Offsite Production and Manufacturing for Innovative Construction

People, Process and Technology

Jack S. Goulding, Farzad Pour Rahimian, Jack S. Goulding, Farzad Pour Rahimian

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138550711
• eBook ISBN: 9781351376884
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

The offsite and modular market is continuing to grow. This book builds on the success of a number of initiatives, including formative findings from literature, research and development and practice-based evidence (success stories). It presents new thinking and direction from leading experts in the fields of: design, process, construction, engineering, manufacturing, logistics, robotics, delivery platforms, business and transformational strategies, change management, legislation, organisational learning, software design, innovation and biomimetics. This book is particularly novel and timely, as it brings together a number of cogent subjects under one collective 'umbrella'. Each of these chapters contain original findings, all of which culminate in three 'Key Learning Points' which provide new insight into the cross-cutting themes, interrelationships and symbiotic forces that exist between each of these chapters. This approach also provides readers with new contextualised understanding of the wider issues affecting the offsite market, from the need to embrace societal challenges, through to the development of rich value-laden solutions required for creating sector resilience.

Content includes a balance between case studies and practice-based work, through to technical topics, theoretical propositions, pioneering research and future offsite opportunities ready for exploitation. This work includes: stakeholder integration, skills acquisition, new business models and processes, circularity and sustainable business strategies, robotics and automation, innovation and change, lean production methodologies and new construction methods, Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, scaled portfolio platforms and customisability, new legal regulatory standards and conformance issues and offsite feasibility scenario development/integration.

1Offsite manufacturing

Envisioning the future agenda

Jack S. Goulding and Farzad Pour Rahimian

1.1 Introduction

Offsite manufacturing (OSM) as a concept/approach is certainly not new, the origins of which rest in literature under various incarnations and typologies. Earliest examples include provision where ‘a panelized wood house was shipped from England to Cape Ann in 1624 to provide housing for a shipping fleet’ (Arieff and Burkhart, 2003), through to the importation of housing in Australia (circa 1837), the delivery of Crystal Palace for ‘The Great Exhibition’ in the United Kingdom (UK) (circa 1851), and for mainstream housing in the United States (US) with initiatives such as the Sears Modern Home ‘kit house’ (circa 1908) and Lustron Home (circa 1945). However, there are several different terminologies in current use which describe OSM (Gibb and Pendlebury, 2006; Taylor, 2010); including: modern methods of construction, pod technology, offsite construction/fabrication/production, industrialised building systems, modular construction, pre-cast panels/foundations, volumetric/hybrid construction etc.

Whilst some would argue that OSM is still relatively new and in its infancy, others would purport that OSM has now matured in a number of significant areas – evidenced through several innovative companies in the US, UK, Japan, Sweden, Malaysia, Germany, and Poland (to name but a few); and that these are now starting to transform the industry. That being said, OSM has a relatively low percentage of the market. This is rather complex to understand and unpick due to a myriad of factors, not least: historical perception, entrenched positioning and traditionalist thinking, lack of supply chain integration, limited availability of bespoke manufacturing plants, skills shortages, and [perhaps more importantly] lack of evidenced-based OSM business models. Given these, one might expect ‘risk’ to rest high on the agenda of companies – especially when ‘tried and tested’ approaches tend to rest more comfortably with decision-makers. These issues therefore present some significant challenges for OSM stakeholders. Conversely, several companies have now abandoned the ‘wait and see’ approach often typified with innovation adoption (cf. leaders/laggards and innovation decisions) (Rogers, 2003). These companies have started to pioneer new products and services that transcend traditional OSM approaches; and in doing so, have embedded new social, cultural, political, and economic drivers into meaningful determinative business constructs with clear evidential chains.

This chapter presents a personal and somewhat reflective narrative on the core pivotal issues that have seemingly affected OSM uptake and dissemination. It explains these interconnected constructs using primary and secondary data to triangulate macro, meso and micro drivers, which it is proffered, are linchpin levers for success (or failure). This work builds on previously published empirical evidence and new research especially commission for this chapter in order to secure relevance, generalisability, and overall fidelity. This culminates in the presentation of a new OSM future agenda model, supported by three learning points for wider reflection.

1.2 Literature: Historical refection and future gazing

1.2.1 Introduction

Definitions aside, this chapter assumes the position that prefabrication and modular construction falls under one offsite construction ‘umbrella’. In doing so, the term ‘OSM’ is used as a collective term which encapsulates this position in order to remove delineator ambiguity.

