Sub component Frequency Means

Wall External wall 14 3.0000
Internal wall 12 2.9310
Roof Roof covering (e.g. roof tile, roof sheet, metal deck, etc.) 17 2.7333
Roof gutter 4 2.3000
Flashing 9 2.3000
Fascia board 1 2.1000
Roof eave 1 2.1379
Structure of the roof 6 2.1333
Floor Floor surface (e.g. upper floor, floor covering, etc.) 22 2.2759
Skirting 6 2.0000
Staircase Stair (e.g. riser, nosing, tread, riser, etc.) 5 1.9000
Platform 1 1.8667
Handrail 2 2.1000
Baluster 1 1.8667
Overall Paint 7 2.7857
finishes Rendering process 4 2.8214
Window Frame 12 1.9000
Railing 2 1.9667
Hinge 1 1.9000
Lock 2 2.2667
Glazing 7 1.7000
Door Frame 13 1.6667
Hinge 2 1.7667
Door knob 1 2.4000
Door panel 5 1.8333

Ceiling Ceiling board 7 2.3214

Frame 1 2.1000
Overall Piping 16 2.8333
fixtures Electric (e.g. 13Amp. socket, fuse box, etc.) 16 2.4000
Shower/Toilet (e.g. sink, faucet, toilet) 15 2.6552
Kitchen (e.g. sink, faucet) 6 2.3667

4.2. Result and Analysis: Objective 2
Pilot test has been carried out in order to evaluate the
validity of the questions’ structure and the reliability
of the questions. A pilot study is a preliminary test
carried out on a number of selected persons as a
research sample to evaluate how the research sample
responses to the questionnaire. Initially, the questions
were given to several expert persons (i.e.
academicians, and senior practitioners) due to
precarious concern on the overall questions’ structure.
After that, samples of ten (10) random responses from
senior practitioners were gathered in order to check for
prior data reliability. According to Sekaran (2013), the
instrument is reliable when the Coefficient Alpha (α)
is approaching to one [39, 40]. From the statistical
analysis of this pilot test, the questionnaire reported
high reliability (0.981). Further, analysis of the
questionnaire has been done meticulously in order to
achieve the particular objective, and to a certain extent
towards generalization of data through inference
analysis.
Out of 400 disseminated questionnaires with
two wave of distributional effort (i.e. cycle within
stipulated time frame), only 30 were successfully
completed with response rate of 7.5%. The
respondents were from 17 contractors (57%) and 13
developers (43%). The majority of the respondents (19
out of 30 respondents; 63%) had more than 10 years’
experience in housing construction, while the rest of
them had below 10 years of experience on housing
construction. Besides that, most of the respondents
have their positions in managing the project on site,
which consists of project managers, site supervisors
and construction coordinators. Following is the
summary of the respondents’ demographics (Table 3).
 International Congress on Technology, Engineering, and Science (IConTES 2016),
February 13th & 14th, Vistana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

TABLE 3: Summary of Questionnaire Survey Analysis

Respond Rate Types of Organisation Years of housing construction Position
experience
Sent = 400, Contractors (17 = 57%) · 4 years and below = 7 (23%) · Director = 6 (20%)
Receive = 41, Developers (13 = 43%) · 5 years — 9 years = 4 (13%) · Project Manager = 7 (23%)
Completeness = 30, · 10 years and above = 19 (63%) · Contract Manager = 2 (7%)
Percent Complete= 7.5 % · Construction Manager = 5 (17%)
· Site Manager = 1 (3%)
· Site Supervisor = 7 (23%)
· Engineer = 2 (7%)

