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.