Pan, W; Gibb, A F and Dainty, A R J (2007) Perspective of UK housebuilders on the use of offsite modern methods of construction. Construction Management and Economics, 25(2), pp. 183-194. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Despite an increasing demand for housing and wider concerns over the need to improve performance, the industry seems to be reluctant to adopt offsite technologies. Many studies have attempted to scrutinize the barriers and seek ways forward, but the perspectives of housebuilders remain unclear. UK housebuilders' views on the use of offsite modern methods of construction (offsite MMC) have been investigated. This investigation was carried out through a combination of personal interviews and a questionnaire survey of the top 100 housebuilders by unit completion. Results suggest that the traditional drivers of time, cost, quality and productivity are still driving the industry in deciding whether to use offsite technologies. Nearly two-thirds of the firms believed that there needs to be an increase in the take-up of such technologies. However, current barriers relate to a perceived higher capital cost, complex interfacing, long lead-in time and delayed planning process. Strategies recommended are centred on changing peoples' perceptions, improving procurement, providing better cost data, tackling planning and regulations, encouraging political levers and providing practical guidance. The suggestions present a model for encouraging the take-up of offsite MMC in the future.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction methods; house building; offsite production; strategy |
| Index terms: | survey, construction method, strategy, capital cost, interview, housing, questionnaire, regulation, housebuilder, productivity, modern methods of construction, planning process, cost data, investigation |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, construction type, practitioner, project controls, building construction, political science, management, accounting and finance |
| Topics: | Site Management, Time Control, Construction Technology, Governance, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| 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