Purpose: It has been pointed out in studies how quality in the construction industry should be improved and how the building process has potential to be more efficient. The industry's project-based approach complicates the experience feedback and one is faced with new conditions before each project. When there is so much knowledge and experience in the industry, it should also be possible to make use of it and pass it on in the company. Can a perceived experience be fed back entirely or does knowledge get lost on the way? Today there is research on how knowledge management can improve the business but there is a lack of research on how to take advantage of knowledge gained during the warranty period. The aim of the report is to identify areas for improvement in the work with experience feedback. To find the most important improvement proposals for a construction company in the work experience feedback during the warranty period. Method: The report is a qualitative study and selected research methods are literature studies, case study, interviews, and document analysis. Findings: The study concludes that there are no procedures for documentation of the guarantee measures. For the most part construction services are used to fix errors. The result of that is that the person who carried out the error is not the one who solves it which risks that knowledge is lost during returning. Digital tools are used to advantage to document and collect experiences. There is an awareness in the investigated company that a database with more experience from projects is needed and interviews show that a need for it exists. The experience can be collected in the database so all of the employees use it. Meetings prove to be a good method for disseminating experiences. Implications: The report shows the conclusion that in the present situation there is no routine or system for experience feedback during the warranty period. The results show that all warranty measures should be documented. The experience that is assessed as significant can advantageously be taken up in meetings with the person who possesses the experience to be sure that no knowledge will be lost on the way. Small actions that are documented need not be brought up to the same extent, but the information can be used to detect recurrent errors. The report highlights the importance of experience being not only documented, it then becomes no experience feedback. The feedback itself is central to the benefit and improve the quality of the building. Digital tools can serve as important tools to document and gather experience and should be used on a larger scale. Limitations: The report is limited by the focus on the housing side in one construction company. The work doesn’t immerse in the economic factors or specific construction errors. The interviews are held only with officials and the majority of the interviewees work in the same district. Document analysis is used to observe the company's management, but an in-depth analysis of the system are not executed.

This thesis has been conducted in collaboration with JM AB, Region Öst, based at their office in Uppsala. Below follows a summary of the study. Problem For the major contractors in Sweden, the costs after the costumers access are high. According to Boverket the costs can be as high as 1.3 billion SEK annually. In addition of the costs of the work itself, the companies risks dissatisfied customers when the extra work often is considered as a disturbance. To investigate this matter, the purpose of this thesis is to answer the following questions: - What are the most common errors reported during the warranty period? - Can the errors be addressed at an earlier stage? - Is poor purchasing a contributing factor to the high costs during the warranty period? - Can a different ventilation system reduce the amount of errors? Method The purpose of the study is to identify the most common errors that occur during the warranty period, to summarize these and give concrete suggestions of measures to reduce the errors. The report is based on interviews, statistics of the errors from JM Region Öst during year 2015 and the analysis of the customers feedback during the warranty period of eight projects. In addition, the authors have chosen to compare two different ventilations systems to see if the change of system can reduce the number of error reports concerning ventilation. Conclusions The study shows an even distribution of errors from the different categories. The reports from JM Region Öst during year 2015 and the average from the selected projects have similar distribution. Of the total number of error reports from JM Region Öst during year 2015, 20.1 percent belonged to the category Plumbing. The same category had, in the authors compilation of the eight projects, 20.2 percent of the reports. From this result it can be concluded that the percentage of problems reported from each category is about the same, no matter the size of the project. In the interviews, the most common errors and what causes these, were discussed. Because of the many errors to the category Plumbing, this was the main subject. During the interviews it was discovered that different actors blames the problems on each other. However, dirt in the pipe system in combination with a low water pressure was considered to be the biggest cause of problems to the category. The study also shows that a complicated list of responsibilities generates costs for the after-sales department. The reason is that the process of appointing a responsible actor becomes hard. The consequence of this is that staff from the after-sales department is forced to make visits to the projects only to be able to redirect the matter to the responsible subcontractor.

