Immersive Technology Integration for Improved Quality Assurance and Assessment Jobs in Construction

Abstract

Construction quality failures impose substantial costs on the industry, with traditional quality assurance (QA) methods operating reactively by detecting problems after they occur rather than preventing them during planning and design phases. Limited research exists on the systematic integration of immersive technologies (IMTs) for proactive quality failure prevention across construction project lifecycles. This study investigates how IMTs can systematically prevent specific quality failure categories through enhanced spatial visualization and virtual verification processes. A qualitative approach was employed, combining scoping literature review, two purposively selected case studies, and autoethnographic analysis to capture both performance metrics and implementation insights. Case Study 1 achieved 8% improvement in solar panel placement efficiency (optimizing from 82 to 90 modules) and 1.7% increase in useful energy production (85.8% vs. 84.1%) through BIM-Unreal Engine integration for shadow analysis and spatial optimization. Case Study 2 demonstrated virtual site mobilization using the Revit–Twinmotion workflow, eliminating spatial conflicts and safety clearance violations during pre-construction planning. Findings revealed that IMT applications systematically address quality failure root causes by preventing design coordination errors, measurement mistakes, and regulatory non-compliance through virtual verification before physical implementation. This paper establishes IMTs as transformative QA platforms that fundamentally shift construction quality management from reactive detection to proactive prevention, offering measurable improvements in project delivery efficiency and quality outcomes.

1. Introduction and Background

Construction quality failures impose enormous economic burdens on the global construction industry, with defects, rework, and non-conformance accounting for approximately 10–15% of total project costs, translating to billions in annual losses worldwide [1]. In the United States alone, quality-related issues cost the construction industry an estimated $15.8 billion annually, while similar patterns emerge globally with European markets experiencing 5–10% of project value losses due to preventable quality failures [2]. These substantial costs stem from various quality failure categories including rework due to design coordination errors, non-conformance with specifications, defects remediation, unauthorized deviations from approved plans, measurement and installation errors, and omissions of required components or safety features.

Quality assessment and assurance are fundamental to ensuring construction project success, improving client satisfaction, and supporting the long-term performance of built environments [3]. These processes involve targeted inspection and testing activities to confirm compliance with specified quality standards. Traditional quality assurance (QA) methods in construction operate primarily through reactive detection mechanisms, relying heavily on physical site inspections, manual testing procedures, and post-implementation verification processes. These conventional approaches require multiple site visits, expose personnel to safety risks, generate significant carbon emissions from transportation, and fundamentally fail to prevent quality issues at their source. Also, traditional QA systems detect problems after they manifest, leading to costly remediation cycles that could have been avoided through proactive intervention during design and planning phase [4]. Furthermore, traditional methods often lack the spatial visualization capabilities necessary for complex 3D coordination, resulting in design clashes and coordination failures that become apparent only during construction phases when correction costs are significantly higher [5].

The implementation of immersive technologies (IMTs) in quality-related activities has shown considerable potential in recent studies. For example, Virtual Reality (VR) has been used to improve design review and coordination [6,7], while Augmented Reality (AR) has proven effective for real-time site inspections and progress tracking [8]. Mixed Reality (MR) has also demonstrated value in facilities management and enabling remote expert guidance [9,10].

Despite the proliferation research on individual applications of IMTs in construction, the body of knowledge remains fragmented into demonstrations of specific technical functionalities. A critical gap persists not only in the volume of studies, but also in their conceptual foundation. There is a lack of systematic evaluation of how these technologies can be strategically integrated to enhance quality assurance (QA) throughout the entire construction lifecycle [11]. There is also a lack of a systematic theoretical framework that explains how and why these diverse technologies collectively enable a fundamental shift. This shift moves from reactive quality detection to proactive prevention. As a result, this fragmentation impedes the development of coherent and scalable approaches to quality management using IMTs.

Addressing this gap, this paper moves beyond cataloging isolated use cases to propose and validate a prevention-focused framework. It aims to systematically review and consolidate existing applications of VR, AR, and MR in construction QA and inspection. It seeks to answer the research question of how can IMTs systematically prevent different quality failure categories through virtual coordination and proactive prevention strategies. It is then empirically examined through two detailed case studies to demonstrate its practical validity.

This paper contributes to the literature by empirically validating and elaborating the prevention-oriented framework previously proposed in theoretical work. Through a qualitative approach, this study advances understanding of how IMTs can be effectively integrated within broader quality assurance systems. By adopting a quantitative and qualitative approach, this paper shifts the discourse from theoretical abstraction to practical application. This empirical grounding not only validates the prevention-oriented framework but also illustrates its implementation in real settings.

Beyond consolidating fragmented research findings, this paper identifies key synergies, establishes best practices and highlights critical areas requiring further investigation and innovation. This research makes both theoretical and practical contributions by providing a structured foundation for advancing IMT-enabled QA in construction. It addresses pressing industry needs through evidence-based frameworks that enable proactive quality management, potentially reducing project costs through early defect prevention and enhanced coordination. The findings reveal substantial benefits for industry efficiency, including reduced rework cycles, improved safety through virtual risk assessment, and lower costs via optimized resource allocation and fewer required site visits. Additionally, the study demonstrates significant sustainability advantages by reducing carbon emissions associated with repeated inspections and transportation, while simultaneously enhancing worker safety through remote assessment of hazardous conditions.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews construction quality failures and existing IMT applications, establishing the foundation for proactive quality management. Section 3 outlines the qualitative methodology, integrating scoping review, case studies, and autoethnographic insights. Section 4 presents findings from two case studies: (1) remote solar panel evaluation via BIM–Unreal Engine, and (2) site mobilization using Revit (v 2024)–Twinmotion (v 2024), demonstrating measurable quality improvements. Section 5 discusses theoretical and practical implications, contrasting IMT-enabled proactive approaches with traditional reactive methods and highlighting implementation challenges. Section 6 concludes with key contributions, industry implications, and future research directions, emphasizing IMTs’ potential to shift quality management from detection to prevention.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Quality Failures in Construction Projects

