INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025

A Review Towards a Standardized Approach in Building Structure

Inspection for Maintenance Management

Mohamad Haszirul Mohd Hashim^1*, Norliyati Binti Mohd Amin², Nurul Hakimah Binti Abdullah³, Nurul Izza Abdul

Ghani⁴

¹Program of Building Surveying, Faculty of Built Enviroment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perak Branch

²School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam Selangor

³Post Graduate Student, Faculty of Built Enviroment, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam Selangor

⁴Department of Civil Engineering, Politeknik Ungku Omar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1410000127

Received: 28 October 2025; Accepted: 04 November 2025; Published: 19 November 2025

Abstrak. Maintenance is a combination of several management methods without changing the basic features and functions of

building structures and service systems. Effective maintenance planning ensures optimal use of the structure and reduces

operating costs. Building inspection is one of the methods in maintenance management for assessment of building physical

condition. Moreover, this method is a preliminary analysis to gather information, assess and identify damages to building

structures. This paper discussed variety of structural inspection methods including inspections for pitched roof and fade.

Literature was collected from journals, conference proceedings, standards and books. These methods were compared and

classified according to defect. The results demonstrated that there are weaknesses in the method of building structure inspection.

For example, there are varieties of information in the verification of damage causing inconsistencies in the inspection. Hence,

causing inconsistent final report on maintenance performed. Besides, the assessments also depend on the discretion and

experience of the inspector resulting in subjective evaluations. For instance, the final reports were interpreted differently from

individual perspectives. In conclusion, building structure inspection requires a guide to standardize the inspection process. In

addition, specific strategies are required to ensure the documents provided can be reduced consistently by various inspectors.

Keyword: Building Inspection, Maintenance Management, Standardization, Structural Assessment, Building Performance.

I. Introduction

Maintenance is defined as a continuous process carried out without altering the basic features and functions of a building system

after its construction is completed [1]. Maintenance management integrates various activities to ensure that the building

components and systems remain in optimal condition. However, some maintenance activities are unpredictable and may involve

certain risks [2]. Building maintenance management is closely associated with building life cycle management, asset

management, and health and safety management [3]. It encompasses activities involving various building components such as

basements, interiors and exteriors, walls, columns, building services, and roof systems. The optimal operation of building service

systems requires continuous maintenance management. Poor maintenance practices may result in significant financial losses to

building owners [4]. Effective maintenance management can optimize and maximize system performance [5]. It also helps to

delay deterioration, defects, and failures [6]. Furthermore, maintenance can reduce operating costs and extend the overall building

life cycle [7]. Therefore, maintenance activities play a crucial role, as approximately 70% of operating costs are typically

allocated to building maintenance planning [3]. Hence, effective maintenance management represents a sound investment for

building owners [8]. Maintenance management also involves early planning in several aspects, including budget control,

maintenance scheduling, and the allocation of financial resources [9]. This is particularly important because many organizations

consider maintenance work to be a financial burden on operating costs [10]. As noted by [11], approximately 90% of a building’s

life cycle requires maintenance work, which often results in maintenance costs exceeding the allocated budget [12].

The main objective of this review paper is to identify and evaluate the existing methods currently practiced in building structure

inspection as part of maintenance management activities. This study seeks to examine the various inspection techniques used to

assess the physical condition of building components, including both visual and non-destructive approaches. It also aims to

analyze the strengths, limitations, and inconsistencies associated with these inspection methods that may affect the reliability and

accuracy of maintenance evaluations. Furthermore, this paper highlights the need for standardization in building inspection

procedures to ensure consistency, repeatability, and objectivity in the assessment process.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 1046

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025

Maintenance Inspection

Maintenance inspection is an essential component of building maintenance management that helps determine the physical

condition and performance of building elements. Its primary purpose is to identify defects, deterioration, and potential failures in

building structures before they develop into serious problems. Generally, maintenance inspection methods can be categorized into

visual inspection, non-destructive testing, and instrument-based assessment. An effective inspection strategy plays a crucial role

in minimizing maintenance costs, enhancing building safety and health, and reducing the failure rate of building service systems

[13]. In addition, systematic inspection facilitates proper planning of repair works to prevent defects from worsening and to avoid

structural failures [14]. Furthermore, inspection results can assist maintenance teams in determining appropriate repair actions and

ensuring that maintenance interventions are performed efficiently [15].

Table 1: Assesssment of Inspection Methods.

