Obstacles Preventing the Off-Site Prefabrication of Timber and MEP Services: Qualitative Analyses from Builders and Suppliers in Australia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Justification, Aim and Objectives of Study
3. Literature Review
3.1. Off-Site Prefabrication of Timber Components and MEP Services
3.2. Advantages of Off-Site Prefabrication
3.3. Disadvantages of In Situ Construction/Off-Site Prefabrication Obstacles
4. Research Methodology
5. Data Synthesis and Analyses
5.1. Content Analysis of Builders
5.1.1. Economic and Environmental Sustainability
5.1.2. Quality Assurance
5.1.3. Mass Production Off-Site and On-Site
5.1.4. Computer-Aided Design and Building Information Modeling
5.1.5. Technological Support by Builders
5.1.6. Commercial Arrangements with Prefabrication Resources
5.1.7. Integrating System Building
5.1.8. Buffering in Supply of Off-Site Prefabricated Components
5.1.9. Off-Site Prefabrication’s Schedule Monitoring
5.1.10. Supplier Productivity
5.1.11. International Supplier Flexibility
5.1.12. Stakeholder Engagement
5.1.13. Off-Site Prefabrication Risks to Builders
5.1.14. Builders in Multiple Supply Arrangements
“Costs aren’t always the most vital. If you fail in what you deliver, it might be cheaper to let in bulk… If you can’t deliver on time, you’ll lose more”.
5.2. Content Analysis of Suppliers
5.2.1. Design, Collaboration, and Testing
“Enormous when compared to traditional in situ building”.
5.2.2. Financing and Subcontracting Conditions
“Tier One (1) builders mightn’t budge… There’s no excuse because those contracts blindly say you will deliver”.
5.2.3. Coordinating Suppliers
“Unfortunately, the world revolves around economics and time… Make it work and plan”.
5.2.4. Internationally Recognized Practices
5.2.5. Off-Site Prefabrication Risks to Suppliers
5.2.6. Suppliers in Multiple Supply Arrangements
“Both using the same process, same data, same intelligence to be able to produce”.
5.2.7. Off-Site Prefabrication Constraints
“That robot now has the intelligence within one (1) machine. It’s automated… has agency from both”.
“It certainly has a measure of constraint… So certainly, there’s a financial consideration to [Supplier P2′s] planning. Which may or may not translate as being quick or rapid enough, but when done, it’s done well… Responsibly and we’ve all still got jobs and… A very strong future”.
5.3. Comparative Analysis
6. Discussions and Implications
6.1. Hindrances to Management of Off-Site Prefabrication
6.2. Coordination of Work Done Off-Site and In Situ
6.3. Initiatives to Integrate Work Undertaken Off-Site and In Situ
6.4. Internal and External Validation of Findings
7. Conclusions and Limitations
7.1. Conclusions
7.2. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Questions
- What strengths and weakness between off-site prefabrication integration with in situ construction would you consider the most impactful to decision making of incorporating prefabricated componentry into construction builds?
- What impacts or what do off-site prefabricators consider the biggest impact of your client’s Construction Management decision-making process most when choosing to opt for off-site prefabrication componentry over in situ construction? In addition, how do the economic, environmental, and socially sustainable objectives compete in your or to sell your business/products to their organization?
- To what extent does your firm or clients carry out testing and quality control measures of off-site-prefabricated componentry in controlled off-site locations to ensure or confirm your components adhere to specifications, code, quality, and integration connection points under construction or that they require on your or their physical construction sites?
- If off-site prefabrication could not be mass produce the same component, would your company always opt to construct in situ, or is repetitive, quantitative, off-site production mandatory to alleviate coordination implications of production and installation of off-site-prefabricated componentry?
- What level of design assistance and specifications are provided or do your clients, to aid off-site prefabrication, ensure elements prefabricated off-site meld seamlessly into your or for their in situ construction environments? E.g., off-site prefabricated component optimization via a ‘Modular Suitability Index’, which may categorize discussion into compartments akin to module components, transport-dimensions, logistics, crane-costs, and additional structural footing requirements.
- To what extent is technology to support off-site prefabrication mechanisms employed prefabricated elemental inclusions into your site’s relevant predicaments, and how does it assist your firm to reduce waste and assembly times, accelerating your building practices? E.g., robotics, advanced computer animations/simulations and ‘control systems’, plus intelligent manufacturing arrangements. Or what technological systems does your factory use to enhance off-site prefabricated component manufacture to collect data aiding the coordination of elements with in situ operations?
