dissertation on modern methods of construction

Buildings & Cities

• Download PDF (English) XML (English)
• Alt. Display
• Collection: Modern methods of construction: beyond productivity improvement

Modern methods of construction: reflections on the current research agenda

• Stuart D. Green

Modern methods of construction (MMC) comprise a value-laden and highly flexible discourse. Nevertheless, the constituent narratives have long-lasting consequences for the material fabric of the built environment. Current policy sources can be seen to possess an embedded pro-innovation bias that offsets any appetite for evidence-based research, especially that which relates to the mistakes of the past. Many policy narratives in favour of MMC are further characterised by an exaggerated sense of hubris, with an in-built institutionalised preference for disruptive innovation. Liberalised economies are especially prone to technological optimism, with a tendency to cast regulation as a barrier to be overcome. The Grenfell Tower tragedy provides a stark reminder of the limitations of viewing regulation solely through the lens of innovation. Hence, it illustrates how the prevailing built environment research–policy consensus has failed the civil society which it purportedly serves. These failings should be of concern to those who privilege evidence-based research as a means of negating the alarming onset of the post-truth society. Research is required that looks beyond the imperatives of narrowly defined productivity. It is essential that policy narratives such as MMC are fully explored in terms of their short-, medium- and long-term implications.

• construction industry
• fire safety
• Grenfell Tower
• modern methods of construction
• policy narratives

1. Background

The primary aim in proposing this special issue on modern methods of construction (MMC) was to broaden the debate beyond the current narrowly construed obsession with the supposed productivity benefits. The call for papers stated a need to examine the assumptions underpinning MMC and the associated unintended consequences. Any incremental shift towards the increased industrialisation of construction is likely to have longstanding implications for the sector at large. But more importantly, it is also likely to have enduring consequences for the material fabric of the built environment. Given the chequered history of previous attempts at industrialisation, the prevailing presumption in favour of MMC is undoubtedly deserving of critique. This is especially true given that the current policy debate privileges hype over research-based evidence. Yet, the response to the call for papers was undeniably disappointing.

A total of 15 abstracts were submitted for the special issue. Of these, eight were invited for development into full papers. This resulted in six full submissions being sent out to peer review; four were subsequently rejected and two were eventually accepted for publication ( Table 1 ). All submissions were reviewed in accordance with the same rigorous standards as applied to all papers published by Buildings & Cities . The quality of the two accepted papers stands as testimony to the rigour of the peer-review process. Before discussing the published papers, it is appropriate to offer a few reflections on why there was relatively little interest in the call for papers.

Articles in this special issue ‘Modern Methods of Construction: Beyond Productivity Improvement’, Buildings & Cities (2022), 3(1); guest editor Stuart D. Green.

2. Problems of definition

It is appropriate to begin with the issue of definition. Defining precisely what is meant by MMC is by no means straightforward. Indeed, the essential vagueness of such ideas can be seen as an essential prerequisite of their success. The attractiveness of MMC is undoubtedly enhanced by its appeal to notions of modernity. Yet, modernity is hardly a new idea. In truth, the origins of MMC can be traced back some considerable time. Direct antecedents include industrialised building ( Diamant 1964 ; Dietz & Cutler 1971 ), system building ( Finnimore 1989 ; Grindrod 2013 ) and offsite prefabrication ( Gibb 1999 ; Pan et al . 2007 ). Industrialisation has played an especially important role in the context of state-sponsored mass housing ( Glendinning 2021 ). Prefabricated houses have further been cited as ‘architecture’s oldest newest idea’ ( Blanchet & Zhuravlyova 2018 ). Isambard Kingdom Brunel is rightly famous for his railway engineering, but he is also celebrated for his prefabricated hospital constructed on the southern shores of the Dardanelles during the Crimean War (1853–56). Other antecedents include the use of prefabricated modules in the construction in 1851 of the Crystal Palace exhibition hall in London. The Scandinavian tradition of prefabrication can even be traced back as far as the Vikings ( Price 2020 ). It is further clear that the popularity of such methods has ebbed and flowed over time, with as many recorded failures as there are successes ( Gibb 2001 ). The debate often takes place within the context of housing, where there is seen to be significant scope for economies of scale based on standardisation. Yet, substantial uptake has invariably been dependent upon a degree of state subsidy to offset the risk of demand volatility ( cf . Rosenfeld 1994 ; Boughton 2018 ). The advocates of MMC often notably emphasise the importance of increasing pre-manufactured value (PMV). Yet, little research addresses the externalities beyond the narrow drivers of time, cost, quality and productivity ( cf . Pan et al . 2007 ). As ever, the employment conditions and lived realities of construction workers attract little attention ( Ness & Green 2012 ).

