Charlson, J and Dimka, N (2021) Design, manufacture and construct procurement model for volumetric offsite manufacturing in the UK housing sector. Construction Innovation, 21(4), pp. 800-817. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to gain insight into procurement routes and forms of contract used for volumetric offsite manufacturing (VOSM) in the housing sector of the UK West Midlands. Seminal literature and government reports have established the potential of offsite technologies to improve the supply of quality housing in the UK. However, the lack of a structured procurement route, common to manufacturing approaches in construction, has significantly contributed to delays in large scale adoption. To achieve the research intention, an exploratory study was undertaken. A literature review of seminal literature and government papers was conducted to establish and benchmark current trends in context. Data was collected using focus groups and interviews with a housing association and housing VOSMs. Grounded theory was used to analyse data and inductively generate themes leading to an original procurement model. The issues identified in the delivery of volumetric housing were categorised into three themes. The findings suggest a limited familiarity with offsite manufacturing (OSM) by housing providers. Albeit, a willingness to adopt these technologies to deliver housing were demonstrated by trial attempts. However, due to limited knowledge, the approach to procurement is by adapting existing procurement models, which are not ideal and obstruct the potential benefits of using offsite technologies primarily because of the significant difference in processes. Also, geographical location influenced procurement decisions when comparing cost with conventional procurement and the dearth of specific government incentives to deliver housing using offsite technologies. This study proposes a procurement model for VOSM. Practical implications: The results have implications for decisions about procurement routes and contractual terms used by housing providers delivering volumetric offsite manufactured housing at scale. Although this study focussed on the West Midlands region, most of the issues identified were not geographically unique. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on potential barriers to the adoption of OSM in the housing sector of the UK. The findings will be of value to stakeholders involved in delivering housing and offers a useful contextual basis for future research.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts; design manufacture construct; design for manufacture and assembly; forms of contract; housing; modern methods of construction; offsite manufacturing; procurement; volumetric offsite manufacturing |
| Index terms: | focus group, interview, exploratory study, volumetric offsite manufacturing, literature review, housing, housing association, design manufacture construct, contractual term, body of knowledge, modern methods of construction, design for manufacture and assembly, grounded theory, form of contract, procurement decision |
| Subjects: | building construction, procurement strategy, research methods, theoretical framing, manufacturing engineering, contract structure, institutional client, data analysis and analytics, knowledge management, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, construction type |
| Topics: | Procurement, Construction Technology, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Research Practice, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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