Blismas, N; Pasquire, C and Gibb, A (2006) Benefit evaluation for off-site production in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 24(2), pp. 121-130. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Evaluating to what extent a component or building system should be produced off-site is inadequate within the industry. The potential benefits of off-site production (OSP) are commonly cited when justifying an OSP approach, yet holistic and methodical assessments of the applicability and overall benefit of these solutions, to a particular project, have been found to be deficient. Common methods of evaluation simply take material, labour and transportation costs into account when comparing various options, often disregarding other cost-related items such as site facilities, crane use and rectification of works. These cost factors are usually buried within the nebulous preliminaries figure, with little reference to the building approach taken. Further, softer issues such as health and safety, effects on management and process benefits are either implicit or disregarded within these comparison exercises. Yet it is demonstrated that these issues are some of the most significant benefits of OSP. A series of case studies demonstrated that evaluation focus is almost solely on direct material and labour costs of components, without explicit regard for the wider cost or soft issue implications of OSP on a project. The paper argues that until evaluation is more holistic and value-based rather than cost-based, OSP uptake in construction will be slow.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benefits; evaluation; off-site production; pre-assembly; value |
| Index terms: | health and safety, exercise, case study, cost factor, building system, labour cost, preliminaries, off-site production, option |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, health behaviours and lifestyles, engineering systems, financial and cost management, economics, manufacturing engineering, health safety and environment, decision analysis, cost management |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Cost Management, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Risk Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CE |
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