MMC is also perhaps already falling victim to what might be described as the ‘beyond the beyond myth’ ( cf . De Cock & Hipkin 1997 ). In response to criticism, the leading advocates of MMC often claim to have ‘moved beyond’ MMC to become advocates of some other ill-defined recipe. ‘Platform approaches’ are currently popular, and equally vague. Hence, it is only though critique that recipes such as MMC become properly defined, and their limitations exposed. In short, the champions of modernisation quickly move on to the next ill-defined recipe while denying any responsibility for the shortcomings of what came before. The danger is that this process continuously repeats itself. Unfortunately, decisions made in the name of MMC have long-lasting material consequences. It is here that the research community has a responsibility to act as an institutional memory.

3. Pro-innovation bias

The literature on MMC is characterised by a strong pro-innovation bias. The predisposition in favour of MMC is even more pronounced among policy makers. Such tendencies are of course by no means new. There is a long tradition of policy makers advocating simplistic technological fixes in response to complex and politically contested problems. Indeed, the history of the construction sector is littered with supposed panaceas derived from the application of modern technology. Yet, there remains a stubborn resistance to learning the lessons from previous such attempts. There is also a recurring tendency towards technological determinism, with little recognition of the possibility of unintended consequences ( Green 2019 ).

Insights can also be gained by understanding how policy narratives are structured. There is a propensity to emphasise that the construction sector is in some way ‘backward’, not least in its failure to adopt modern technology ( Farmer 2016 ). The advocated technologies are also habitually promulgated as a means of overcoming a proclaimed crisis. Prominence is sometimes given to the ‘productivity crisis’, usually with limited effort to engage with the relevant research literature. The other popular target is the ‘skills crisis’, with a similar lack of interest in the research literature relating to construction sector skills. Politicians are especially fond of citing industrialisation as a means of solving the ‘housing crisis’. Such simplistic narratives are in truth part of the problem. The constituent arguments in support of MMC are invariably framed very narrowly, with little recognition of the contested nature of the supposed crises at which they are aimed. For clarity, it is not that extensive research of the three highlighted topics does not exist. The problem is that such research does not easily fit with the pro-innovation bias of policy narratives in support of MMC. Pro-innovation bias might otherwise be construed as gung-ho boosterism. The built environment deserves better.

4. Learning from the past

Despite the heady talk of innovation, pre-assembled construction components are still routinely installed on site by labour-only subcontractors. Too often the work is performed by semi-skilled operatives subject to a bare minimum of supervision. Despite the overblown claims made in respect of factory-based ‘precision engineering’, consideration rarely extends to the problems that occur at the interfaces between different systems. There are important precedents from which one can learn. For example, the large panel system (LPS) approach to prefabrication was widely used for high-rise residential blocks in the 1960s. The method comprised the vertical stacking of prefabricated concrete panels. It performed very well in terms of productivity; such prefabricated concrete systems were deliberately incentivised as a means of increasing housing output. Public trust evaporated following the Ronan Point collapse in Newham, London, in 1968. A subsequent public inquiry pointed towards appallingly poor workmanship in the connections between panels. Many such buildings were demolished within 15 years due to structural deterioration and sky-rocketing remediation costs. In 1984, Geoffrey Lofthouse MP famously presented the following question during a parliamentary debate on defects in systems-built housing:

We must also ask whether sufficient time and money is spent in appraising new methods of building, and new components and materials. As an example, the Agrément certificate procedure is very weak, and gives little real assessment of how building will work out in practice. (Hansard, 12 March 1984)

The above question remains especially pertinent in the wake of London’s Grenfell Tower tragedy of 2017 and the ongoing international cladding crisis. Yet, at the time of writing, the UK government’s stated presumption in favour of MMC remains firmly in place. Hence, there is sufficient cause to be cautious of any pro-innovation bias in the advocacy of construction methods.

