Pan, W and Arif, M (2011) Manufactured construction: Revisiting the construction-manufacturing relations. In: Egbu, C and Lou, E C W (eds.) Proceedings of 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
Construction-manufacturing relations became imperative following the Industrial Revolution, and have been hotly debated over the past few decades. Three main schools of theory exist. They are: pro-active learning from manufacturing construction is backwards; prudent to learning construction is unique and different from manufacturing; and mutual learning construction to learn improving quality and efficiency while manufacturing to learn improving effectiveness of dealing with complexity and uncertainty. The past decades have also seen a sweeping agenda of sustainability globally, with the UK government probably having made the most challenging commitments to carbon emissions reductions in general as well as in the built environment. The theory of construction-manufacturing relations is updated, with a focus on examining the business process and production strategies. It is important that construction and manufacturing not be considered as two different philosophies; rather a more interdisciplinary approach should be contemplated for offsite construction projects. A theoretical framework of construction-manufacturing relations is developed, which highlights the importance of a number of influencing factors including industry sectors, context, technology of manufactured construction, business process and activities, and business factors. Thoughts are provided on future research into manipulating the construction-manufacturing relations.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | manufacturing; offsite production; process |
| Index terms: | complexity, construction project, built environment, effectiveness, active learning, commitment, philosophy, production strategy, influencing factor, efficiency, carbon emission, industry sector |
| Subjects: | production management, performance management, manufacturing engineering, systems engineering, infrastructure and transport systems, philosophical studies, industry analysis, learning methods, climate science, risk assessment, psychology |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Urban Studies, Quality Management, Education, Organizational Design |
| 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