How to avoid abuse of deviations in the construction industry
U.N. Twijnstra Duarte (TU Delft - Civil Engineering & Geosciences)
M.G.C. Bosch-Rekveldt – Graduation committee member (TU Delft - Integral Design & Management)
J.P.G. Ramler – Mentor (TU Delft - Integral Design & Management)
L.S.W. Koops – Mentor (TU Delft - Design & Construction Management)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Prompted by the 2023 Turkey earthquake and lessons on deviations, this study examines deviations in Paraguay. It clarifies that changes are formal procedures, whereas deviations are informal alterations to original plans, assessed post hoc. The concept of an “accepted deviation” is defined as an informally allowed variance in project requirements. The question is how to prevent deviation abuse. The study uses a qualitative, exploratory, inductive design, drawing on literature review, interviews, document analysis, and expert evaluation. Eight professionals from public and private sectors in Paraguay participated; three private experts validated findings.
Findings show that literature treats changes as formal and prospective and deviations as informal and retrospective; once deviations occur, they are accepted or rectified, with limited guidance beyond acceptance. In practice, deviations arise through bilateral agreements, unilateral contractor actions, or errors; formal change orders differ by sector, with the public sector imposing strict regulations and finance delays, while private sector relies more on informal agreements. The study identifies six preventive measures: improve final design; include paid, thorough contractor reviews in contracts; reduce change-order bureaucracy; enhance teamwork and communication; anticipate unforeseen events; hire qualified professionals. For managing deviations, four feasible practices are recommended: seek specialist opinions; document informal agreements; embed deviation management into regulations; rely on experience and safety considerations. Conclusions stress understanding the differences, reducing deviations, and applying proposed practices, while noting they are not universal remedies. The study suggests avenues for further research, including sector-specific analyses, agile methodologies, client/financier perspectives, ethics, and a protocol for middle-ground modifications.