Author

Source

Inspection

Elements to

Inspect

Description of Defect

Level Defect Assesment

Description by inspector

[22]

[23]

[8]

Wooden

House in

Cambodia

Need to be

identified by the

inspector

Depending on the cause and type of

defect

Wooden

House in

Melaka

Need to be

identified by the

inspector

Depending on the cause and type of

defect

Flat roofs,

facades,

Building

materials

Checklist

windows and

doors.

[24]

Pitched Roof

Element

building

material

Checklist

Inspectors need to clarify the

current condition

[25]

[26]

Building

Subjective

component

Need to be described by inspector

Inspectors need to clarify the

current condition

Moisture

contents in

building

Inspectors need to answer

every question regarding the

moisture content of the

building

[27]

Building

General

Need to be described by inspector

Inspectors need to clarify the

current condition

information to

identify element

of the building

[28]

[29]

Roof school

building

Inspect external

roof, drainage

and down pipe

Need to be described by inspector

Description by inspector

Pitched roof

General

information to

identify element

of the building

Inspection Method

The review of studies presented in Table 1 demonstrates that building inspection and defect assessment practices are

predominantly qualitative and depend heavily on the professional judgment of inspectors [16]. Across various studies, such as

those involving wooden houses, pitched roofs, and general building structures, the inspection elements are not standardized but

are instead identified by inspectors based on the specific type, cause, and extent of the defect [17]. The inspection process

typically involves visual examination of materials, structural components, and external features such as façades, roofs, drainage

systems, windows, and doors. In several studies, defect descriptions are documented through checklists or narrative assessments

that describe visible signs of deterioration, material degradation, or moisture-related problems. The level of defect assessment, in

www.ijltemas.in

Page 1047

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025

most cases, is determined through the inspector’s interpretation and clarification of the building’s current condition [18]. This

indicates that the assessment relies on subjective evaluation rather than quantitative measurement or a standardized scoring

framework [19].

Such reliance on individual expertise can lead to inconsistencies in reporting and variations in assessment outcomes between

inspectors. Moreover, the lack of uniform criteria makes it difficult to compare inspection results across different building types

and research contexts [20].

Therefore, it is evident that while current inspection methods provide flexibility and adaptability, they also highlight the need for

more systematic, data-driven, and standardized assessment models [21]. Future studies should aim to integrate objective

indicators, measurable parameters, and digital tools such as sensors or defect detection software to enhance the accuracy,

consistency, and reliability of building defect inspection and evaluation processes.

II. Methodology

The methodology adopted in this review paper is primarily based on an extensive literature study. Various sources, including

reference books, academic journals, conference papers, technical reports, magazines, and industry publications, were

systematically reviewed. A structured approach was employed to examine the current monitoring techniques applied in wooden

structure maintenance.

The review also includes an evaluation of previous methods developed by researchers for defect detection and assessment in

timber structures. By comparing approaches from different studies and standards, this paper identifies the current level of

advancement in assessment for timber materials.

Overall, this comparative synthesis highlights current best practices, technological gaps, and emerging trends in moisture

monitoring systems. The findings are expected to provide valuable references for researchers, engineers, and conservation

professionals involved in the maintenance and preservation of wooden structures.

Issues and Challenges in Current Inspection Practices

Inspection is a visual assessment method of the components [30]. This method reviews the visual condition of the defect at

component based on their nature or performance parameters. Visual inspection is a non-assistance process of assessment

alongside various visual aids for assessment of conditions during inspection.

Table 2: Summary of Issues in Inspection.

Author Source

Issue In Inspection

[22]

The inspector assumes condition of defects on component

Record the condition on the component without having the knowledge in the

level of defects.

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

The inspector’s view is limited

Lack of knowledge is a problem in the assessment of defects

Assessment is guided by own judgment, perception or self-assumption

Assessment based on knowledge, feelings and emotions

Inspection depending on the memory of the framework

Assessment based on the experience of the inspector

The inspection is conducted in its own way

Based on table 2, several issues and challenges can be identified in current inspection practices. One of the main issues is that

inspectors often rely on their own assumptions about the condition of defects on components without having sufficient knowledge

about the actual level of defects [24]. This method goals is to get feedback during a inspection on the performance of the

component. This lack of knowledge leads to inaccurate assessments and evaluations that depend heavily on personal judgment

and perception [39].