Certainly, there would seem to be much to be learnt by studying the failures and successes of previous attempts at industrialised building, not least in terms of how and when success might most meaningfully be judged. Experience shows that too much emphasis on short-term measures of success, such as construction productivity, is ill-placed given the longevity of buildings. Yet, built environment policymakers have long since championed the cause of construction sector competitiveness over that of building performance. Policymakers have seemingly forgotten that building performance should be judged at multiple points throughout the building’s life cycle, rather than at the single arbitrary point of ‘completion’. Huge questions also remain about the malleability of modular buildings over time, not least in terms of their adaptability to changing patterns of use ( Brand 1994 ; Patel & Green 2020 ). There is a notable sparsity of research into how buildings constructed using MMC lend themselves to retrofit in accordance with the demands of the circular economy. In truth, the advocates of MMC have little appetite for research of this nature. The research that is valued is that which focuses on overcoming the barriers to an approach to which they are already committed. This should be of concern to those who value independent evidence-based research.

5. Hubris and disruptive innovation

Of further concern is the extent to which the current UK policy debate in support of MMC suffers from an overriding sense of hubris. The prevailing emphasis lies on how barriers to innovation might be best overcome. The advocates of MMC unfailingly present themselves as champions of modernisation. The hubristic narratives of MMC can perhaps be best understood as identity work on the part of those involved ( cf . Sergeeva & Green 2019 ). Such identity work is invariably aimed at gaining entry to policy circles. There is a further observable tendency to castigate the voices of caution as being misguided defenders of the ‘traditional’. Dissenters are seen as outdated in their attitudes, and complacent in the face of a construction sector which is irrevocably old-fashioned and resistant to change. The choice presented by Farmer ( 2016 ) is evident in the title of his report: Modernise or Die .

The nonsense of the above presented binary division lies in the high reported number of failures of supposedly disruptive innovators. Katerra in the US is perhaps the most obvious example ( Rabeneck 2021 ). There have also been numerous highly publicised failures of modular firms within the UK, including the joint venture previously launched with great fanfare by Urban Splash ( Clark 2022 ). It is of course to be expected that some start-ups will succeed and others will fail. The most cited reason that modular firms go out of business is that the order book was insufficient to service the relatively high set-up costs. In other words, capital productivity too often falls below the expectations of the investors. Labour productivity on-site may well be improved, but capital productivity in the factory is by no means guaranteed. Such failures serve to emphasise the difference in predicted lifespan between buildings and modular start-up companies. They further raise questions regarding the extent to which prefabricated components are malleable over time in accordance with the different service lives of the embedded constituent systems and the needs of through-life retrofit.

Current champions of MMC arguably differ from their predecessors in the extent to which they align themselves with notions of digital transformation. The favoured narrative plays homage at the altar of the Fourth Industrial Revolution as advocated by global consultancies such as McKinsey & Co. ( 2016 ). The advent of ‘Industry 4.0’ is held to have fundamental implications for the business models of the future. Indicative technologies include the Internet of Things (IoT), robotics, big data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, advanced embedded sensors and digital platforms. So-called smart factories hence become of key importance to the development of MMC. The overriding tone is one of unfettered technological optimism. Disruptive innovation is invariably taken for granted as an inherently ‘good thing’. Such storylines were eminently evident in the hype that surrounded Katerra before its demise in 2021. The point is not to deny the potential benefits of such technologies, but rather to highlight the dangers that they become ‘technologies of distraction’. Technological optimism is fine insofar as it goes. However, the materiality of our built infrastructure is of fundamental importance to the human condition. It has implications across the entire range of policy areas, including health, education, housing and commerce. The buildings being built need to be resilient. They need to be adaptable for uses that were not envisaged at the point of inception. Above all else, they need to be safe. Hence, it is important to find an appropriate balance between innovation and regulation. To strive for such a balance is central to any measured sense of professionalism, which sadly seems to be in terminal decline.