Whilst the origins and derivations of OSM are clearly espoused in extant literature, empirical evidence from Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) highlights a number of topics that still need to be explored in order to address historical (entrenched) challenges – from fragmentation, through to procurement, perception, ‘value for money’, ‘sustainability’, stakeholder integration, etc. This list is seemingly endless. However, what is important is not so much ‘what has happened…and…what have we done’, but what have we learned? At face value, this comment in itself may be perceived to be rather simplistic and naïve; it is not meant to be, it is used to segue discussion, noting that contextual reflection is needed before any future gazing can begin.

The offsite market is still relatively small in comparison with traditional design/engineering/construction approaches. The reasons for this are multi-layered and complex. Whilst some countries have embraced OSM more than others, there are a number of sentient concomitant factors which either directly or indirectly influence market acceptance. The underlying issues are predominantly historical and somewhat context (country) specific. These can loosely be coupled into six core areas, these being: (i) lack of awareness; (ii) supply chain challenges (capacity and knowledge); (iii) cultural perception; (iv) organisational and market maturity; (v) lack of viable business process models/solutions; and vi) a significant perceived skill gap (design/manufacturing/construction). Thus, in order to understand some of these challenges it is important to dissect these six areas into meaningful ‘push–pull’ forces. The following sections explain some of these issues by discussing: OSM precepts (and context; the interrelationship of design, construction, and manufacturing to ‘people’, ‘process’, and ‘technology’; the impact of innovation and change on OSM; and the need to disentangle OSM business models and strategy with clearer evidential chains supported by transparent signposting criteria.

1.2.2 OSM: Precepts and context

The underlying precepts of OSM predominantly rest with moving construction-related activities (traditionally performed on site) into a controlled environment – typically a manufacturing or factory facility (Arif and Egbu, 2010; Gibb and Isack, 2010; Blismas and Wakefield, 2009). In this respect, offsite construction has been espoused as offering several benefits over ‘traditional’ construction approaches, including: higher speed of delivery, improved quality of the finished product, lower costs and lower on-site labour requirements (KPMG, 2016; Nadim and Goulding, 2011; Li et al., 2011; MBI, 2010). Acknowledging these opportunities, several influential bodies called for AEC to revisit OSM in order to address the recurrent industry challenges highlighted earlier. In the UK alone, selective examples include: ‘Constructing the Team. Final Report of the Government/Industry Review of Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the UK Construction Industry’ (Latham, 1994); ‘Rethinking Construction’ (Egan, 1998); ‘Never waste a good crisis: a review of progress since Rethinking Construction and thoughts for our future’ (Wolstenholme, 2009); and ‘The Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model: Modernise or Die’ (Farmer, 2016).

Whilst these studies have advocated the need to promote OSM, uptake has been lower than anticipated, accounting for approximately 7 per cent in the UK (KPMG, 2016) – but with strong market growth potential (AMA Research, 2018). Given that OSM uptake is still relatively low, it is important to understand why this is still the case, as correlation between countries seems to be anchored in socio-economic and political contexts. For example, some studies have identified that industry reluctance to embrace offsite was ‘largely attributable (amongst others) to the unsuccessful past experiences associated with this approach’ (Nadim and Goulding, 2011). Others have identified issues such as: policy and regulations, lack of knowledge/expertise, low levels of standardisation, and the presence of dominated traditional project processes – which still dominate the market (Gan et al., 2018). Moreover, even though the UK has a strong heritage in OSM, it seems that the barriers to the wider uptake of OSM are still unfolding (Parliament, 2018).

It is therefore apparent that context is a significant driver of OSM. This not only influences adoption and uptake, but also the general perception of OSM (from a demand perspective). For example, the North American market is completely different to Europe, which is again different to the Asia-Pacific region. Nuances, context and market maturity aside, globally, the compound annual growth rate for the modular market is still expected to grow by 5.95 per cent, with key players identified as being ‘ACS Group (Spain), Skanska AB (Sweden), Komatsu Ltd (Japan), L&T (India), Balfour Beatty Plc. (UK), Kiewit Corporation (US), Taisei Corporation (Japan), Red Sea Housing Services (Saudi Arabia), System House R & C Co. Ltd (Japan), Bouygues Construction (France) and others’ (ReportBuyer, 2017). Given this predicted growth, it is important to uncover the significant patterns originating from this data, particularly to understand how AEC can [more] purposefully leverage OSM strategies.

