Wuni, I Y; Shen, G Q and Saka, A B (2023) Computing the severities of critical onsite assembly risk factors for modular integrated construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(5), pp. 1864-1882. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: Modular integrated construction (MiC) reengineers the traditional construction process. By introducing factory production and onsite assembly (OA) of modules, MiC reinvents construction projects' uncertainties and risk profiles. The OA stage constitutes the highest end of the MiC delivery and supply chains, where several inherited and symbiotic errors and risk events become realities, negatively impacting the MiC project's success. This study explored the severities of OA risk factors for MiC projects. Design/methodology/approach: A comprehensive literature review, consultation of experts and a questionnaire survey of domain experts were conducted to assess the severity of fifteen OA risk factors for MiC projects. The risk severity index was used to compute and rank the severities of critical OA risk factors for MiC projects, followed by proposed mitigation strategies. Findings: The study revealed that the top five OA risk factors with the severest impact on MiC projects include modules installation discrepancies and errors, poor cooperation among critical onsite stakeholders, a mismatch between production schedules and site conditions, improper lifting equipment selection for onsite installation and site-fit rework due to discrepancies in drawings. Originality/value: This study is the first to offer some important insights into the uncertainties that could compromise the OA objectives of MiC projects. It discussed risk management strategies for known and unknown OA risks and made a unique contribution to the theory, practice, and praxis of MiC supply chain risk management.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | modular integrated construction; onsite assembly; risk factors; supply chain |
| Index terms: | methodology, construction project, mitigation, computing, lifting, questionnaire, cooperation, drawing, literature review, strategy, rework, survey, risk factor, module, risk management, praxis, severity index, mismatch, onsite, supply chain risk management, equipment selection, traditional construction |
| Subjects: | computing systems, data collection methods, risk assessment, engineering problems, data analysis and analytics, psychology, operations management, technical documentation, procurement capability, production management, reflexivity, financial risk, management, architectural elements, supply chain risk, research methods, heritage and conservation, environmental hazards, occupational health and safety management, building construction |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Supply Chain Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here