Is customization fruitful in industrialized homebuilding industry?

Nahmens, I and Bindroo, V (2011) Is customization fruitful in industrialized homebuilding industry? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), pp. 1027-1035. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

The level of customization currently being built by U.S. industrialized homebuilders, including modular and manufactured homes producers, is characterized and the impacts of customization on plant operational performance, and employee and customer satisfaction are examined. To assess the current state of the industry, including the level of customization offered and operational performance, a large-scale survey of industrialized housing producers was conducted. Results revealed that in general, the operational performance of the surveyed homebuilders deteriorates with an increase in home customization. Producers that offer more customization tend to be less efficient in their use of manufacturing space and less efficient with their labor. Results also show that a higher level of customization leads to higher employee satisfaction (lower labor turnover) and leads to lower customer satisfaction. However, those producers that had active quality programs (e.g., continuous improvement) had higher customer satisfaction ratings. Therefore, industrialized housing manufacturers have not reached the ideal of mass customization (i.e., effectively managing the production complexities of customization) and are paying a price for offering more choices to their customers. Lessons learned from this study and mass customization enabling factors are discussed.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: customer services; survey
Index terms: complexity, manufacturer, mass customization, housing, satisfaction, customization, customer satisfaction, survey, turnover, program, customer service, continuous improvement, lessons learned
Subjects: service delivery, performance measurement, construction manufacturing, software systems, construction type, practitioner, business management, professional development, project delivery, data collection methods, systems engineering, manufacturing engineering
Topics: Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Construction Technology
Descriptive scope: 3 PCE

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