This thesis is ordered by Peab Sweden AB Regional Jönköping and concerns of warranty inspections. The intention is to work out a basis, which show the most common complaints is the warranty inspections, and make a small analysis on what causes them to be. The report also presents possible solutions to prevent the occurrence of defects. It also covers the issue of how the client looks at Peabs way to overcome the objections of warranty inspections. The report has the following issues: •What are the most common errors observed during the warranty inspection? •What are the causes of complaints? •What can be done to reduce the number of complaints? •How the customer thinks that the complaints be addressed? Twenty-five Guarantee survey records from the projects Peab has done in recent years has been the starting point for the investigation. In the protocols, we have categorized the remarks and made a compilation of common remarks. Through interviews with inspectors, buyers, site managers and Peab's inspection team the results have been analyzed and interpreted. These survey methods have resulted in various proposals for measures that can reduce the remarks. An example may be to inform professional workers in the building about what the most common remarks are and how to guarantee that these can be prevented. The compilation is categorized according to the most common complaints, construction types, actors and types of buildings.The compilation of inspection protocols showed that the cracks are the most common complaints. The interviews gave confirmation that the survey compilations of protocols were equivalent to reality. The conclusion is that the most common complaints are mainly cracks in the wall corners, roof angles and doors that need to be adjusted. These remarks are mainly due to the tight construction times, sloppy and wet materials that are installed. But there are also many other factors contributing to many of the common faults of warranty inspection that cannot be defined as a single cause. Interviews with clients revealed that they are satisfied with the way Peab remedy defects observed at guarantees, while the survey does not disturb the residents/production.

In Sweden there is no legal regulation for the obligations and responsibilities between the contracting parties within the construction, civil engineering and installation sector. To clarify uncertainties regarding the liability, actors from theses sectors have agreed upon a voluntary regulation, called the General Conditions of Contract. When insurance companies want to enter the Swedish construction insurance market, they face a regulatory framework that not only regulates the construction market, it also imposes requirements on terms and conditions that must be included in the construction insurance. These terms are perceived as ambiguities and create difficulties and inhibit the ability for these insurance companies to offer competitive insurances. One of the terms that create these difficulties is the guarantee period, which is period of time starting from handing over the construction project to the employer, during this period the contractor still has the responsibility for the construction project. The guarantee period regulated by the General Condition of Contracts differs from the international use of the term both in length and in content. The purpose of this thesis is to expose the differences and similarities between the term "guarantee" in comprehensive all risk insurance regulated by the General Conditions of Contract; AB 04 and ABT 06 with two international used insurance policies from reinsurance companies Munich Re and Swiss Re and defect exclusions LEG and DE. The problem discussed in this thesis is whether the exposure of risk for the insurance companies during the guarantee period is comparable or if they deviate? The results presented in this thesis indicates that the guarantee period regulated by AB 04 represents a lower risk exposure than the guarantee period regulated by ABT 06 and that the guarantee period regulated by ABT 06 is most comparable to guarantee period compared in this thesis. The result presented partially confirms simultaneously partially refutes the apprehension insurance companies have regarding the guarantee period according to the General Conditions of Contract, this knowledge about the guarantee period can be used so that more insurance companies can establish on the Swedish construction insurance market. / I Sverige finns ingen lag som reglerar skyldigheter och det ansvar parterna har i entreprenader inom bygg-, anläggnings- och installationssektorn. För att lösa ansvarsfrågan har byggsektorns aktörer enats om en frivillig reglering, Allmänna Bestämmelser. När försäkringsbolag vill ta sig in på den svenska entreprenadförsäkringsmarknaden ställs de inför ett regelverk som inte bara reglerar entreprenadmarknaden utan även ställer krav och villkor på vad entreprenadförsäkringar måste innehålla. Dessa villkor upplevs som främmande och skapar problem för försäkringsbolagen och hämmar möjligheten att erbjuda konkurrensmässiga försäkringar. Ett av dessa villkor som skapar problem är garantitiden, den tid efter avlämnandet, då entreprenören fortfarande har ett ansvar för entreprenaden. Denna garantitid skiljer sig från de internationellt använda försäkringarna både i tid och i omfattning. Syftet med arbetet är att frilägga skillnader och likheter mellan begreppet "garantitid" i allriskförsäkringar enligt Allmänna Bestämmelser AB 04 och ABT 06 respektive två internationellt använda försäkringar från återförsäkringsbolagen Munich Re och Swiss Re och defektundantagen LEG och DE. Frågeställningen som behandlats är om riskexponering är jämförbar i de olika försäkringars garantitider eller om de skiljer sig åt? Resultaten som presenteras i arbetet visar att garantitiden i AB 04 innebär en lägre riskexponering än vad garantitiden i ABT 06 gör och att ABT 06 är den garantitid som är mest jämförbar med garantitider i de jämförande försäkringarna. Genom att detta resultat kan presenteras som delvis bekräftar samtidigt delvis motbevisar den farhåga försäkringsbolag har angående garantitiden enligt AB kan denna kunskap om garantitiden innebära att fler försäkringsbolag kan ta sig in på den svenska entreprenadförsäkringsmarknaden.