Salama, T and Said, H (2025) Agility assessment framework for modular and offsite construction. Construction Innovation, 25(2), pp. 193-223. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to determine if companies in the modular and offsite construction (MOC) industry are agile or not and its level of application for agility principles, which allows for quick responses to the increasingly dynamic nature of industry environments. Design/methodology/approach: This paper proposes an agility assessment framework for MOC that uses 48 assessment attributes organized into four categories: metrics, drivers, enablers and capabilities. A questionnaire approach was used to disseminate the framework globally in 19 countries and synthesize its relevance to the MOC industry. The questionnaire had 55 complete responses, majority of respondents work in managerial positions for MOC manufacturing facilities and onsite general contractors. Findings: It was found that the lowest metric score for adapting to change was for cost since controlling cost would be difficult for any changes required after the design freeze stage. The top agility driver was found to be the need to respond to the wide variety of customer expectations, while the lowest driver was the existence of competing priorities. The top agility enabler was vendor partnership, which can be related to current postpandemic supply chain disruptions. Regarding technological capabilities, Europe and the USA acquired better scores compared to Asia, Latin America and Africa. Originality/value: This study contributes to the MOC body of knowledge by creating an agility assessment tool for MOC firms to analyze their agile approach and environment, identifying the preliminary importance of agility assessment attributes and determining significant agile differences between the main MOC industry groups.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | agile management; agility assessment; lean; modular construction; offsite; questionnaire |
| Index terms: | technological capability, methodology, modular construction, Asia, questionnaire, body of knowledge, general contractor, onsite, Europe, Africa, partnership |
| Subjects: | regions and continents, data collection methods, partnership management, knowledge management, innovation and technology management, practitioner, building construction, physical geography and landforms, research methods |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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