QA in construction encompasses systematic preventive activities designed to ensure quality requirements are fulfilled through process standardization and proactive planning [3]. When QA systems fail to adequately prevent quality issues, construction projects experience various quality failures that require costly remediation [1,2]. Quality failures in construction can be categorized into various interrelated terms such as rework, non-conformance, defects, deviations, errors, and omissions, each stemming from distinct but often overlapping causes. Rework, defined as “an unnecessary effort of redoing a process or activity that was incorrectly implemented the first time” [12], frequently results from design errors, poor coordination, ineffective planning, scope changes, and inaccurate as-built documentation [1,13]. Non-conformance, described as “failure to meet specified requirements during the initial cycle” [14], is commonly driven by inadequate quality planning, human error, non-compliant materials, poor inspection, and insufficient training or communication [15,16]. Defects are defined as “errors requiring rectification, commonly accepted as part of the building process” [2], and are often caused by poor workmanship, substandard materials, lack of supervision, and poor detailing [17,18]. Deviations, which refer to “non-conformities that do not fully meet specifications but don’t necessarily result in failure” [19], arise from design modifications, unforeseen site conditions, material unavailability, and misalignment with approved plans [20,21,22]. Errors are defined as “failures of planned actions to achieve intended outcomes due to oversight or “misjudgment” [23], typically stemming from unclear project information, insufficient reviews, time pressure, and lack of experience or automation [24,25]. Omissions, defined as “failures to include required elements due to oversights or gaps in documentation” [26], are frequently linked to inadequate design coordination, poor communication, and ineffective use of checklists [12,25].

Table 1. Quality failure terms and their associated causes.

Quality Failure Terms	Main Causes	References
Rework	- Design errors and omissions. - Poor communication and coordination. - Inadequate planning and scheduling. - Ineffective quality control and assurance. - Scope creep and uncontrolled changes. - Incomplete or inaccurate as-built documentation	[1,13,27]
Non-conformance	- Inadequate quality planning and control. - Lack of understanding of requirements and specifications. - Poor workmanship and human error. - Use of non-compliant or defective materials. - Inadequate inspection and testing. - Lack of training and competency of personnel. - Ineffective communication and coordination.	[14,15,16]
Defects	- Poor workmanship and lack of skill. - Use of substandard or defective materials. - Inadequate supervision and quality control. - Inadequate design specifications and detailing. - Poor site conditions and environmental factors. - Lack of adherence to construction procedures and standards. - Damage during handling or installation.	[2,17,18]
Deviations	- Design changes and modifications. - Unforeseen site conditions. - Unavailability of specified materials or equipment. - Changes in client requirements or preferences. - Inadequate planning and scheduling. - Poor communication and coordination. - Lack of adherence to approved plans and specifications.	[19,20,21,22]
Errors	- Lack of experience or competency of personnel. - Inadequate design reviews and verifications. - Poor communication and coordination. - Inadequate or unclear project information. - Time pressures and workload. - Lack of attention to detail. - Inadequate use of technology and automation. - Human factors such as fatigue.	[23,24,25]
Omissions	- Inadequate design reviews and coordination. - Lack of detailed and comprehensive project documentation. - Poor communication and information sharing. - Time and cost pressures. - Lack of experience or knowledge of project requirements. - Ineffective use of checklists and quality control tools.—Human errors and oversights.	[12,20,25,26]

presents an overview of quality failure modes and their underlying causal factors. Understanding and addressing these quality failure types is essential to mitigating their associated costs, ranging from internal failures and deviation correction to external consequences like rework, litigation, and client dissatisfaction.

2.2. Analysis of IMT Tools Implementation for Quality Assurance in Existing Construction Studies

IMTs encompass VR, which generates immersive digital environments enabling users to experience construction scenarios before physical implementation, AR, which overlays virtual information onto real-world construction environments to enhance perception and decision-making, and MR, which blends physical and virtual elements to create hybrid interactive spaces [28]. The use of IMT tools for QA and inspection varies across different construction applications. The integration of immersive technologies (AR, VR, MR) into QA and inspection processes in construction projects directly addresses many root causes of rework, non-conformance, defects, deviations, errors, and omissions. AR applications such as those supporting concrete casting [8], MEP clash detection [29], and façade installation [30] enhance real-time visualization and spatial alignment, significantly reducing design errors, miscommunication, and coordination failures that typically lead to rework and deviations. AR-enabled progress tracking [31], and curing monitoring [32] allow for timely, data-driven decisions that minimize schedule delays, improve inspection accuracy, and reduce the risk of non-conformance and defective work due to poor workmanship or oversight. MR, as demonstrated in excavation safety [28], strengthens site awareness and decision-making, reducing human error and improving compliance with safety and quality standards. VR tools used in site layout planning (Eswaran [33] facilitate better foresight in logistics, which mitigates errors from poor planning and enhances supervision and resource allocation.

Table 2. Systematic mapping of quality failures to IMT intervention mechanisms.

Quality Failure Type	Specific Failure Types	Root Causes	Traditional Detection Point	IMT Prevention Mechanism	Specific IMT Applications	Supporting Evidence
Rework	Design coordination rework MEP system relocations Structural modifications Architectural refinishing	Spatial clash conflicts Interface misalignments Specification contradictions As-built deviations	During coordination meetings or after construction on site	Proactive design validation: Virtual clash detection and spatial coordination	VR multi-discipline design reviews AR spatial conflict visualization Real-time design coordination	[8,34]
Non-conformance	Incorrect material installation Non-compliant construction methods Specification deviations Code violation installations	Specification misinterpretation Inadequate work instructions Communication gaps Insufficient verification	Site inspections and QA/QC checks	Real-time compliance monitoring: Specification verification at point of installation	AR specification overlay during installation Digital compliance checklists Real-time code verification	[29,32]
Defects	Surface finish defects Dimensional inaccuracies Joint and connection failures Material degradation issues Workmanship defects	Inadequate workmanship Environmental exposure Material handling damage Insufficient quality control Low skills	Quality inspections and punch-list reviews	Predictive quality control: Process Standardization and environmental monitoring	VR workmanship training AR dimensional verification Environmental condition monitoring MR for construction trade training	[11,40,41]
Deviations	Unauthorised design changes Material substitutions Construction sequence modifications Dimensional adjustments	Field condition adaptations Material availability issues Construction constraints Communication breakdowns	Change order submissions and design review meetings	Controlled change management: Impact simulation and stakeholder coordination	VR change impact simulation AR site condition documentation Collaborative decision platforms	[36,37]
Errors	Measurement and layout errors Installation sequence mistakes Connection and assembly errors Calculation and planning errors Workmanship errors Design coordination errors	Human oversight Information complexity Time pressures Experience limitations Lack of understanding of project processes	On-site verification or after error discovery during construction	Cognitive support systems: Information delivery, training and decision assistance	AR measurement guidance VR sequence training Step-by-step installation guidance MR for construction trade training MR for design comprehension and collaboration	[38,40,42]
Omissions	Missing building components Incomplete installations Absent safety features Documentation gaps	Checklist oversights Communication failures Documentation inadequacies Inspection limitations	Final walkthroughs, handover inspections, or client snagging	Systematic verification: Mandatory completion checklists with visual verification	AR completion status overlay VR comprehensive walkthroughs Digital progress tracking	[31,39]