- Do your firm’s contractual arrangements prepare/allow for bespoke contract clauses permitting payment of off-site-prefabricated elements prior to their delivery and installation on site? If so, are there stipulations included to regain materials should suppliers go into administration? Would the ability to seek some financial assistance from your customers or how has prohibitive costs in capital investment required to ‘tool-up’ with and/or procure plant and equipment that surpasses the current low-tech environment, and pushes your efforts towards the future operations or automations restricted your firm’s growth ambitions, plus large material stocks assist your firm to economically establish supply of custom/bespoke/unique/superior products?
- The intertwining of off-site prefabrication and in situ construction methods have been referred to as ‘hybrid’ activities. Do you think this terminology clearly defines/progresses these collaborative efforts of heightened construction effort? Why/why not?
- Modular Coordination must be linked to off-site prefabrication, often termed as IBS ‘Industrialised Building Systems’ in overseas locations, to enhance construction integration. To what extent does your role with your organization coordinate (plan/prepare/design/schedule) Modular Construction to realistic outputs achievable by off-site prefabrication concerns? Other innovations, such as GPS (Global Positioning Systems), and Radio-Frequency-Identification (RFID), have been effectively applied in off-site prefabrication realms, does your company utilise these methods at present? If not, are you considering the adoption of these or other such innovations?
- To what extent are off-site prefabricators or your construction clients able to deliver as scheduled or provide a realistic construction program that your off-site prefabrication manufacturing is able to deliver as scheduled? Do you think off-site prefabricators intentionally ‘buffer supply’ to ensure they are able to meet schedule deadlines and meet client service expectations?
- What if any leeway or ‘product sequencing strategy’ is nominated to monitor off-site prefabrication manufacture/rs by clients on or to observe performance metrics in order to record the order and time constraints or restraints to proactively plan for delays/complications?
- Are there regions of Australia or globally that you understand to have better practices and arrangements to elevate the use of off-site prefabricated elements/components?
- Does your firm embrace or actively seek formal measures to designate and/or engage off-site prefabrication suppliers, and/or is there a robust strategy/protocol to shortlist participants based on their ability to better provide accurate coordination or accurately coordinate fabrication plans to complement in situ construction operations utilized?
- There are some opinions that off-site prefabrication and in situ coordination inevitably leads to insufficiencies that have ramifications which elevate costs and time allocations, compromise quality, affect OH&S, create technical issues, and diminish client satisfaction? Would you agree with their summation, and what could be added? Or does your off-site prefabrication operation permit enhanced opportunities to multi-skill staff and encourage a great inter-disciplinary sharing of construction tasks/roles/trades in the manufacturing setting, that is only conceivable because of your controlled and stable employment environment?
- Has your company engaged in duplicated off-site prefabrication supply arrangements to mitigate risks, and/or does your client deem this noteworthy to safeguard against bottlenecking, delay, or disruption of component supply?
References
- Jin, R.; Gao, S.; Cheshmehzangi, A.; Aboagye–Nimo, E. A Holistic Review of Off-Site Construction Literature Published Between 2008 and 2018. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 1202–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hu, X.; Chong, H.Y.; Wang, X.; London, K. Understanding Stakeholders in Off Site Manufacturing—A Literature Review. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 03119003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royal Institute of the British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Work. The Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) Overlay to the RIBA Plan of Work, 2nd Ed. 2021. Available online: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/dfma-overlay-to-the-riba-plan-of-work (accessed on 30 October 2021).
- Chandler, D. The Fifth Estate—The Future of On-Site Construction, 2018. Available online: https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/columns/spinifex/on-site-construction-future/ (accessed on 23 November 2021).