Apart, before any subsequent analyses were
conducted, all data was subjected to multiple
screening analyses, namely; outliers test (interquartile
range), reliability test (Cronbach Alpha), and
normality test (Shapiro Wilk). Findings suggest that,
there are no extreme value of outliers data, the
reliability is high (α=0.971), and data is proved to be
non-normal. Afterwards, descriptive analysis was
conducted to give an overview of a particular data on
numerical values, where mean value was reported as
central tendency. From the descriptive analysis, not all
components received similar trends of complaints
from the house buyer. The highest mean for house
components’ complaint is 3.000 (external wall) which
signifies slightly often receiving complaints, and the
lowest mean is 1.6667 (door frame) which signifies the
range from no complaint to very little complaints.
Overall tabulation of means according to their
components can be found on similar table (Table 2) as
in chapter 4.1.
On the other hand, statistical inference analysis
was conducted to draw conclusions regarding the
4.3. Result and Analysis: Objective 3
Objective 3 are directed to capture respondents’
knowledge on practical ways of assessing generic
house components’ defects. All respondents (four) are
coming from housing construction with previous
record of managing housing construction for more
than ten years. Findings from the previous analysis
were set as a guideline, where emphasis have been
poured onto components that have recorded higher
means value. From the structured interviews, data
were recorded by using voice recorder and it was
further transcribed into text format in the NVivo
population based on the characteristics of the sample.
A series of hypothetical assumptions were made,
anchored towards null hypothesis of; “the distribution
of control variables is the same across all respondent’s
category”. Before performing the analysis, Chi-Square
goodness of fit test has been done in the first place to
determine suitable distribution of control variables
(e.g. types of organisation, respondent experience on
housing construction and respondent position) to be
selected in the inference analysis [41]. Following the
analysis, the findings recommend that the types of
organisation are appropriate to be further analysed.
Thus, the Mann-Whitney U test is executed to
compare differences between two control groups when
the dependent variable is either ordinal or continuous,
but not normally distributed [7]. From the analysis, all
dependent variables were reported to accept the null
hypothesis, except for door knob, which the null
hypothesis is rejected due to their significant value is
less than α0.05. Therefore, it is concluded that the
perception of complaints’ frequency on door knob is
not the same across contractors and developers.
software. Every word are scrutinised for their
importance and meaningful substances, before coding
exercises were taken placed. Coding was based on
predetermined nodes, which basically arranged
according to house components. Since all interview
respondents are comfortable with conversing in Malay
language, therefore the authors suited their preference
during the sessions (see Figure 2 for example).
However, excerpts from the analysis were conveyed in
English as can be found on Table 4 (as findings
summary). The result shows that, most of the senior
construction practitioners proposed several unique and
unaware practical ways for defect identification, such
as by using torch light, water, and other simple testing
methods.
 International Congress on Technology, Engineering, and Science (IConTES 2016),
February 13th & 14th, Vistana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Baluster Vision, -
touch
Overall Paint Vision, Compare colour
finishes smell with nearby
similar house
(for
Figure 2. Example of the interview analysis using inconsistency)
NVivo, represented by words cloud Rendering Vision, Use of
work touch torchlight / a
TABLE 4: Summary of structured interview analysis piece of wood
(for surface
Components Sub General Practical ways
evenness)
components Sense
Perception Window Window Vision, Check
frame Touch specification as
Wall Outer wall Vision, Use of
touch in sale and
torchlight / a Window Vision,
piece of wood purchase
railing Touch contract, test for
(for surface
functionality
evenness) Window Vision,
hinge Touch
Inner wall Vision, Use of
touch torchlight / a Window Vision,
piece of wood lock Touch
(for surface
evenness) Glazing Vision,
Touch
Roof Roof cover Vision Examine
during/after rain Door Door frame Vision, Check
(for any leaks) Touch specification as
in sale and
Roof gutter Vision Examine Door hinge Vision, purchase
during/after rain Touch contract, test for
(for any leaks) Door knob Vision, functionality

Flashing Vision - Touch

Roof fascia Vision - Door panel Vision,

Touch
Roof eaves Vision -
Ceiling Ceiling Vision Use of
Overall roof Vision - board torchlight (for
structure any
inconsistency of
Floor Floor Vision, Examine during surface and
hear house cleaning colour)
by splashing
water (for Frame Vision -
surface
evenness), use Overall Piping Vision, Check water
of stick (for fixtures Touch pressure by
hollowness) opening all the
tap, test for
Skirting Vision - functionality