Furthermore, inspectors’ limited viewpoints [12] and reliance on memory or personal experience [40] affect the objectivity and

consistency of inspection results. In some cases, inspections are conducted according to individual methods without following

standardized guidelines or frameworks [41], resulting in inconsistencies in outcomes. Overall, the challenges in current inspection

practices mainly stem from human factors such as insufficient knowledge, dependence on personal experience and assumptions,

as well as the absence of a systematic and standardized approach to inspection assessment.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 1048

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025

The review of previous studies reveals several recurring issues that affect the reliability and consistency of building inspection

practices. One of the most critical problems is the subjectivity of assessment, where inspectors often make assumptions about the

condition of defects without sufficient technical knowledge or supporting evidence [24]. In many cases, inspections are

influenced by the limited visual access to structural components, resulting in incomplete evaluation and misinterpretation of the

actual condition [12]. Furthermore, a lack of knowledge and technical competency among inspectors contributes to inaccuracies

in defect assessment and reporting [39].

Another key issue identified is that inspections are frequently guided by personal judgment, perception, and self-assumption,

rather than standardized assessment criteria [42]. This subjectivity causes the evaluation process to depend heavily on the

experience, memory, and emotions of the inspector, which leads to inconsistent findings between individuals [40]. Additionally, it

is found that inspection activities are often conducted in a non-standardized manner, where each inspector applies their own

methods and interpretation framework [41].

Overall, these issues highlight the absence of a consistent and systematic approach in building inspection practices. The heavy

reliance on individual perception and experience results in inconsistent, unreliable, and non-reproducible inspection outcomes.

Therefore, there is a clear need to establish a standardized inspection framework to improve objectivity, ensure uniform data

collection, and support effective maintenance decision-making.

Various assumptions of the life expectancy of the structure will also results in an unreliable report [43]. This causes weaknesses

of the current methods of data collection such inconsistencies, unrealistic assumptions and manipulation of data [11]. The

consequences are there will be various information from different inspectors [43]. Studies conducted by [44] shows there is an

existence of bias in the validation of structural defects. The assumption with no knowledge on the gravity of defect would cause

the method of maintenance to be biased or irrelevant.

III. Discussion

Knowledge and understanding of building maintenance programs is a prelude for an effective management. Maintenance

management should identify all operating systems in the building to facilitate the design of regular maintenance schedules. This

paper discusses on the building maintenance management system to achieve the maintenance objectives. Reliable inspection also

requires the arrangement of components and subcomponents for strength assessment to determine structural stability [48]. It to

ensure that the inspector can identify the components to be inspected.

There are several methods of inspection depending on the of choice of the inspector. This problem described in the study of

maintenance based on the conditions conducted by [45] for social housing summarizes as follows:

1. The purpose of the inspection and the framework is unclear because the inspector is unfamiliar with the components.

2. There is several experiences of inspectors in conducting inspections.

3. The level of disability is not realistic by the inspector.

4. There is incomplete or inappropriate data in the report inspection.

5. Lack of information or lack of clarity in providing maintenance programs is a major contributing factor to the level of

dissatisfaction among building owners.

To ensure a more effective method of inspection, some improvements are needed in visual assessment so that inspection is easy

and fast based on the studies conducted by [46]:

1. A standard hierarchy or sequence of components and sub-components are required for inspection.

2. A guide such as the use of color code to indicate good, medium and bad condition on floor plans are required.

3. Can be used in mobile PCs for easier movement.

4. Picture of damages from each point of inspection need to be collected.

5. A picture database is required as a guide during the inspection to reduce subjective assessment.

Despite the usefulness of existing inspection practices in identifying visible defects, several limitations have been observed in

previous studies. The reliance on visual observation and inspector experience introduces a high degree of subjectivity, leading to

potential bias and inconsistency in evaluation outcomes. In addition, many inspections are carried out manually, which makes the

process time-consuming and prone to human error, especially in large or complex buildings. The absence of standardized

evaluation criteria further complicates defect classification, making it difficult to establish clear thresholds for severity levels or

maintenance prioritization. Moreover, the documentation methods such as manual checklists or descriptive notes lack integration

with digital data systems, thereby limiting traceability and long-term performance monitoring.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 1049

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025

Figure 1: Conceptual Standardized Guideline

To overcome these limitations, recent research has suggested the development of a more systematic and technology-driven

inspection framework. This conceptual approach could integrate digital tools such as Building Information Modelling (BIM),

sensor-based monitoring systems, and computer vision techniques for automatic defect detection. The incorporation of

quantitative indicators, supported by image analytics and data-driven decision models, would enable objective and repeatable

assessments. Furthermore, the establishment of standardized rating systems and performance benchmarks would promote

consistency and comparability across different building types and conditions. By merging traditional visual inspection with

emerging digital technologies, future frameworks could significantly improve the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of building

defect assessments, ultimately supporting proactive maintenance and sustainable building management practices.