- Bock, T. The Future of Construction Automation–Technological Disruption and the Upcoming Ubiquity of Robotics. Autom. Constr. 2015, 59, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, R.Y.; Peng, Y.; Xue, F.; Fang, J.; Zou, W.; Luo, H.; Ng, S.T.; Lu, W.; Shen, G.Q.P.; Huang, G.Q. Prefabricated Construction Enabled by the Internet of Things. Autom. Constr. 2017, 76, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayinla, K.; Cheung, F.; Skitmore, M. Process Waste Analysis for Offsite Production Methods for House Construction—A Case Study of Factory Wall Panel Production. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2022, 148, 05021011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, Y.; Lei, Z.; Altaf, S. An Off-Site Construction Digital Twin Assessment Framework Using Wood Panelized Construction as a Case Study. Buildings 2022, 12, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnsson, H.; Meiling, J.H. Defects in Offsite Construction—Timber Module Prefabrication. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2009, 27, 667–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tserng, H.P.; Yin, Y.L.; Jaselskis, E.J.; Hung, W.C.; Lin, Y.C. Modularization and Assembly Algorithm for Efficient MEP Construction. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 837–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anyanwu, C.I. The Role of Building Construction Project Team Members in Building Projects Delivery. ISOR J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 14, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sariola, R. Utilizing the Innovation Potential of Suppliers in Construction Projects. Constr. Innov. 2018, 18, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez, R.; Chong, H.Y.; Moon, S.; Wang, X. Case Study on Subcontracting Arrangements in the Scaffolding Supply Chain of a Liquefied Natural Gas Infrastructure Project. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 1136–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Masood, R.; Lim, J.B.P.; Gonzalez, V.A.; Roy, K.; Khan, K.I.A. A Systematic Review on Supply Chain Management in Prefabricated House—Building Research. Buildings 2022, 12, 40. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/12/1/40 (accessed on 1 July 2022). [CrossRef]
- Bildsten, L. Buyer—Supplier Relationships in Industrialized Building. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2014, 32, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Love, P.E.D.; Gunasekaran, A. Learning Alliances: A Customer—Supplier Focus for Continuous Improvement in Manufacturing. Ind. Commer. Train. 1999, 31, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yunus, R.; Suratkon, A.; Wimala, M.; Hamid, H.A.; Noor, S.R.M. Motivational Factors on Adopting Modular Coordination Concept in Industrialized Building System (IBS). MATEC Web Conf. 2016, 47, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Campbell, P.A. Timber for Building; Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) Press: Melbourne, Australia, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Everett, A. Mitchell’s Building Series—Materials, New ed.; BT Batsford Limited: London, UK, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Ward-Harvey, K. Fundamental Building Materials, 3rd ed.; The Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA): Red Hill, Australia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- King, H.; Osbourn, D. Mitchell’s Building Series—Components; BT Batsford Limited: London, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Burberry, P. Mitchell’s Building Series—Environment and Services; BT Batsford Limited: London, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Australian and New Zealand Standard Method of Measurement (ANZSMM6), 6th ed.; Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, New Zealand Institute of Quantity Surveyors (Incorporated), Master Builders Australia (Limited) and Registered Master Builders Association of New Zealand (Incorporated): Canberra, Australia, 2018.
- Marsono, A.K.; Ying, W.J.; Tap, M.M.; Chieh, Y.C.; Haddadi, A. Standard Verification Test for Industrialised Building System (IBS) Repetitive Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 2016, 1, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hosseini, M.R.; Marteka, I.; Zavadskasb, E.K.; Aibinuc, A.A.; Arashpour, M.; Chileshe, N. Critical Evaluation of Off-Site Construction Research—A Scientometric Analysis. Autom. Constr. 2018, 87, 235–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.Z.; Shen, G.Q.; Xue, X. Critical Review of the Research on the Management of Prefabricated Construction. Habitat Int. 2014, 43, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hu, X.; Chong, H.Y. Environmental Sustainability of Off-Site Manufacturing—A Literature Review. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.; Chong, H.Y. Integrated Frameworks of Construction Procurement Systems for Off-Site Manufacturing Projects—Social Network Analysis. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 20, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salama, T.; Salah, A.; Moselhi, O.; AlHussein, M. Near Optimum Selection of Module Configuration for Efficient Modular Construction. Autom. Constr. 2017, 83, 316–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.Z.; Xue, F.; Li, X.; Hong, J.; Shen, G.Q. An Internet of Things Enabled BIM Platform for On-Site Assembly Services in Prefabricated Construction. Autom. Constr. 2018, 89, 146–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.Z.; Hong, J.; Fan, C.; Xu, X.; Shen, G.Q. Schedule Delay Analysis of Prefabricated Housing Production—A Hybrid Dynamic Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1533–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kremer, P. Wood Solutions—Innovation in (BIM and Other) Technology for Mass Timber Construction. Available online: https://www.woodsolutions.com.au/videos/innovation-bim-and-othertechnology-mass-timber-construction (accessed on 7 May 2018).
