Rework is something everyone in construction has experienced. Depending on which study you look at, it can eat up 10 to 20 percent of a project budget. Owners try to plan for it, contractors try to manage around it, and subs adapt to it as best they can. These costs are absorbed into project economics, even though they don’t contribute to better outcomes.
It’s tempting to treat this as an obvious, fixed problem, but it isn’t. The causes are layered, and while technology plays a role, much of the difficulty lies in how projects are organized and how decisions are made. That’s what makes rework so persistent, and so hard to shift.
Technology shows a way forward
Reality capture and verification tools have shown that rework can be reduced, whether the focus is structural elements, complex MEP systems, or general layout and clearances.
I’ve seen laser scans call out problems on site that would have cost a fortune to fix later. And with dynamic laser scanning systems like NavVis VLX or NavVis MLX used together with NavVis IVION, people now have a reliable, up-to-date record of site conditions from anywhere. That makes it easier to catch mistakes early and ensures that when teams are on site, their time is spent on meaningful coordination rather than chasing missing details.
These are not isolated wins. Case studies show that when you use these methods consistently, the return is clear. The connection is simple enough: good data at the right time reduces the chance of rework.
And it’s not just about avoiding mistakes. Compared with traditional laser scanning, dynamic laser scanning can be ten times faster. That means far less time lost to repeat trips. Instead of multiple verification visits, teams can focus their in-person time on collaboration and decision-making, which adds real project value. The effect is more confidence across the team and less time lost on logistics.
Why the problem won't go away on its own
So if the tools are proven, why are rework numbers still high across the industry? From what I’ve seen, the reasons aren’t really technical. They come from how projects are set up and run.
Projects are fragmented, with each trade and firm often working in its own systems. Contracts don’t always encourage genuine collaboration, so coordination can feel reactive rather than proactive. Incentives, too, are not always aligned. Subcontractors sometimes submit very lean bids to stay competitive, with the understanding that scope changes or adjustments later may help balance the margin. Owners, for their part, are often focused on speed and keeping projects moving, which can reduce the time available for thorough verification.
That’s why rework continues. Not because the technology is missing, but because the structures around it haven’t caught up.
What real change looks like
Reducing rework requires a cultural adjustment as much as a technical one. The first step is to be more open about its scale and impact. When a significant portion of project budgets is lost to rework, it deserves attention at the same level as schedule or safety.
The next step is to make verification part of the standard workflow. That doesn’t mean flipping a switch. It means gradually building up practices that make capture routine, so it becomes as expected as CAD in design or safety checks on site.
Collaboration practices must also evolve. A single, accurate record of site conditions only delivers value if everyone can use it. That’s where platforms like NavVis IVION really make a difference. They’re not just data libraries; they give architects, BIM/VDC managers, coordinators, and field teams the same view of the site, which helps reduce the back-and-forth and the uncertainty that feed rework.
I’ve heard customers put it simply: fewer unnecessary site visits, more confidence in what’s being built, and more productive collaboration when teams do come together on site. That’s the kind of change the industry needs, and it’s one that’s already underway in many places.
A chance to move things forward
Rework is not something anyone wants to accept, and it’s not something people take lightly. But it has become ingrained in how projects are delivered, and that’s why it continues. The tools now exist to address it in a more systematic way. What matters next is how far organizations are willing and able to adapt their practices and culture to make the most of them.
Even modest reductions in rework free up significant time and money. At a moment when costs are rising and skilled labor is stretched, that opportunity matters.
Better capture will help reduce rework. Better culture will decide how far the benefits reach.
If you want to dive deeper into this topic, read our guide, From rework to returns: How Reality Capture powers smarter AEC projects, to see how NavVis is helping firms address rework with better data and better collaboration.