6. Governance and the war on ‘red tape’

Of further concern is the recurring policy emphasis within liberalised economies on the removal of regulatory barriers, invariably presented as needless ‘red tape’. Regulation should be kept under constant review, but it has undoubtedly played a crucial role in improving the safety of the buildings when they are occupied. The same is also true of the health and safety regulations that govern on-site construction. Indeed, regulations are often developed in response to specific tragedies—Ronan Point being a case in point. Regulations are there for a purpose and are not to be jettisoned lightly. Yet, policies in support of regulation have been in widespread retreat within liberalised economies since the 1980s. Governments that prioritise the discourse of competitiveness routinely announce ‘bonfires of red tape’, which they seemingly see as an essential part of their modernisation agenda ( Green et al . 2008 ). This has been especially pronounced in recent years within the UK, but also throughout the English-speaking world. Less dramatic is the erosion of the regulatory system through systemic neglect, weakened enforcement and the progressive withdrawal of funding. In the context of UK housing, all three variants are cited as being directly implicated in the regulatory failures that led to the Grenfell Tower disaster ( Hodkinson 2019 ).

Good regulation is an intrinsic component of modernity. Few would wish to return to the laissez faire approaches of the 19th century. Sometimes it is important to remind ourselves that modernity is not necessarily a linear progression. The advocates of MMC do not embrace modern employment practices such as those advocated by the Taylor Report ( Taylor 2017 ), and neither do they embrace modern approaches to compliance and regulation. The current trend towards so-called platform approaches can perhaps be described as the ‘Uberisation’ of the construction sector whereby the reliance on the gig economy is progressively normalised. Hence, the modernisation on offer is limited to the variant of technological optimism.

7. The legacy of Grenfell

The dangers of consistently privileging innovation over regulation have been ruthlessly exposed by the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire which resulted in the deaths of 72 residents. Although the final report has yet to be published, a wealth of evidence points towards systemic failings within the regulatory system. Of particular note is the way the UK’s independent material testing capability was allegedly compromised by the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment (BRE). Notwithstanding the subsequent Building Safety Act 2022, serious doubts remain regarding how meaningful regulation might best be implemented within the context of a liberalised economy. Continued hubristic hype in support of supposed panaceas such as MMC does not help, and neither will any subtle linguistic shift towards vaguely defined ‘digital platforms’.

It is further important to recall that the Grenfell Inquiry identified the installed aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding panels as the primary cause of the external fire spread on Grenfell Tower. The use of such innovative construction materials was undoubtedly legitimised by the all-prevailing narrative in support of innovation and MMC. Yet, at the time of writing, the UK government’s ‘presumption in favour’ of MMC remains firmly intact ( HM Government 2020 ; Green 2021 ). The lobbying power of the global materials industry can further be seen to have appropriated the narrative of MMC for promotional purposes. Despite the findings of the Grenfell Inquiry, numerous firms continue to sell their products under the legitimising label of MMC. In the wake of Grenfell, any meaningful research agenda relating to MMC must surely embrace issues of appropriate regulation.

8. Reluctance to challenge mainstream policy narratives

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the way the bias in favour of disruptive innovation is evident across the institutional landscape of research funding. It is no coincidence that the UK’s leading public research funding agency is labelled ‘UK Research and Innovation’. Indeed, the discursive linking of ‘research’ and ‘innovation’ is so commonplace it is invariably taken for granted. Hence, there are few incentives for research that calls into question supposed innovations such as MMC. Dissent within the research community is further discouraged by a perceived risk of being barred from construction policy circles, and from publication in leading journals. In the author’s personal experience such constraints are more imagined than real. Yet even the professional institutions fall in line with the omnipotent discourse of innovation rather than defend the importance of detached professionalism ( cf . Green et al . 2008 ). But the biggest constraints are undoubtedly those the research community imposes on itself. Researchers are too often content to pursue their chosen research specialisms without critically engaging with mainstream policy narratives. This could perhaps account in part for the disappointing number of submissions to the current special issue.

As a caveat to the above, it is important to note that there is a plethora of relevant research being undertaken—both within the UK and internationally. It is perhaps more a case of researchers not choosing to align their research with policy narratives which they view as essentially transient and trivial. Therefore, they choose not to engage. Those who do engage are also at risk from the ‘beyond the beyond myth’. Hence, there is a danger that they align their research with MMC only to find the bandwagon has moved on.