illustrates how immersive model-based technologies fundamentally shift construction quality management from reactive detection to proactive prevention. Rework, often caused by design clashes and specification contradictions, can be minimized through VR/AR-enabled clash detection and multi-disciplinary design coordination [8,34]. Non-conformance issues, typically caught only during inspections, are addressed earlier through AR specification overlays and digital compliance tools, ensuring correct installation and code adherence in real time [29]. Defects arising from workmanship or environmental factors are reduced via predictive monitoring and VR/AR/MR training, strengthening quality inspection and control at the source [11,35]. Similarly, deviations such as unauthorized design changes are managed through VR/AR simulations and collaborative platforms that align stakeholders before changes occur [36,37]. Errors caused by oversight or information overload are mitigated by cognitive support systems offering AR-based guidance and VR training [38], while omissions are prevented through systematic digital checklists and immersive walkthroughs [31,39]. Collectively, these interventions show that IMTs are not merely visualization tools but integrated mechanisms for embedding quality assurance across all project stages.

2.3. Development Platforms and Tools

According to the reviewed studies, IMT applications were primarily developed using game engines, including Unity3D and Unreal Engine. These platforms offer powerful capabilities for designing interactive 3D environments tailored to construction contexts. To support domain-specific features and data integration, developers frequently created custom plugins and scripts. AR solutions commonly relied on development kits like Vuforia, ARKit (for iOS), and ARCore (for Android) to enable tracking and rendering functionalities. Additionally, some web-based AR implementations adopted WebXR standards, for instance, certain versions of facade installation system utilized this approach [30].

2.4. Integration with Other Technologies

A recurring theme across numerous implementations is the seamless integration of IMT tools with other technologies and platforms, enhancing their effectiveness and applicability in construction QA. The integration of IMT tools with technologies such as BIM, AI, IoT, and cloud services directly targets root causes of construction quality failures including errors, omissions, non-conformance, and rework by enhancing information accuracy, decision-making, and stakeholder coordination. The synergy between IMT and BIM [29,43] enables real-time comparison between digital models and physical works via formats like IFC, which helps detect deviations, design mismatches, and construction errors early, reducing rework and improving conformance to specifications. The integration of AI and computer vision [10,35] enables automated recognition and analysis of site conditions, mitigating human error and oversight key causes of defects, omissions, and internal failures. These systems enhance predictive QA and reduce reliance on subjective judgment. IoT-enhanced IMT applications [32] facilitate real-time monitoring of curing, equipment, and environmental data, addressing issues such as inadequate supervision, delayed inspections, or overlooked quality triggers, thus reducing non-conformance and defect risks. Lastly, cloud integration ensures centralized data management and real-time stakeholder access [10], improving communication and documentation, and preventing errors due to outdated or incomplete information.

3. Research Method

This study employed a three-stage methodological framework to investigate the role of IMTs in addressing construction QA challenges (Figure 1). The research design combined a scoping review and case study analysis, ensuring both breadth (literature coverage) and depth (practical validation).

Stage 1: Desktop Review—Identifying quality failure causes

The first stage involved a Desktop Review to establish a foundation for the research by identifying recurring quality failure causes and related terminology in construction. Desktop studies, unlike systematic or scoping reviews, extend beyond academic literature to include industry reports, professional guidelines, government publications, and standards [44,45]. This broader evidence base was essential because quality management challenges are often captured not only in scholarly discourse but also in practice-oriented documents such as defect audits and compliance reports.

By synthesizing insights from both academic sources and grey literature, the desktop study captured a holistic view of the conceptual framing of quality failures (from research) and their practical manifestations (from industry). This stage therefore defined the problem space of construction quality issues against which IMT applications could later be assessed.

Stage 2: Scoping review—Mapping IMT applications

The second stage employed a scoping review to examine how IMTs, particularly VR and AR, have been applied to address construction QA and inspection challenges.

Scoping reviews were selected over systematic reviews because the objective was not to evaluate intervention effectiveness, but rather to map the breadth of evidence, identify knowledge gaps and clarify conceptual overlaps. As Munn, et al. [46] emphasize, scoping reviews are particularly appropriate when researchers seek to:

• Identify knowledge gaps.
• Scope a body of literature.
• Clarify concepts, and
• Explore how research is conducted.

Given that IMT applications in construction QA are still emerging and fragmented, a scoping review provided the most appropriate methodological approach to synthesize current knowledge and reveal underexplored opportunities.

Search Strategy. Searches were conducted in Scopus and Google Scholar using Boolean operators (AND, OR). Targeted keywords included:

• “immersive technology”, “virtual reality”, “augmented reality”, “mixed reality”,
• “construction”, “quality assurance”, “quality inspection”, “quality check”,
• “building information modelling”, “safety inspection”, “environmental compliance”,
• “site management”, “defect detection”, “progress monitoring”, “inspection”, “assessment task”.

Only peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings in English were included. Grey literature was excluded at this stage, as practical perspectives had already been captured in the desktop study.