- Laurent, J.; Leicht, R.M. Practices for Designing Cross—Functional Teams for Integrated Project Delivery. ASCE J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 05019001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, E.F.; Lian, J.Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, G.C.; Wang, S.B.; Cao, D.B. Compressive Behavior of a Fully Prefabricated Liftable Connection for Modular Steel Construction. Buildings 2022, 12, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babbie, E. The Practice of Social Research, 12th ed.; Wadsworth Cengage: Belmont, NC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Berg, B.L. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 5th ed.; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Oppenheim. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, New ed.; Pinter: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Chiang, Y.H.; Chan, E.H.W.; Lok, L.K.L. Prefabrication and Barriers to Entry—A Case Study of Public Housing and Institutional Buildings in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 2006, 30, 482–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razkenari, M.; Fenner, A.; Shojaei, A.; Hakim, H.; Kibert, C. Perceptions of Offsite Construction in the United States—An Investigation of Current Practices. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 29, 101138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newpoint Advisory. Building Tier System. Available online: https://www.newpointadvisory.com/builder-tier-system/ (accessed on 22 March 2021).
- Phillip Island Nature Parks. Phillip Island Penguin Parade—Archives. Available online: https://www.penguins.org.au/attractions/penguin-parade/ (accessed on 8 July 2022).
- Paolini, A.; Kollmannsberger, S.; Rank, E. Additive Manufacturing in Construction—A Review on Process, Applications and Digital Planning Methods. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 30, 100894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Standen, D. Construction Industry Specifications; The Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA)—Practice Services: Melbourne, Australia, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- CIBSE. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers. Available online: https://www.cibse.org (accessed on 10 June 2022).
- CIOB. Home Page—Leading the Cultural Shift. Available online: https://www.ciob.org (accessed on 10 June 2022).
- Masood, R.; Lim, J.; Gonzalez, B.P. Performance of the Supply Chains for New Zealand Prefabricated House—Building. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 64, 102537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez, R.; Chong, H.Y.; Wang, X.; Graham, J. Technical Review—Analysis and Appraisal of Four-Dimensional Building Information Modeling Usability in Construction and Engineering Projects. ASCE J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 06015005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Contractor Companies | Builder C1: | Builder C2: | Builder C3: | Builder C4: |
---|---|---|---|---|
Project Specialty: |
|
|
|
|
Building Height Range: | 4 to 60 storey buildings. | Up to 26 storey buildings. | Single storey buildings only. | 20 to 60 storey buildings. |
Project Cost Range: | $10,000,000 to $400,000,000 AUD. | $20,000,000 to $26,000,000 AUD. | $58,200,000 to $150,000,000 AUD. | Any contract sum in the millions of AUD. |
Prefabrication Companies | Supplier P1: | Supplier P2: | Supplier P3: | Supplier P4: |
---|---|---|---|---|
Component Specialty: |
|
|
|
|
Project Locations: |
|
|
|
|
Generic Indicators | Content Analysis | Comparative Analysis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Builders: | Suppliers: | Benefits: | Shortcomings: | |
Time Constraints: |
|
|
|
|
Cost Constraints: |
|
|
|
|
Quality Constraints: |
|
|
|
|
Planning and Labor: |
|
|
|
|
Design: |
|
|
|
|
Construction: |
|
|
|
|
Logistics: |
|
|
|
|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lopez, R.; Chong, H.-Y.; Pereira, C. Obstacles Preventing the Off-Site Prefabrication of Timber and MEP Services: Qualitative Analyses from Builders and Suppliers in Australia. Buildings 2022, 12, 1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12071044
Lopez R, Chong H-Y, Pereira C. Obstacles Preventing the Off-Site Prefabrication of Timber and MEP Services: Qualitative Analyses from Builders and Suppliers in Australia. Buildings. 2022; 12(7):1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12071044
Chicago/Turabian StyleLopez, Robert, Heap-Yih Chong, and Conrad Pereira. 2022. "Obstacles Preventing the Off-Site Prefabrication of Timber and MEP Services: Qualitative Analyses from Builders and Suppliers in Australia" Buildings 12, no. 7: 1044. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12071044