IV. Conclusion

Maintenance activities are important to building management. Building maintenance management needs to be planned before the

building is built and monitored during construction to ensure contractors comply with the specifications. Since, the level of

effectiveness of some elements in the building service system will deteriorate and needs continuos maintenance. This paper

described the importance of maintenance planning to building structures based on inspection methods. Guide framework for

visual inspection are required so the inspection process is faster, less subjective and more suitable for less experienced inspector.

Therefore, based on studies of previous works, a guide framework is the key to achieve uniform inspections. In addition, specific

strategies are required to ensure the documents provided can be interpreted consistently by various inspectors.

Bibliography

1. Olanrewaju, M. F. Khamidi, and A. Idrus, “Quantitative analysis of defects in Malaysian university buildings: Providers’

perspective,” J. Retail Leis. Prop., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 137–149, 2010.

2. Z.-A. Ismail and N. Kasim, “Improving maintenance management practices on conventional method at Malaysian

polytechnic,” 2012.

3. M. Rum, N. Azizah, and Z. A. Akasah, “Pendekatan kos kitaran hayat (LCC) ke arah pembangunan lestari di Malaysia,”

2011.

4. M. Holmgren, “Maintenance-related losses at the Swedish Rail,” J. Qual. Maint. Eng., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 5–18, 2005.

5. C. Y. Yong and M. Z. Sulieman, “Assessment of Building Maintenance Management Practice and Occupant Satisfaction

of School Buildings in Perak, Malaysia,” 2015.

6. M. A. A. Rahman$^1$, Z. A. Akasah, and S. N. F. Zuraidi, “Analisis Tren Semasa Demografi Personel Penyenggaraan

Bangunan Warisan di Malaysia,” J. Surv. Constr. Prop., vol. 2, no. 2, 2012.

7. A. Shah Ali, “Cost decision making in building maintenance practice in Malaysia,” J. Facil. Manag., vol. 7, no. 4, pp.

298–306, 2009.

8. Z. A. Akasah, S. H. Shamsuddin, I. Abd Rahman, and M. Alias, “School Building Maintenance Strategy: a new

management approach,” 2009.

9. K. Jones and M. Sharp, “A new performance-based process model for built asset maintenance,” Facilities, vol. 25, no.

13/14, pp. 525–535, 2007.

10. T. Labeodan, W. Zeiler, G. Boxem, and Y. Zhao, “Occupancy measurement in commercial office buildings for demand-

driven control applications—A survey and detection system evaluation,” Energy Build., vol. 93, pp. 303–314, 2015.

11. O. A. Lateef, “Case for alternative approach to building maintenance management of public universities,” J. Build.

Apprais., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 201–212, 2010.

12. N. De Silva, M. Ranasinghe, and C. R. De Silva, “Risk factors affecting building maintenance under tropical

www.ijltemas.in

Page 1050

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue X, October 2025

conditions,” J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 235–252, 2012.

13. M. N. Grussing, D. R. Uzarski, and L. R. Marrano, “Condition and reliability prediction models using the Weibull

probability distribution,” in Applications of Advanced Technology in Transportation, 2006, pp. 19–24.

14. S. Mathew, “An inspection maintenance strategy using the inspection factor,” Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., vol. 25, no. 5,

pp. 532–540, 2008.

15. S. Das and M. Y. L. Chew, “Generic method of grading building defects using FMECA to improve maintainability

decisions,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 522–533, 2011.

16. S. M. H. M. Hashim and N. I. A. Ghani, “Pendekatan Pembangunan Garis Panduan Yang Seragam Dalam

Penyenggaraan Bangunan”.

17. M. H. M. Hashim, A. S. Ali, F. W. Akashah, and N. I. A. Ghani, “Identify Visual Component Inspection for Design

Non-Destructive Pitch Roof Checklist,” 2022.

18. N. I. A. Ghani, M. H. M. Hashim, and W. S. Zamani, “Literature Review on Problem of Defect Assessment Inspection

for Building Maintenance Management Planning,” Architecture, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 2279–2284, 2023.

19. M. H. Mohamad Haszirul Mohd Hashim, “Pembangunan Komponen Penilaian Pemeriksaan Kecacatan Bumbung Curam

Untuk Bangunan Sekolah Di Malaysia,” Universiti Malaya, 2021.

20. S. Yacob, A. S. Ali, and A.-Y. C. Peng, “Building Condition Assessment: Lesson Learnt from Pilot Projects,” in

MATEC Web of Conferences, 2016, p. 72.