There is also an argument that those who seek to critique narratives such as MMC are themselves complicit in their reproduction. Such an argument may indeed have legitimacy within the ivory towers of academia. But the unchallenged advocacy of MMC has consequences, not only for the construction sector, but also for the material fabric of the built environment. The relative lack of interest in the current special issue is hence indicative of a wider problem. What is required is a more balanced research agenda on the topic of MMC for the purposes of ensuring policymakers are better informed. The scope of such research would hence extend beyond narrowly defined labour productivity to embrace the full range of externalities relating to any progressive shift to an increased proportion of PMV. But policymakers are seemingly not interested. They have apparently already decided that MMC is a good idea. In time, the narrative will undoubtedly move on to the next supposed panacea. However, the likelihood is that the stark disconnect between policy and research will continue.

9. Future research agenda

In looking towards the need for future research, very little evidence exists on the implications of MMC for the material fabric of the built environment. There is also a recurring reluctance to investigate and learn the lessons from previous attempts at the industrialisation of construction. This is of particular concern within the context of housing, although it applies equally to other sectors. A lack of data exists on the implications of MMC for the performance and longevity of buildings, and their ability to respond over time to shifting societal and occupant needs. The durability and adaptability of buildings are of central importance for both resource consumption and the achievement of a net-zero carbon economy. Further concerns relate to environmental performance and occupant wellbeing. Even more importantly, significant concerns remain regarding the implications of MMC for fire safety ( Davis 2019 ).

Any significant increase in the proportion of PMV is also likely to have systemic consequences for the economic structure of the sector. Particular concerns relate to employment practices and the potentially adverse implications for skills within local communities. The increasing emphasis on PMV further exposes the construction sector to competition from global manufacturing firms, with significant implications for barriers to entry and the national balance of payments. Additional questions relate to a lack of transparency in global supply chains, with direct implications for the risk of labour exploitation. The outsourcing of sub-assembly processes to geographically remote locations further raises serious questions about regulatory regimes in respect of environmental protection. Of no lesser importance are the added challenges of ensuring compliance with building standards and codes.

The label of MMC may well be replaced in time by some other faddish representations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, but the above concerns will remain. The research community cannot afford to be dismissive of the potential of new technologies. But neither can it afford to be beguiled by hubristic narratives. Both civil society and government depend upon independent, robust critical enquiry and clear evidence on which to base individual and collective decisions. Research in the public interest is a principle and practice that needs defending.

10. Contributions to this special issue

The safety of the building in use and the potential risks to occupants are vital issues. Meacham focuses on the fire performance and regulatory considerations associated with MMC. He argues that the adoption of MMC presents challenges to traditional building regulatory approaches. Particular attention is focused on the void spaces between prefabricated components, and especially those that exist between prefabricated modules. These voids—both vertical and horizontal—potentially serve as avenues not only for the spread of fire but also for the spread of smoke and toxic gases. The correct on-site installation of appropriate fire cavity barriers hence becomes of critical concern. Of further note is that the installation of such barriers cannot be easily checked after the event. This raises concerns regarding on-site supervision and the dangers of neglecting the importance of training for those operatives upon whom modular fabricators rely.

Meacham further points towards fire performance concerns with MMC materials. He argues that these concerns are exacerbated by the encapsulation of MMC components and the extent to which they are in proximity to voids. Although individual components may meet fire performance requirements under defined test conditions, this may not be true once they are embodied within MMC systems.

Meacham offers a compelling overview of the distinction between prescriptive and functional approaches to regulation. He further differentiates functional approaches in accordance with the degree of government oversight vis-à-vis reliance on market responsibility. Of particular interest are the regulatory trajectories of different countries. The approach in the US is seen to be predominantly prescriptive, with a defined and broadly understood process for assuring quality in the fabrication process. In contract, functional approaches focus on identifying performance requirements without specifying how they are to be met. Countries that combine this approach with strong government oversight include Singapore and Japan. The third approach is the adoption of a functional approach coupled with a reliance on the mechanisms of the market rather than direct state involvement. Examples of the latter approach include the UK and the Netherlands. Such differences in regulatory approaches render simplistic international comparisons problematic. However, many Commonwealth countries notably follow the regulatory practices adopted in the UK, thus contributing to the internationalisation of the cladding crisis.