Staircase Step and Vision, Test by walking Electrical Vision, Check electric
Riser touch on it (for Touch point number as
ergonomic and in contract, test
comfort ability) for functionality
Platform Vision, Examine during Toilet Vision, Check water
touch house cleaning Touch point number as
by splashing in contract, test
water (for for functionality
surface
evenness), use Kitchen Vision, -
of stick (for Touch
hollowness)
Handrail Vision, -
touch
 International Congress on Technology, Engineering, and Science (IConTES 2016),
February 13th & 14th, Vistana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Overall, the objectives of this paper were achieved
through mix methods of methodology, starting with
literature analysis (for first objective), questionnaire
survey (for second objective), and structured interview
(for third objective), respectively. The approach
embedded in document analysis is a screening process
called ‘Multi-layered Thematic Processes’, where one
of the layers consists of ‘sense perception’. Catering
for new house owners that do not have any background
in construction, it can be concluded that there are
several prominent generic house components which
most likely were able to be inspected by them during
DLP. Apart, a questionnaire survey that was
distributed by using online method towards developers
and contractors within southern states (i.e. Johor,
Melaka and Negeri Sembilan) was considered to
receive cold responses (although twice attempts were
made). However, since the feedback number is
reasonably acceptable, it was further analysed by
using statistical analysis based on classical test theory
(CTT) with the help of SPSS software. It was found
that, almost all of the components tend to receive
complaints from house buyers during DLP. Walls
topped the list, while ended with a component of doors
(i.e. door frame) by the least recorded mean. Besides,
majority of the components have documented similar
feedback from different organisation’ clusters (i.e.
developers, and contractors). After that, structured
Figure 3. Proposed Android Apps
interviews were commenced towards four selected
senior construction practitioners based on their
experienced and knowledge, in order to accomplish
the last objective. Data from the interviews were later
on analysed by using NVivo software. Interestingly,
the findings revealed that there are several practical
ways in assessing defects on house components. In
summary, any components that have large vertical
surfaces such as walls, their evenness is paramount.
The usage of handheld torch light, and or any wood
stick which are place onto the wall surfaces are
believed to detect unevenness. Similarly for horizontal
surfaces such as floors, water plays an important
insight on detecting unevenness. Therefore, it can be
concluded that through the end of the research, the
findings were promising yet requires further
betterment and exploration. Lest, current results might
useful for immediate usage for the convenience of new
house buyers, in order for them to assess their new
house for the first time appropriately. Within the same
vein, the authors provide a very useful yet friendly
usage of application based software with simple user
interface (UI), based on Google Android platform as a
medium of knowledge management and distribution
(see figure 3). Last but certainly not least, a research
on life expectancy of house components are humbly
deemed needed (at least in Malaysia) to accompany
current research to provide the proactive venture after
the DLP is ended.
 International Congress on Technology, Engineering, and Science (IConTES 2016),
February 13th & 14th, Vistana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The paper has been sponsored by MARA Japan
Industrial Institute of Malaysia (MJII), besides several
assistances by University of Tun Hussein Onn
Malaysia (UTHM).
7. REFERENCES
1 Construction Industri Development Board, “Buletin
Statistik Pembinaan Suku Tahunan. Malaysia”, CIDB,
(2013).
2 Berita Harian, “Industri Pembinaan Negara Semakin
Rancak”, Berita Harian, (2014).
3 Buang, S., “Rumah Siap Tapi Sakit Hati”, Utusan
Melayu, Selangor (2001).
4 Government of Malaysia, “Standard Form of Contract to
be Used Where Drawings and Specifications Form Part
of Contract PWD Form 203.: Government of Malaysia”,
Malaysia, (2007).
5 Master Builder Association Malaysia, “What are The
Obligations of The Contractor During Defects Liability
Period”. Master Builder Jurnal, (1st Quater 2007).
6 Md Dalib, M., “Isu Kecacatan Pada Bangunan Kediaman
Semasa Tempoh Tanggungan Kecacatan Malaysia”,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, (2011).
7 Creswell, J. W., “Educational Research: Planning,
Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative
Research”, Pearson, (2012).