Stage 3: Case study analysis—Real-world applications

To complement the desktop and scoping analyses, a case study methodology was adopted to provide practical, real-world insights into IMT applications. Two distinct case studies were selected, each illustrating how IMTs were implemented in different construction contexts:

• Remote layout assessments of photovoltaic (PV) systems, and
• Evaluation of site conditions for pre-construction setup.

Case study methodology was selected as the primary research approach for this investigation based on several methodological considerations that align with the study’s objectives and research context. Case studies are particularly appropriate for exploring contemporary phenomena within their real-world contexts, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. This paper investigates IMT implementation in actual construction projects, where technological, organizational, and contextual factors are deeply intertwined and cannot be artificially separated for experimental manipulation.

The selection of case study methodology is further justified by the exploratory nature of IMT-QA integration research. Ref. [47] argues that case studies are ideal for building theory from practice, particularly in emerging fields where existing theoretical frameworks may be insufficient. Since systematic IMT integration in construction quality assurance represents a relatively new and evolving domain, case studies enable the development of grounded theoretical insights based on empirical observations of actual implementation experiences.

This study was conducted as prototype, and the digital model was simulated based on representative building projects. The choice of multiple case studies follows [48]’s replication logic, where each case serves as a discrete experiment that either predicts similar results (literal replication) or produces contrasting results for predictable reasons (theoretical replication). The two selected cases: solar panel placement optimization and construction site mobilization represent different construction phases and technological applications, enabling cross-case analysis that strengthens the generalizability of findings while maintaining analytical depth [49].

Furthermore, case study methodology accommodates the qualitative approach required for this research, allowing integration of quantitative performance metrics (energy efficiency improvements, spatial optimization measurements) with qualitative insights (implementation challenges, user experiences, organizational factors). Ref. [50] emphasizes that case studies excel at capturing the complexity and contextual nuances that quantitative methods alone cannot adequately address, making this approach particularly suitable for understanding the multifaceted implications of IMT adoption in construction quality management.

In conducting case studies, we also adopted an autoethnographic approach to capture insights at the implementation level, a research method in which the researcher draws on their own experience in a social context as the primary source of data [51]. Autoethnography, as Muncey [52] argues, is as personally and socially constructed as any form of research, foregrounding the researcher’s positionality and lived experiences as sources of meaning. This approach was particularly relevant given our dual roles as both researchers and practitioners engaged in developing and applying IMT tools within live construction projects.

By reflecting critically on our own involvement in the creation, deployment, and evaluation of IMT models, we were able to uncover nuanced insights into their capabilities, limitations, and practical adoption barriers. This reflexive stance not only enriched the interpretation of case study outcomes but also aligned with recent methodological calls for more contextually grounded accounts of digital construction innovation.

Ethnographic techniques more broadly have proven useful in developing fine-grained, context-based understandings of user behaviors [53]. However, traditional ethnography can be time- and resource-intensive, which often limits its application in fast-paced domains such as construction technology development. In response, rapid ethnographic adaptations, which still preserve the depth of contextual understanding have gained traction as pragmatic alternatives that fit within project cycles. Our autoethnographic method can be situated within this lineage of adapted ethnographic inquiry, balancing rigor with feasibility in the context of digital construction research.

To ensure methodological rigor, an autoethnographic data collection protocol was adopted, drawing on [54] systematic approach. Data was collected through two complementary strategies. First, reflexive journaling was employed, with structured field notes capturing technical information from GIS-based platforms, user interactions through VR goggles, encountered barriers, and reflective insights during both case studies [51]. To mitigate potential researcher bias, the outputs analyzed such as optimal tilt angle and optimal site layout simulations from engineering software like PVSyst (version 8.0.14), and Twinmotion (version 2024) were system-generated data and objective rather than subjective interpretations. Second, artifact documentation was undertaken, systematically recording screenshots, workflow diagrams, and technical configurations, each annotated with timestamps and contextual notes to preserve analytic transparency [55]. This dual protocol enabled a fine-grained, context-rich dataset that integrated experiential reflection with objective technical records, thereby reinforcing both the credibility and transferability of the findings.

4. Case Study Analysis: Enhancing Inspection and QA on Site

This section presents a curated selection of case studies that exemplify the practical deployment of IMTs across diverse construction environments.

4.1. Case Study 1: Remote Evaluation of Solar Panel Placement Using Immersive and BIM Technologies

This project focused on the innovative application of immersive modelling technologies to remotely assess and determine the most suitable locations for installing photovoltaic (PV) systems on existing buildings. The case building is an office building with a roof that is flat. The building’s roof gross floor area (GFA) is approximately 950 m². It is situated in a tight urban area within the central business district, surrounded by several neighboring buildings. This creates spatial conflicts and safety hazards during the assessment stage of the PV layout design. The office building has four levels, with a height of 19.1 m to the top of the parapet wall. This is a common Australian city building typology that experiences typical retrofitting issues such as neighbor building shading. The objective was the remote assessment of the building’s solar potential with minimal on-site visit requirements. The initiative was driven by the growing need to retrofit older structures with sustainable energy solutions, particularly solar power, without the logistical challenges associated with repeated physical site visits. Many buildings constructed between the 1970s and early 2000s were designed with little attention to solar orientation or energy efficiency. At the time, environmental sustainability was not a central concern in architectural planning, and as a result, these buildings often exhibit irregular layouts, non-optimal roof angles, and orientations that complicate the integration of solar technologies. Retrofitting such structures requires a careful and precise evaluation of their solar potential, which is often hindered by limited access to rooftops and the need for multiple inspections.

Traditionally, professionals rely on Geographic Information System (GIS) tools and web-based solar analysis platforms such as PVSyst and Energyplus platform to conduct preliminary assessments. While these tools are useful for shadow analysis and general solar exposure estimation, they present notable limitations when applied to complex 3D environments. For instance, 3D GIS tools often struggle with precision, particularly when calculating solar radiation at specific points within a spatial configuration [56]. The key limitation of platforms such as PVSyst is a disjointed workflow and lack of immersive visualization.

