Pan, W; Gibb, A G F and Dainty, A R J (2012) Strategies for integrating the use of off-site production technologies in house building. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(11), pp. 1331-1340. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Despite extensive research into attitudes and practice surrounding the uptake of off-site production technologies, there is limited understanding of how best to integrate their use into business processes at the organizational level. Drawing on an action-research case study with a leading U.K. house-building organization, this paper scrutinizes the processes through which off-site technologies were adopted and utilized. The use of off-site methods was fundamentally framed by the key stages and business milestone reviews of the house-building process, which together represented a complex and multilayered structure of business management. Five off-site reviews were aligned with the business processes. Strategies for integrating the use of off-site technologies are examined. It was crucial to establish an overall off-site strategy and integrate it into the process from land acquisition on. Organizational learning embraced the adoption of off-site methods, whereas extra reporting and management efforts introduced bureaucracy. Culture change was commonly perceived as difficult and painful. Earlier engagement with supply chains was advocated for favoring the off-site approach and improving business efficiency, whereas it also demanded greater commitment of the house builder to specific supply chains and therefore exposed the business to risks associated with planning and market changes. The strategies should facilitate building companies' strategic management of off-site technology.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; house building; off-site production; prefabrication; process; strategy; United Kingdom |
| Index terms: | building process, business management, strategic management, land acquisition, strategy, commitment, drawing, United Kingdom, builder, organizational learning, prefabrication, off-site production, efficiency, case study |
| Subjects: | psychology, real estate economics, technical documentation, data collection methods, business, practitioner, building construction, manufacturing engineering, management, performance management, Geography, professional development |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Site Management, Organizational Design |
| 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