Adaptability of design out waste concept to minimise waste in modular construction: A qualitative delphi study

Yapa Mudiyanselage, S. D. Y. B.; Perera, B. A. K. S. and Kavirathna, A. S. (2026) Adaptability of design out waste concept to minimise waste in modular construction: A qualitative delphi study. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, pp. 1-33. ISSN 2046-6099

Abstract

Purpose – The Design Out Waste (DOW) concept focuses on minimising waste during the design phase of construction projects, while Modular Construction (MC), an Off-Site Construction (OSC) method, involves prefabricating modules for on-site assembly. Although prior studies have independently demonstrated the waste reduction potential of DOW and MC, existing literature largely treats these concepts in isolation and lacks a stage-wise integration of DOW principles within MC processes. Given the construction industry's extensive waste generation, integrating the DOW and MC is crucial. However, there is a dearth of research on combining these concepts for waste minimisation. Hence, this study aims to assess the adaptability of the DOW in MC to minimise construction waste. Design/methodology/approach – This study follows a pragmatic philosophy, combining theory and empirical data to develop practical solutions. A qualitative approach was used, involving three rounds of semi-structured expert interviews through the Delphi technique, consisting of 38 interviews in total. The data were analysed using manual content analysis. Findings – The findings reveal a structured alignment between DOW and MC, identifying five DOW principles, including waste-efficient procurement, material optimisation and OSC, which align with 6 MC stages. While no common barriers across all 6 MC stages for this integration were identified, using BIM as a coordination tool for DOW emerged as a common strategy for waste reduction in all MC stages. These findings demonstrate how design-led strategies can systematically reduce waste throughout MC processes. Originality/value – This study develops a stage-wise DOW–MC integration framework that systematically embeds relevant DOW principles across 6 MC stages, moving beyond uniform application assumptions. It also identifies stage-specific barriers and corresponding mitigation strategies for DOW implementation within MC, validated through Delphi expert consensus. The proposed framework offers actionable guidance for the construction industry to integrate waste minimisation into early decision-making, while contributing to society by promoting environmental protection and public health through the structured reduction of construction waste.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: construction waste; design out waste; minimise waste; modular construction
Index terms: qualitative approach, environmental protection, implementation, strategy, adaptability, society, decision-making, coordination, mitigation, Delphi technique, minimization, methodology, waste reduction, philosophy, off-site construction, interview, construction industry, public health, module, waste generation, design phase, modular construction, content analysis, integration, Delphi method, construction waste, construction project
Subjects: organizational analysis, professional practice, environmental impact, waste management, production management, financial risk, industry analysis, research methods, architectural elements, philosophical studies, contractual arrangements, management, algorithms, decision analysis, data collection methods, building construction, communities and social development, sustainability assessment, user focus, environmental engineering, data analysis and analytics, environmental health
Topics: Research Practice, Procurement, Project Management, Organizational Design, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Design Practice, Cost Management, Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Stakeholder 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