21. J. Kempton, A. Alani, and K. Chapman, “Potential effects of the confirmation bias in house condition surveys,” Struct.

Surv., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 6–12, 2002.

22. A.-I. Che-Ani, A. Ramly, M.-F. Mohd-Zain, N. Mohd-Tawil, and A.-E. Hashim, “Assessing the condition of traditional

Khmer timber houses in Cambodia: A priority ranking approach,” J. Build. Apprais., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 87–102, 2008.

23. Che-Ani, A. Zaharim, M. F. M. Zain, N. Mohd-Tawil, and M. Surat, “Timber defects in building: a study of Telapak

Naning, Malacca, Malaysia,” WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 109–118, 2009.

24. N. Garcez, N. Lopes, J. d de Brito, and G. Sá, “Pathology, diagnosis and repair of pitched roofs with ceramic tiles:

Statistical characterisation and lessons learned from inspections,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 36, pp. 807–819, 2012.

25. J. Streeter, “BS on building maintenance,” Facilities, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 4–5, 1984.

26. K. Mjörnell, J. Arfvidsson, and E. Sikander, “A method for including moisture safety in the building process,” Indoor

Built Environ., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 583–594, 2012.

27. J. de Oliveira Pedro, J. de Paiva, and A. José Dâmaso Santos Matos Vilhena, “Portuguese method for building condition

assessment,” Struct. Surv., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 322–335, 2008.

28. P. Bastidas, “Maintenance Manual for School Buildings in the Caribbean.,” 1998.

29. R. Oberle and W. G. James, “Developing O&M plans for homeowners associations: Case study,” J. Archit. Eng., vol.

14, no. 3, pp. 76–84, 2008.

30. C. G. Drury and J. Watson, “Good practices in visual inspection,” Hum. factors Aviat. maintenance-phase nine, Prog.

report, FAA/Human Factors Aviat. Maintenance.@ URL http//hfskyway. faa. gov, 2002.

31. T. J. Pitt, “Data requirements for the prioritization of predictive building maintenance,” Facilities, vol. 15, no. 3/4, pp.

97–104, 1997.

32. R. N. Wahida, G. Milton, N. Hamadan, N. M. I. B. N. Lah, and A. H. Mohammed, “Building Condition Assessment

Imperative and Process,” Procedia-Social Behav. Sci., vol. 65, pp. 775–780, 2012.

33. W.-K. Chong and S.-P. Low, “Latent building defects: causes and design strategies to prevent them,” J. Perform. Constr.

Facil., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 213–221, 2006.

34. A. M. Alani, A. K. Petersen, and K. G. Chapman, “Applications of a developed quantitative model in building repair and

maintenance--case study,” Facilities, vol. 19, no. 5/6, pp. 215–222, 2001.

35. P. Shaver, J. Schwartz, D. Kirson, and C. O’connor, “Emotion knowledge: further exploration of a prototype approach.,”

J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 52, no. 6, p. 1061, 1987.

36. O. Bayazit, “Use of AHP in decision-making for flexible manufacturing systems,” J. Manuf. Technol. Manag., vol. 16,

no. 7, pp. 808–819, 2005.

37. E. Finch, K. Jones, and M. Sharp, “A new performance-based process model for built asset maintenance,” Facilities, vol.

25, no. 13/14, pp. 525–535, 2007.

38. M. Hoxley, “Condition inspections of residential property: a procedural framework,” Struct. Surv., vol. 20, no. 1, pp.

31–35, 2002.

39. N. Ahzahar, N. A. Karim, S. H. Hassan, and J. Eman, “A study of contribution factors to building failures and defects in

construction industry,” Procedia Eng., vol. 20, pp. 249–255, 2011.

40. K. S. Kamal, A. G. Ahmad, and L. Ab Wahab, “Kecacatan Bangunan dan Kepentingan Pemuliharaan Warisan di

Bandaraya Ipoh,” in Proceedings: National Conference On Malaysia Cityscape, 2007, pp. 28–29.

41. H. Y. H. Lee and D. Scott, “Identification of main aspects in the management of building maintenance operation

processes,” Surv. Times’, Hong Kong Inst. Surv., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 37–41, 2008.

42. H. Al-Zubaidi, “Assessing the demand for building maintenance in a major hospital complex,” Prop. Manag., vol. 15,

no. 3, pp. 173–183, 1997.

43. Che-Ani, Ramly, and S. Jamil, Zain, “Role And Methods Of Building Defects Inspection,” 2008.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 1051