8 Yaman, S. K., Abdullah, A. H., Mohammad, H. and
Hassan, F., “Technical Competency of Construction
Manager in Malaysian Construction Industry”,Applied
Mechanics and Materials, (2014), 1053-1059.
9 A. H., Mohammad, Yaman, S. K., Ismail, Z. and Hassan,
F., “Determining The Technical Competency of
Construction Managers in Malaysia’s Construction
Industry”, MATEC Web of Conferences, (2016).
10 Gibbs, G. R., “Qualitative Data Analysis: Explorations
with NVivo”. Philadelphia, USA: Open University
Press, (2002).
11 Welsh, E., “Dealing with Data: Using NVivo in the
Qualitative Data Analysis Process”. Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, 3(2), (2002, May), 1-11.
12 Richards, L. (2005). Handling Qualitative Data: A
Practical Guide. London: Sage Publications.
13 Wikipedia, F. e., Wikipedia Foundation Inc. Retrieved
from Wikipedia Free Dictionary: http://en.
Wikipedia.org/wiki/ NVivo, (2014, October 22).
14 James, D. and Edward, A. N,. “Buiding Surveys &
Reports”, Wiley-Blackwell, United Kingdom, (2011).
15 Richard , S. M. and Dave, H., “House Buyer's
Checklist”, McGraw-Hill, (1993).
16 Peter, G., “Building Surveys”. Buteerworth-Heinemann,
(2006).
17 Norman, B. and P., E., “The Complete Book of House
Inspection”,: McGraw-Hill, New York (2002).
18 Marcia, S. D., “The House Inspection Book”, South-
Western Thonson Learning, United State of America,
(2002).
19 Barry, R. A., “Defects and Deterioration in Buildings”.
E. & F. N. Spon, Britain, (1991).
20 Jay, B., “Building Construction Inspection : A Guide for
Architects”, Wiley-Interscience, United State of
America, (1991).
21 John, H. and Geoff, C., “The Technology of Building
Defects”, Spon Press, New York, (1997).
22 Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia,
QLASSIC, CIDB, Malaysia (2006).
23 Department for Communities and Local Government,
“A Decent House: Definition and Guidance for
Implementation”, Department for Communities and
Local Government, (2006).
24 Real Estate Brokerage, “Buyer Practical Guide”, The
association des courtiers, (2005).
25 National Department of House,“Design and
Construction of House”, Republic of South Africa,
(2003).
26 Economics Group of NAHB, “Study of Life Expectancy
of House Components”, National Association of House
Builders, (2007).
27 J., Fredendall Kirk and Bruce, Fredendall A., “House
Part”, Pennsylvania: Fredendall Building Company,
(2010).
28 Rich , C., “Residential Construction for New House
Covered by House Warranty Insurance in British
Columbia”, Houseowner Protection Office, (2014,
August).
29 You Can Do It Too, “Structural Components of a house”,
Michigan State University, (1987).
30 Building Departments, “Guide Book”, Building
Departments, (2002).
31 Ismail, I.; Che Ani, A. I.; Mohd Tawil, N.; Abdul Razak,
M. Z.; Yahaya, H., “Pembangunan Indeks Kecacatan
Rumah Bagi Perumahan Teres”,Journal of Surveying,
Construction & Property, Vol. 1, (2012).
32 MD Kasim, N. D., “Building Defects : Case Study at
Taman Seri Indah, Pulau Pinang”. Pahang: Universiti
Malaysia Pahang, (2009).
33 Anita, M., “Penilaian terhadap Tahap Kelestarian Hidup
menggunakan konsep POE”, Universiti Teknologi
malaysia, (2010).
34 Wai-Kiong, C., and Sui-Pheng, L., “Assessment of
Defects at Construction and Occupancy Stages”,Journal
of Performance of Constructed Facilities, (2005), 283-
289.
35 Karya, R., “Kajian Fasad Bangunan Rumah Kedai di
Bandar kangar Sebagai Satu Pendekatan Pemuliharaan
Bangunan”, Politeknik Sultan Abdul halim Mu'adzam
Shah, (2012).
36 Hanapi, N. (n.d.). “Kajian Rekabentuk Teknik
Pertukangan Komponen Panel Dinding Rumah Melayu
Tradisional Kedah”.
37 Johar; S., Ahmad, A.G.; Che-Ani; A.I., Tawil, N.M., and
Usman, I.M.S., “Analisia Kajian Lapangan Ke atas
Kecacatan Pada Bangunan Masjid Lama di Malaysia”,
Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia, (2011).
38 The Consumers Advocate Guide to House Inspection,
“Uncover Problems in a New or Existing House.
Dearbon Trade Publishing, (2003).
39 Sekaran, U.,“Research Methods for Business: A skill-
building approach”,John Wiley & Sons, New York,
(2003).
 International Congress on Technology, Engineering, and Science (IConTES 2016),
February 13th & 14th, Vistana Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

40 Low, S. N., Kamaruddin, S. and Azid, I.A., “House of
Improvement Model to Enhance Prioritisation of
Solutions in Desion Making: a Case Study”,
International Journal of Engineering, Transactions B:
Application, Vol. 27, No. 8, (August 2014), 1195-1204.
41 Amirataee, B., Montaseri, M. and Rezaei, H.,
“Assessment of Goodness of Fit Methods in
Determining the Best Regional Probability Distribution
of Rainfall Data”, International Journal of
Engineering, Transactions A: Basics, Vol. 27, No. 10,
(October 2014), 1537-1546.

View publication stats