In closing, Meacham observes that MMC comprises complex ‘systems of systems’ for which the assurance of fire performance present unique challenges. He argues that our success in delivering safe buildings depends upon an engrained safety culture in which the safety of occupants is more important than financial gain. This paper deserves to be read widely, and its recommendations need to be actioned.

Dowsett et al . offer something different. They take a broad interpretation of MMC as comprising one of many possible constituent technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Their particular interest lies in manufacturing robotics. They argue that current debates are too often dominated by notions of ‘technological prediction’. These are held to be of limited use to practitioners in that they offer limited insights into how such technologies are likely to play out in a highly heterogeneous construction sector. The authors describe an empirical study where invited practitioners were exposed to four competing scenarios. They especially privilege the views of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which are held to be more representative of the construction sector than tier 1 contractors. Their justification is that SMEs do not tend to get much airtime in mainstream policy debates about MMC. Indeed, if they are mentioned at all, they are often simplistically depicted as ‘barriers’ that stand in the way of progress. As an aside, tier 1 contractors have long since divorced themselves from the physical task of construction ( Green 2011 ). Hence, it could be argued that they have been operating a platform-based business model even before the terminology became fashionable.

Dowsett et al . further draw from previous research to highlight the complex and diverse interactions between new technologies and the processes within which they are embedded. They argue that foresight-type approaches invariably offer unrealistic and anodyne visions of the future. As an intriguing alternative, they propose a scenario-planning approach rooted in the tradition of storytelling. The adopted approach notably uses images and objects for the purposes of capturing the interest of the participants.

The first developed scenario envisages a vertically integrated construction sector dominated by five mega-contractors. In contrast, the second foresees an industry dominated by software venders and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The third scenario portrays a sector comprising regional networks of SME collectives. The fourth and final scenario comprises a nationalised construction sector governed by a national construction board. There was a time, of course, in the 1970s when UK building industry nationalisation was a realistic prospect, serious enough to justify the major contractors funding the Campaign Against Building Industry Nationalisation (CABIN).

The paper describes the reactions of the participants to each of the four scenarios, with an appropriate emphasis on the extent to which they might facilitate the increased utilisation of manufacturing robotics. Needless to say, the fourth scenario evoked the strongest negative reaction. Ultimately, the authors offer the adopted scenario-building approach as a means through which visions of the future are co-created with the active participation of those at the ‘coalface’ of construction The paper undoubtedly contains much food for thought. It further serves as an important anecdote to the top-down technological determinism that too often prevails. It might also provide a methodology for structuring a much broader and more realistic debate about the future role of robotics in construction. Policymakers take note.

11. Creating further evidence

This editorial and accompanying two papers are not intended to comprise the final word on the sparsity of research relating to MMC. In contrast, they are seen to provide an important beginning. Buildings & Cities will continue to welcome papers that examine the unintended consequences of construction innovations such as MMC. Research papers that address the inherent tension between innovation and the societal need for regulation will be especially welcome. Innovation can never be fully evaluated solely based on narrowly defined productivity improvement. Account must also be taken of its wider implications for the material fabric of the built environment, and for the lived realties of those who occupy the buildings that are designed and constructed.

The occupants and victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy have undoubtedly been let down by the liberalisation of the UK’s approach to regulation. But similar failings have occurred globally, as evidenced by the international nature of the cladding crisis. But the Grenfell tragedy also constitutes a failure on the part of the international research community, not least in terms of privileging the needs of the construction and real estate sectors over those of civil society. Researchers frequently point towards the decline of professionalism among practitioners, but researchers must also strive to serve a broader diversity of interest groups. Over the last four decades researchers have allowed themselves to become too constrained in the research questions that are set out to be explored. The next generation of researchers must do better. Research must look beyond the short-term imperatives of narrowly defined productivity. Independent evidence can save lives and avoid costly remediation programmes. It is therefore essential that policy narratives such as MMC are thoroughly considered for their short-, medium- and long-term implications.

Competing interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.