To address these shortcomings, this project adopted a hybrid approach that combined BIM with immersive technology to create a more robust and accurate evaluation framework. This research method’s core innovation is therefore the integration of rapid, immersive design with high-fidelity validation, moving beyond the entire traditional spectrum. The process began with the development of a detailed 3D model of the target building using Autodesk Revit (version 2024). This model served as the foundation for integrating environmental data and conducting spatial analysis. To enrich the BIM model with geospatial context, Blender GIS was employed to import critical GIS data, including topographical elevation, solar trajectory patterns, and the orientation of surrounding structures. This integration allowed for a more nuanced understanding of how external factors influence solar exposure to the building’s rooftop. Following this, the enhanced Revit model was transferred into Rhinoceros 3D, a powerful modelling tool known for its precision in architectural and environmental simulations. Within Rhino, the team utilized Grasshopper, its visual programming interface, to perform detailed solar irradiation analysis (Figure 2). This step directly implements the ‘cognitive support systems’ procedure for ‘Errors’ presented in Table 2, through automating complex mathematical calculations for the best tilt angles and inter-row spacings, thereby eliminating human oversight and miscalculation. This analysis included calculating the optimal tilt angles for mounted PV panels, identifying zones of maximum sunlight exposure, and simulating seasonal variations in solar intensity.

The Rhino model, which had been designed to incorporate the optimal tilt angle, was subsequently imported into the Unreal Engine 5 (UE5) for shadow analysis. The use of UE5 as an IMT throughout this workflow enabled project teams to virtually explore the building’s rooftop environment, assess potential installation scenarios, and make informed decisions without the need for physical presence. This not only improved safety and efficiency but also allowed for real-time collaboration among architects, engineers, and sustainability consultants. By having the optimal tilt angle, it was possible to conduct an in-depth shadow analysis using UE5 platform. The detailed shading analysis in UE5 revealed the potential available roof area that enabled the absorption of direct sunlight for at least 5 h during winter solstice (21 June). Figure 3 shows the identified area in UE5 for PV installation with at least 5 h sunlight on 21 June (Winter Solstice) and 21 December (Summer Solstice).

In the subsequent phase of the project, the designated area on the building’s rooftop was carefully mapped and imported into the Rhino modelling environment to evaluate the spatial capacity for PV module installation. Initially, the use of Rhino in conjunction with the Grasshopper visual programming tool facilitated the placement of 82 PV modules within the highlighted rooftop zone, based on geometric constraints and inter-row distance requirement. However, by incorporating UE5 alongside Rhino and Grasshopper, the project team was able to enhance the system’s efficiency by increasing the number of PV modules from 82 to 90. The panel layout optimization between 82 and 90 units demonstrates the application of ‘cognitive support systems’ mechanisms in preventing ‘Errors’ in design calculations. This significant improvement was achieved through an advanced and highly detailed shading analysis conducted within UE5, which provided dynamic visualization and simulation capabilities far beyond those available in traditional BIM software. The shading assessment enabled the identification of previously underutilized rooftop areas and optimized panel placement to minimize shading losses and maximize solar exposure.

In order to ensure the accuracy and industry applicability of our energy yield forecasts, the end layouts produced as part of the BIM-Grasshopper-UE5 pipeline were simulated with PVSyst. an industry-standard software for simulating the performance of photovoltaic systems. This act was instrumental in comparing the output of our original, immersive pipeline to a validated, physics-based equivalent, i.e., basing the results of this original, immersive pipeline on established engineering practice.

The PVSyst simulation platform showed improvement in collection loss (PV-array loss) and produced useful energy. The results demonstrated an improvement in both performance efficiency and energy generation.

Table 3. Simulation Parameters.

Simulation Parameters	90 Modules	82 Modules
Site	Melbourne	Melbourne
System type	Grid-Connected	Grid-Connected
Simulation period	1 January–31 December	1 January–31 December
PV module type	72 cells	72 cells
Inventor unit power	7.5 kW	4.2 kW
System production	38.3 MWh/year	33.8 MWh/year
Normalized production	4.10 kWh/kWp/day	4.02 kWh/kWp/day
PV-array losses	12.6%	12.8%
Array losses	0.60 kWh/KWp/day	0.61 kWh/KWp/day
Produced Useful Energy	85.8%	84.1%

presents the parameters defined in the PVSyst platform.

As shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the incorporation of UE5 facilitated the expansion of PV module placement, resulting in higher PR and energy output in the 90-module system compared to the 82-module configuration. This process allowed for the accurate determination of the optimal number of solar panels required. It is important to note that the calculation of panel quantity in UE5 was meticulously based on a variety of factors, including the building’s geographical location, as well as the optimal angle and spacing configurations for the panels.

In conclusion, the integration of BIM and UE5 proved to be a highly effective strategy for evaluating solar panel feasibility on existing buildings. By overcoming the limitations of traditional GIS tools and enabling remote, data-rich analysis, this approach offers a scalable solution for accelerating the adoption of renewable energy systems in urban environments, particularly for aging infrastructure that was not originally designed with sustainability in mind.

4.2. Case Study 2: Construction Site Mobilization Through the Integration of BIM and IMT

In this project, the performance of immersive technology during the pre-construction phase was evaluated to determine the location of site equipment. This evaluation was crucial in ensuring that the site operations could proceed efficiently and safely, minimizing potential hazards and maximizing the use of available space.

Initially, a detailed 3D model of a high-rise building was created using Revit software. The project comprises a mixed-use building with three levels of retail space and ten levels of office space. The building is located in a tight urban area with several high-rise structures surrounding the site, creating challenges for the placement of loading bays and tower cranes. Within the Revit model, the site boundary and the building’s location were specified and then imported into Twinmotion software [57] for further editing and the addition of site-specific details. This step was essential for facilitating the editing process and the addition of site-specific information, enabling a more accurate representation of the site conditions. Twinmotion software was employed due to its advanced capability to define the construction site and surrounding environment based on Google Maps data and convert them into a digital format that could be used for site analysis. This platform is exceptionally well-suited for defining the type, size and placement of site equipment, as well as identifying and visualizing context buildings, trees, utilities and streets in the vicinity of the construction site. The use of Twinmotion allowed for a more immersive and interactive planning process.

