Fox, S; Marsh, L and Cockerham, G (2001) Design for manufacture: A strategy for successful application to buildings. Construction Management and Economics, 19(5), pp. 493-502. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Building designers' counterparts in the manufacturing industry use proprietary methodologies described by the term 'design for manufacture' (DFM). Their use has resulted in radical improvements to productivity and quality. The potential benefits of applying DFM to buildings are widely recognized. However, there are differences between design in the manufacturing industry and in the construction industry. An analysis is provided here of how building design information and activities could affect successful application of DFM in the construction industry. The paper presents a review of DFM literature and a field survey of construction manufacturers, assemblers and consultants. The results suggest that information and activities prevalent in building design are barriers to the successful application of existing DFM methodologies. However, it may be possible to apply the fundamental principles of DFM to buildings. A strategy to achieve this is introduced and discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | design for manufacture; design metrics; design rules; methodology |
| Index terms: | design for manufacture, construction industry, building design, designer, productivity, methodology, manufacturer, survey, manufacturing industry, strategy |
| Subjects: | architectural design, profession, data collection methods, practitioner, industry analysis, research methods, management, manufacturing engineering |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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