Blanchet, E., & Zhuravlyova, S. (2018). Prefabs: A social and architectural history . Historic England.  

Boughton, J. (2018). Municipal dreams: The rise and fall of council housing . Verso.  

Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built . Viking.  

Clark, T. (2022, May 13) Urban Splash’s modular spin-off falls into administration. Construction News . https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/financial/administrations/urban-splashs-modular-spin-off-falls-into-administration-13-05-2022/  

Davis, D. (2019). Risks of increasing use of modern methods of construction. Fire Magazine , 114(1416). www.fire-magazine.com/risks-of-increasing-use-of-modern-methods-of-construction  

De Cock, C., & Hipkin, I. (1997). TQM and BPR: Beyond the beyond myth. Journal of Management Studies , 34, 659–675. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00067  

Diamant, R. M. E. (1964). Industrialised building: 50 International methods . IIiffe.  

Dietz, A. G. M., & Cutler, A. S. (Eds.) (1971). Industrialized building systems and housing . MIT Press.  

Farmer, M. (2016). The Farmer Review of the UK construction labour model: Modernise or die . Construction Leadership Council.  

Finnimore, B. (1989). Houses from the factory: System building and the Welfare State 1942–74 . Rivers Oram.  

Gibb, A. G. F. (1999). Off-site fabrication: Prefabrication, pre-assembly and modularisation . Wiley.  

Gibb, A. G. F. (2001). Standardization and pre-assembly—Distinguishing myth from reality using case study research, Construction Management and Economics , 19(3), 307–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190010020435  

Glendinning, M. (2021). Mass housing: Modern architecture and state power—A global history . Bloomsbury. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474229302  

Green, S. D. (2011). Making sense of construction improvement . Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444341102  

Green, S. D. (2019) Modern methods of construction: unintended consequences. [Commentary]. Buildings & Cities . https://www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/commentaries/modern-methods-of-construction.html  

Green, S. D. (2021). Critical reflections on the construction playbook [Commentary]. Buildings & Cities . https://www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/commentaries/modern-methods-of-construction.html  

Green, S. D., Harty, C. F., Elmualim, A. A., Larsen, G., & Kao, C. C. (2008). On the discourse of construction competitiveness. Building Research & Information , 36(5), 426–435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210802076666  

Grindrod, J. (2013). Concretopia: A journey around the rebuilding of postwar Britain . Old Street.  

HM Government. (2020). The construction playbook: Government guidance on sourcing and contracting public works projects and programmes . Cabinet Office.  

Hodkinson, S. (2019). Safe as houses . Manchester University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7228/manchester/9781526141866.001.0001  

McKinsey & Co. (2016). Industry 4.0 after the initial hype: Where manufacturers are finding best value and how they can best capture it . McKinsey & Co.  

Ness, K., & Green, S. D. (2012) Human resource management in the construction context: Disappearing workers in the UK. In Dainty, A., & Loosemore, M. (Eds.), Human resource management in construction: Critical perspectives (pp. 18–50). Routledge.  

Pan, W., Gibb, A. D. F., & Dainty, A. R. J. (2007). Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of offsite modern methods of construction. Construction Management and Economics , 25(2), 183–194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600827058  

Patel, H., & Green, S. D. (2020). Beyond the performance gap: Reclaiming building appraisal through archival research. Building Research & Information , 48(5), 469–484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2019.1672517  

Price, N. (2020). Children of ash and elm: A history of the Vikings . Allen Lane.  

Rabeneck, A. (2021). A history of failed dreams: Modern methods of construction and Katerra [Commentary]. Buildings & Cities . https://www.buildingsandcities.org/insights/commentaries/mmc.html  

Rosenfeld, Y. (1994). Innovative construction methods. Construction Management and Economics , 12(6), 521–541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446199400000063  

Sergeeva, N., & Green, S. D. (2019). Managerial identity work in action: Performative narratives and anecdotal stories of innovation. Construction Management and Economics , 37(10), 604–623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1566625  

Taylor, M. (2017). Good work: The Taylor Review of modern working practices . Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).  