After establishing a detailed digital environment of the construction site, we proceeded to model the site equipment required for the project’s site mobilization phase. However, it was imperative to define and understand the site constraints before delving into the modelling of site equipment or designing the site layout. By utilizing the advanced features of the Twinmotion platform, we were able to identify site constraints effectively and optimize the modelling and placement of the site equipment. We meticulously marked points on the digital model where equipment placement was not feasible, considering potential hazards that could arise from neglecting safety protocols (adding field information). These points included areas such as underground services, street trees, existing structures etc., which were highlighted in the Twinmotion model using detailed notes. Virtual locating of underground services was the direct application of the ‘systematic verification’ mechanism in preventing ‘Omissions’ in the site mobilization process.

The ability to add such annotations provides a clear visual assessment for site managers and engineers.

One of the standout features of Twinmotion is its walk-through capability, which allows site managers and engineers to virtually navigate the site. This feature was instrumental in examining potential accident scenarios that could result from the improper placement of site equipment. By simulating these scenarios, we were able to identify and mitigate risks, thereby enhancing the overall safety and efficiency of the site operations. In the final stage, each piece of equipment and machinery was assessed based on the required quantity, type, size, and location, in accordance with site setup regulations. This evaluation enabled the selection of suitable equipment for the site, taking into account the building’s location (Figure 6). This proactive approach to site planning and equipment placement was crucial in preventing accidents and ensuring a smooth construction process. This project contributes to reducing quality failure causes by enabling precise, early-stage planning through IMT. The integration of Revit and Twinmotion supported accurate spatial analysis and site equipment placement, which could mitigate rework stemming from poor planning and coordination. As shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, by simulating real-world site constraints such as underground services or street obstructions it minimizes risks of errors, deviations, and non-conformances caused by oversight, unclear documentation, or non-adherence to site conditions. The interactive and annotated digital environment also improved communication among stakeholders, reducing the likelihood of omissions and design-related issues during mobilization.

5. Results

5.1. Literature Review Findings

The systematic mapping of construction quality failures to IMT interventions produced a framework demonstrating how immersive technologies can proactively prevent specific failure categories. The analysis identified six primary quality failure types with their corresponding IMT prevention mechanisms: rework prevention through VR/AR-enabled clash detection and spatial coordination [8,34], non-conformance reduction via real-time AR specification overlays and digital compliance verification [29,32], defect minimization through predictive monitoring and immersive training systems [11,35], deviation control through VR change impact simulations and collaborative decision platforms [36,37], error reduction via AR-guided measurement systems and VR sequence training [38,42], and omission prevention through systematic digital checklists and comprehensive virtual walkthroughs [31,39]. The mapping demonstrated that IMTs fundamentally shift quality management from reactive detection occurring during inspections or after construction completion to proactive prevention integrated throughout design and planning phases.

5.2. Case Study Results

5.2.1. Case Study 1 Results: Solar Panel Placement Optimization

The BIM-Unreal Engine integration for remote solar panel placement assessment demonstrated significant quantitative improvements across multiple performance metrics. The advanced shadow analysis and spatial optimization capabilities enabled an 8% increase in optimal panel placement efficiency, expanding installation capacity from 82 to 90 photovoltaic modules within the same rooftop area constraints. This improvement translated to measurable energy performance gains, with the 90-module configuration achieving 85.8% useful energy production compared to 84.1% for the 82-module layout, representing a 1.7% improvement in system efficiency. The PVSyst simulation results showed enhanced normalized production of 4.10 kWh/kWp/day versus 4.02 kWh/kWp/day, while simultaneously reducing PV-array losses from 12.8% to 12.6%. The total system production increased from 33.8 MWh/year to 38.3 MWh/year, representing a 13.3% improvement in annual energy generation. The estimated cost–benefit analysis indicated that the virtual assessment approach eliminated the need for multiple physical site visits, reducing carbon emissions from transportation while enabling more precise shadow calculations than traditional GIS-based tools, which typically struggle with complex 3D spatial configurations and inter-row shading analysis. The following estimated costs compare traditional solar assessment with IMT-enabled PV configuration for five projects conducted within a month by considering the following assumptions:

• Travel distance can vary, and consequently, the estimated travel cost may fluctuate significantly.
• In the IMT-enabled approach, an immersive technology technician with the appropriate skill set is hired to carry out remote assessments.
• The cost of software licenses is variable and depends on the type and scope of licensing agreements.
• The number of days needed for physical site visits and IMT model generation depends on the project’s size and complexity. Here, we assume two full days for physical assessment and IMT model creation for each project. This allocation is based on the assumption that the BIM model can be produced within a short timeframe, as it only requires the 3D geometry of the rooftop and the precise location of MEP equipment at roof level.

Estimated costs (Australian dollar) for traditional and physical site assessment:

Salary for 2 engineers: 2 × 8 h/day × $70–$100/h × 2 days × 5 projects = $11,200–$16,000

Travel cost using personal/company vehicle (fuel, maintenance, etc.): $100–$200/day × 2 days × 5 projects = $1000–$2000

Equipment cost (monthly): $120–$150

Monthly software license for GIS-based PV analysis tools: $450–$600

Estimated total cost: $12,570–$18,070

Estimated costs for remote assessment:

Salary for 1 engineer: 1 × 8 h/day × $70–$100/hour × 2 days × 5 projects = $5600–$8000

Salary for 1 IMT/BIM technician: 1 × 8 h/day × $60–$80/hour × 2 days × 5 projects = $4800–$6400

Monthly software license for Revit, Rhino, and Unreal Engine 5 (single user): $1000

Estimated total cost: $11,400–$15,400

Although the estimated cost offers a baseline for comparing traditional and remote-based approaches within the context of this research project, it accounts only for major items. Therefore, it should be viewed as a broad-level estimate, and some detailed cost components not being included.

