Rework is a design problem, not just a cost
Rework isn’t simply a budget line item — it’s a symptom of deeper flaws. According to FMI Corporation, more than $177 billion is lost each year in the U.S. due to inefficiencies like rework, time spent searching for data and communication breakdowns.
Primary causes of rework in construction
The real culprits behind construction rework
Rework isn’t just a site-side issue — it’s a symptom of design or communication failure. Enterprise architecture and design teams are navigating increasingly complex demands around compliance, coordination and constructability. When design assumptions misalign, handoffs are unclear or documentation is inaccessible, the consequences include more than just change orders: expect delays, mistrust among stakeholders and budget overruns.
Here are three of the most costly — but solvable — causes of design-driven rework.
1. Collaboration: when the band plays out of tune
Design errors are often relational, not architectural.
According to analysis by MyComply, 48% of all construction rework is driven by poor collaboration, and 26% is linked directly to miscommunication. That translates to $46 billion lost every year simply because teams aren’t aligned.
The core issue? Senior stakeholders, including decision-makers, often enter the process too late. They arrive after weeks of design work, armed with red pens and dismantle progress.
Tooling compounds the problem: Email threads, PDF markups and isolated feedback that fail to inform the model. Comments arrive too late — if at all — and often lack context.
What you can do:
Build governance checkpoints into the process. Require involvement from principals, design directors and client reps at both early schematic design and later-stage design development milestones.
Incorporate real-time design collaboration through digital charrettes and shared model access. Enable transparent feedback with contextual comments and version tracking for documents like zoning compliance records and planning submissions.
When governance is proactive — not reactive — teams reduce confusion and minimize costly do-overs.
2. Tooling: when the pencil fights back
Design teams frequently juggle tools that are either too rudimentary or overly complex, and both scenarios hamper effective workflows.
FMI also found that 22% of rework is caused by inaccurate or inaccessible information, which equates to roughly $31 billion in annual losses. This isn’t merely a file management issue. It reflects a poor tech stack. If your tools slow idea exploration, complicate change tracking or hinder output clarity, it’s not a tool — it’s a tax.
What you can do:
Audit design tools used for site modeling, massing, program validation and other key workflows. Ask: Are these tools enabling fast iteration and clear communication, or fragmenting the workflow?
Invest in platforms that support rapid modeling from existing site conditions, like point clouds and GIS terrain, offer fluid transitions between 2D and 3D and direct annotation for redlining.
Tools should mirror the natural flow of design review and submission — not disrupt it. When that happens, teams move faster and avoid costly missteps.
3. Interoperability: when tools can’t talk to each other
There is a graveyard of designs that started clean but perished between documentation and delivery. Why? Because they couldn’t be translated for construction.
Instead of a seamless pipeline, many firms rely on a patchwork of proprietary formats, manual exports and repeated markups. The result: lost context, extended timelines and duplicated work.
FMI’s research shows that construction professionals spend more than 14 hours per week on non-optimal tasks — things like searching for files, resolving formatting issues or reconciling outdated documents. That’s more than a third of the workweek lost to friction points outside of core design or delivery activity.
What you can do:
Define a clear interoperability strategy to guide how design intent flows across phases — from concept to documentation to construction.
Prioritize tools that support open standards like IFC and DWG, and can effectively translate native geometry, attributes for material takeoffs and classification tags to maintain fidelity throughout the project lifecycle.
Structure key deliverables — such as design development sets, model-based quantity schedules and permit drawings — so that data remains usable across phases.
When interoperability is a foundational pillar of your ecosystem—not cobbled together ad hoc—you foster alignment and trust from concept through completion.
The way forward
Improving design processes isn’t just about crafting better drawings — it’s about building smarter. For design to fulfill its role in the construction lifecycle, it must be clear, collaborative and connected.
The tools we select either streamline delivery or hinder it. Connected platforms like Trimble SketchUp seamlessly support projects from concept to construction without compromise.