1.2.3 Innovation and change

Innovation has often been defined in various ways and through different disciplines, lens and foci. The underlying concept of innovation however, often involves changing or doing something different from ‘mainstream’ competitors. The central tenet and rationale for pursuing innovation is ostensibly driven by a number of factors, not least, organisational excellence (brand distinction), efficiency gains, product differentiation, or unique ways of creating strategic advantage (to make money). A number of studies have investigated the benefits of innovation on business performance, production, and economic growth (Schumpeter, 1934; Kanter, 1983; Drucker, 2007). The innovation ‘umbrella’ includes several derivations, from the creation of new ideas or solutions, through to product/process efficiencies, technologies, and business strategies/models. Therefore, organisations that innovate tend to embrace change more frequently (in order to leverage this innovation) than those that do not (nb. innovation should not be confused with exnovation).

Within AEC literature, the scope and measurement of Construction Innovation (CI) is somewhat difficult to distinguish as measurement is difficult and so may not always be reliable, or safely contrasted with other sectors. This is because inter-alia of the scope of CI activities and numerous delineations (Holt and Goulding, 2016). On this theme, Winch (2003) noted that discrepancies in classifications did not naturally lend itself to make like-for-like comparisons. However, at this juncture it is also important to note that AEC can also learn a lot from other sectors, especially in comparison with the world’s most innovative companies (cf. Forbes, 2018). That being said, a number of AEC exemplars have been discussed and critiqued in extant literature, including: models of construction innovation (Slaughter, 1998); small firms (Sexton and Barrett, 2003); innovation champions (Dulaimi et al., 2005) firm complexity/coupling (Dubois and Gadde, 2002), and business strategy (Seaden et al., 2003).

Acknowledging the importance of innovation (especially relating to OSM), it is proffered that there is an explicit need to appreciate the dynamics and interconnections that nurture (or stifle) innovation. This is so important, as understanding these issues can help focus energies on such matters as: OSM business strategy, process, design, market capacity/absorption, risk and return on investment (to name but a few). On this subject, there are a number of AEC showcase exemplars that can be used to provide the appropriate evidence needed to support the OSM market. Finally, it is important to note that AEC does in fact innovate and the ‘construction industry clearly has a lot to be proud of and it is important to recognise this’ (Loosemore, 2014).

1.2.4 OSM business strategy: Evidential chains and signposting

Within a commercial context, business strategy (sometimes referred to as corporate strategy) is the pattern of corporate decisions taken which then determine organisational goals and objectives. The precise definition and scope of business strategy varies by perceptions and methodological approaches (Ansof, 1970; Porter, 1985; Mintzberg and Quinn, 1991; Robson, 1997; Peppard and Ward, 2016). However, rubrics, definitions and etymology aside, consensus of business strategy typically involves the establishment of policies and plans to achieve strategy or strategic direction – where for example, Porter (1979, 1985) was ackn...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Chapter summaries
• 1 Offsite manufacturing: Envisioning the future agenda
• 2 Offsite construction driving forces: A critical reflection of Hofstede’s National Culture Model
• 3 Offsite manufacturing: Discontinuous challenges and opportunities for offsite lifecycle processes in Malaysia
• 4 Offsite manufacturing in construction: A union of business models, determinative constructs, and strategic accomplishment
• 5 Industrialised house building: Concepts and its application in Sweden
• 6 Design for manufacture and assembly in offsite construction and relationship with concurrent engineering
• 7 Demonstration of BERA language-based approach to offsite construction design analysis
• 8 : Scoping potential of virtual reality and offsite manufacturing
• 9 Towards optimising OSM implementation in construction projects: A sustainable procurement perspective
• 10 Productivity, innovation and disruption: A study of offsite construction in the United States
• 11 Core offsite manufacture industry drivers
• 12 Offsite construction capability and sector resilience in the UK: An integrated systemic approach for learning
• 13 Innovative robotics and automation for offsite manufacturing
• 14 The impact of organisational learning and change on offsite manufacturing
• 15 Stakeholder transformation in OSM infrastructure construction
• 16 Core OSM implementation strategies
• 17 Prefabricated housing firms in Japan and Sweden: Learning from leading countries
• 18 Offsite manufacturing innovation in a biomimetic future
• 19 Optimising offsite manufactured components in the UK house-building sector: Understanding the legal and contractual issues
• 20 Rethinking offsite manufacturing for disaster resilience
• 21 Developing and diffusing a timber-based multi-storey housing system: Moving towards offsite manufacturing
• Index