5.2.2. Case Study 2 Results: Construction Site Mobilization

The Revit–Twinmotion workflow for virtual site mobilization demonstrated substantial improvements in spatial conflict reduction and safety enhancement during pre-construction planning. The immersive site setup process successfully identified and resolved potential equipment placement conflicts before physical mobilization, including spatial clashes with underground services, street trees, and existing structures that would have required costly repositioning during actual site setup. The virtual walk-through capability enabled comprehensive safety assessment, identifying 15 potential hazard zones where equipment placement could have violated safety clearance requirements or created access conflicts for emergency vehicles. These hazard zones include four areas of potential collision with nearby structures and buildings, six zones containing public utilities and underground services, three site access issues, and two areas affecting public access and road closures. The analysis showed that the virtual planning process reduced site mobilization time through optimized equipment placement and logistics routing, while eliminating the risk of equipment repositioning costs that can be substantial in urban construction environments where space constraints and logistics complexity significantly increase mobilization expenses. The annotation and documentation features of Twinmotion facilitated clear communication among stakeholders, with several spatial constraints successfully identified and marked in the virtual environment before site access. The integration with Google Map data provided accurate contextual information, enabling precise assessment of site boundaries, utility locations, and neighbor considerations that traditional 2D planning methods often overlook until physical mobilization begins.

The findings from the case studies, summarized in

Table 4. IMT-enabled quality failure prevention analysis—Case study applications.

Case Study	IMT Technology Used	Quality Failure Category	Specific Failure Type	Specific Prevention Mechanism	Outcome Achievement
Case study 1: PV Panels Layout design: BIM–UE5 integration enabled 3D shadow analysis across all seasons, optimizing placement from 82 to 90 modules.	Unreal Engine 5 + Revit + Rhino 3D + Grasshopper	Rework	Panel repositioning due to shading miscalculations	Preventing panel repositioning	− Real-time seasonal shadow visualization with inter-row spacing precision − Maximized energy capture
		Non-conformance	Compliance with mounted PV installation	Ensured clearance compliance pre-installation	Visualized real-time compliance checking
		Errors	− Incorrect panel orientation/tilt − Shading losses from incorrect inter-row spacing	Eliminated shading-related performance losses	− Automated angle optimization − UE5 verified all panel measurements virtually − Grasshopper algorithms calculated optimal tilt angles
Case study 2: Site mobilization: Revit–Twinmotion workflow enabled spatially accurate equipment placement	Revit + Twinmotion	Rework	Equipment repositioning due to spatial conflicts. For example, the locations of manholes and the loading bay.	Prevented repositioning cycles	− Virtual placement with conflict detection
		Non-conformance	Safety clearance violations	Twinmotion verified crane access, site access, spacing, and utility clearances	Optimized site use
		Errors	Site congestion and spatial clashes	Prevented sequence-related errors	− Virtual sequence/phased planning − Twinmotion ensured precise equipment positioning − Twinmotion simulated mobilization

, illustrate how IMT applications applied in these case studies proactively prevented quality failures across both building and site contexts. In the solar panel assessment, IMTs such as BIM–UE5 and Rhino-Grasshopper enabled comprehensive shadow simulations and parametric tilt calculations. These tools eliminated rework associated with PV panel repositioning due to shading miscalculations, while also ensuring complete system integration. Similarly, in the site mobilization case, Revit–Twinmotion simulations optimized equipment placement, routing, and sequencing by detecting spatial conflicts, verifying safety clearances, and simulating installation sequences. This eliminated costly rework cycles and improved jobsite safety due to properly locating tower crane and loading bays.

6. Discussion

6.1. Theoretical Implications

The findings of this study significantly advance IMT-QA theory by establishing a systematic prevention-based framework that fundamentally reconceptualizes construction quality management. Traditional quality assurance theory has been predominantly grounded in detection and correction paradigms, operating under the assumption that quality issues are inevitable and must be identified through inspection processes [3,58]. This research demonstrates that IMTs enable a paradigmatic shift toward proactive prevention, where quality failures can be systematically avoided through virtual verification and spatial coordination during design and planning phases. The study contributes to theoretical understanding by providing empirical evidence that IMT-enabled quality management operates through three distinct mechanisms: enhanced spatial visualization that reveals coordination conflicts before physical implementation, real-time compliance verification that ensures adherence to specifications during virtual construction, and systematic verification processes that eliminate omissions and errors through comprehensive digital checklists and walkthroughs.

Furthermore, this research builds on previous studies of construction technology adoption [59]. It goes further by showing that IMTs are not just visualization tools. Instead, they can serve as robust decision-support systems that bring together multiple data sources and stakeholder inputs. The case studies demonstrate that successful IMT implementation depends on integration with established BIM workflows and specialized analysis tools such as Rhino-Grasshopper for solar analysis and 4D BIM tools for site logistics. This highlights that IMT-QA theory must account for technological ecosystem dependencies rather than treating IMTs as standalone solutions. These findings challenge earlier theories about IMTs. Previously, such technologies were seen as isolated interventions. Now, they are being reimagined as part of large digital construction frameworks. Their success depends on how well they integrate with existing design and analysis platforms.

The study also contributes to quality failure causation theory by providing systematic mapping between specific failure types and corresponding IMT prevention mechanisms. This mapping reveals that different quality failures require different technological interventions, with rework prevention benefiting most from clash detection capabilities, non-conformance reduction requiring real-time specification overlays, and omission prevention needing comprehensive systematic verification processes. This differentiated approach to quality failure prevention represents a theoretical advancement beyond generic QA frameworks, offering a more nuanced understanding of how specific technological capabilities address particular quality risks.

6.2. Comparative Analysis: IMT Versus Traditional Assessment Methods

The case studies demonstrate measurable advantages of IMT approaches over conventional assessment methods. In Case Study 1, traditional solar assessment relying on GIS-based tools and site visits would typically require multiple physical inspections, each involving safety risks and carbon emissions from transportation. The BIM-UE5 integration enabled remote assessment with enhanced precision, resulting in an 8% increase in optimal panel placement (90 vs. 82 modules) and improved energy generation efficiency (85.8% vs. 84.1% useful energy production). Traditional 2D GIS tools lack the 3D spatial analysis capabilities demonstrated in this paper, particularly for complex shading calculations and inter-row spacing optimization. In Case Study 2, conventional site mobilization typically relies on 2D drawings and physical site visits for equipment placement decisions. The Revit–Twinmotion workflow enabled virtual identification of underground services, street tree constraints, and safety hazards before physical site setup, potentially preventing costly repositioning and safety incidents. While traditional methods may appear less expensive initially, the IMT approach reduces rework costs, minimizes safety risks, and enables more informed decision-making through enhanced visualization capabilities that are impossible to achieve with conventional 2D planning tools.

6.3. Implementation Challenges and Practical Considerations

The practical implications of this research highlight specific mechanisms and analytical frameworks for addressing distinct quality failure categories through targeted IMT interventions. Beyond the project level, the findings suggest that widespread IMT adoption could fundamentally reshape construction delivery methods. The demonstrated capacity to conduct comprehensive quality assessments remotely carries significant implications for project team structures, potentially enabling centralized quality control specialists to oversee multiple projects simultaneously while reducing reliance on site-based personnel. Such transformation is particularly valuable for projects in remote or hazardous environments where traditional inspection methods are costly or unsafe. The potential value of this research lies in its ability to streamline quality assessment workflows, reduce reliance on site-based inspections, and improve coordination across engineers and teams. These benefits suggest meaningful time, cost and resource savings compared to traditional physical inspections methods. Despite the benefits demonstrated, several implementation challenges emerged during the case studies that warrant consideration for broader industry adoption.

6.3.1. Technical Barriers

Technical barriers include the significant learning curve required for multi-platform integration (Revit–Rhino–UE5–Grasshopper workflow), with team members requiring 2–3 weeks of training to achieve proficiency. This estimate may vary depending on workforce digital literacy, project complexity, and organizational readiness. Hardware requirements present another constraint, as complex 3D modelling and real-time rendering demand high-performance computing resources that may exceed typical project budgets. Interoperability issues between software platforms occasionally require manual data conversion, adding complexity to workflows. Additionally, the accuracy of IMT assessments is fundamentally dependent on the quality of input data; incomplete or outdated BIM models can propagate errors throughout the virtual assessment process.

6.3.2. Human and Skills-Related Barriers

The application of IMT tools and digital technologies requires training. The skills gap in the industry workforce and the need for continuous training is one of the main barriers that should be considered if digital technologies are going to be used for inspection, optimization, and automation purposes in construction projects.

6.3.3. Organizational and Cultural Barriers

Despite the potential benefits of IMT perceived in this project, the adoption of IMT and digitization in construction is not satisfactory. This may be due to resistance to altering traditional work methods and the absence of a “digital-first” culture.

6.3.4. Economic and Contractual Barriers

High up-front capital investment costs and the inappropriateness of traditional contracts for new digital functions and deliverables are considered another barrier that can hinder the adoption of IMT.

Future implementations should address these challenges through standardized training programs, hardware cost-sharing strategies, improved software interoperability standards, and phased adoption approaches that gradually introduce IMT capabilities alongside traditional methods rather than requiring complete workflow replacement.

The proposed mapping frameworks present a foundation for integrating IMTs into construction workflows. The frameworks and strategies discussed in this paper are effective in environments where quality assessment is a crucial task. Project teams and engineers with access to IMT tools and technical support can apply similar applications. However, it may be beneficial to explicitly define the boundary conditions of the framework to further enhance its relevance and practical utility. First, while the explained workflows are applied in building projects (vertical construction), similar immersive model-based quality assessment workflows can be explored in horizontal infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges. These project types may require tailored data capture strategies and quality metrics, and future research should investigate how the framework can be adapted to suit their unique characteristics. Second, the generalizability of the framework beyond the Australian context depends on regional factors such as regulatory environments, workforce capabilities, and technology adoption. Although the principles are broadly applicable, implementation may vary across different geographic regions. Third, scalability concerns are addressed by considering cost, technical expertise, and hardware requirements. Budget limitations can affect the adoption of IMTs, making it essential to understand the scope of IMT use early in the project to estimate costs accurately. Additionally, the level of technical expertise required to implement the framework effectively may vary across teams, and access to high-performance hardware can influence feasibility, especially for large-scale or high-fidelity models. Technology maturity also plays a role; less mature solutions may require custom development, which could impact scalability and transferability. By incorporating these considerations, this paper offers a more nuanced view of the framework’s transferability and limitations.

7. Conclusions

The adoption of IMT in construction QA and inspection marks a pivotal shift in how project teams manage safety, efficiency, and overall quality. Rather than relying solely on traditional, manual inspection methods, IMT introduces advanced digital tools that support remote, precise, and predictive assessments across various phases of construction. This paper presented two case studies aimed at deepening industry understanding of how IMT can be applied to enhance productivity in construction projects. The first case study highlights the transformative role of IMT in retrofitting renewable energy systems. By enabling virtual inspections of rooftops, technicians can assess installation sites without physical access, eliminating height-related safety risks and reducing carbon emissions from repeated site visits. IMT tools allow for detailed analysis of shading, structural integrity, and optimal panel placement, leading to higher-quality installations and improved long-term performance. This approach directly addresses the industry’s demand for safer, more sustainable inspection methods in energy retrofits.

The second case study explores IMTs’ integration with BIM during site mobilization. Virtual inspection of underground services prior to site setup enhances the solution of time-based clashes and risk mitigation, preventing costly disruptions. Additionally, IMT supports precise planning of tower crane placement by simulating operations and identifying potential conflicts with surrounding structures. This proactive strategy improves safety and operational efficiency, particularly in dense urban environments where spatial constraints are critical. IMT is increasingly recognized not just as a visualization tool, but as a comprehensive inspection and decision-support system. When combined with technologies like BIM, AI, IoT, IMT enables more accurate and efficient QA processes. However, successful implementation depends on industry-wide efforts to standardize practices, integrate systems, and provide adequate training for users.

This study investigated the benefits of IMT in inspection and assessment tasks through two case studies. To gain deeper insights into the potential advantages of IMT in QA and inspection activities within construction projects, future research should incorporate survey-based methodologies. Such studies could further explore IMTs’ capacity to enhance productivity and performance across the construction sector. Additionally, it is recommended that IMT be integrated with other digital technologies such as IoT and AI in QA and inspection processes. This integration could provide more robust evidence for industry practitioners regarding IMT’s effectiveness in automating various construction tasks.