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides

The Effectiveness of using Modern Construction Methods as a Solution to Assist the Social Housing Shortage in the United Kingdom

• School of Energy, Construction and Environment
• Northumbria University

Research output : Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference proceeding › peer-review

Publication series

Bibliographical note

• Modern Construction Method
• Social Housing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

• Strategy and Management
• Management Science and Operations Research
• Control and Systems Engineering
• Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

Access to Document

• http://www.ieomsociety.org/singapore2021/papers/516.pdf Licence: Unspecified

Other files and links

• https://www.ieomsociety.org/program-singapore2021.pdf
• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Construction Social Sciences 100%
• Authors Social Sciences 57%
• Housing Engineering 57%
• Research Engineering 57%
• Shortage Social Sciences 28%
• Money Social Sciences 28%
• Questionnaires Social Sciences 28%
• Professional Personnel Social Sciences 28%

T1 - The Effectiveness of using Modern Construction Methods as a Solution to Assist the Social Housing Shortage in the United Kingdom

AU - Shibani, Abdussalam

AU - Agha, Araz

AU - Saidani, Messaoud

AU - Hassan, Dyaa

AU - Bari, Umar

AU - Gherbal, Nawal

AU - Abduelmula, Mohamed

N1 - Conference code: 11

PY - 2021/3/7

Y1 - 2021/3/7

N2 - The shortage of social housing is on the rise and there is an urgent need for houses in recent days to fulfil UK’s need. There are many complications regarding this issue and some of them being is to save time and money andbuild good quality units. Year in and year out the UK can’t seem to achieve their target to fulfil the large demand. The British method of building homes is the traditional method which is brick, block and cavity, which can be expensive and a lengthy process.This research is on MMC (Modern Method of Construction) and how these modern methods can solve this ongoing problem. These modern methods can be Volumetric, Panelized, Hybrid and Site based system, these methods can beused as individuals or as a team. The author has used the factual documentation to prove that modern method of construction can have a great input in solving this problem.The methodology which the author has used is the mixed method where he obtained the valuable data from secondary research, primary research, interviews, survey questionnaires and case studies. The author started with thesecondary source where he reviewed journals, articles, books, reports and case studies and one he gained enough knowledge he moved on to obtain primary data which he found the most important and valuable data by interviewing professional from Housing Development (Senior Project Manager and CEO of the company). On the other hand, he also handed out a minimum of 50 survey questionnaires to the professional of housing construction industry containing participants from senior to a junior level including labourers as well, where mixed views were received mostly in the favour of the modern method of construction as some participants were not aware or heard of MMC. The authors also included a comparison of construction methods, such as comparing British traditional method to Modular and Breeam.Lastly, the authors came to a conclusion upon all the facts and statistics he obtained from throughout his research, he also added the recommendations and the scope of further studies, as this study would prove to provide great benefits to the future researcher in the field study of Modern Method of Construction.

AB - The shortage of social housing is on the rise and there is an urgent need for houses in recent days to fulfil UK’s need. There are many complications regarding this issue and some of them being is to save time and money andbuild good quality units. Year in and year out the UK can’t seem to achieve their target to fulfil the large demand. The British method of building homes is the traditional method which is brick, block and cavity, which can be expensive and a lengthy process.This research is on MMC (Modern Method of Construction) and how these modern methods can solve this ongoing problem. These modern methods can be Volumetric, Panelized, Hybrid and Site based system, these methods can beused as individuals or as a team. The author has used the factual documentation to prove that modern method of construction can have a great input in solving this problem.The methodology which the author has used is the mixed method where he obtained the valuable data from secondary research, primary research, interviews, survey questionnaires and case studies. The author started with thesecondary source where he reviewed journals, articles, books, reports and case studies and one he gained enough knowledge he moved on to obtain primary data which he found the most important and valuable data by interviewing professional from Housing Development (Senior Project Manager and CEO of the company). On the other hand, he also handed out a minimum of 50 survey questionnaires to the professional of housing construction industry containing participants from senior to a junior level including labourers as well, where mixed views were received mostly in the favour of the modern method of construction as some participants were not aware or heard of MMC. The authors also included a comparison of construction methods, such as comparing British traditional method to Modular and Breeam.Lastly, the authors came to a conclusion upon all the facts and statistics he obtained from throughout his research, he also added the recommendations and the scope of further studies, as this study would prove to provide great benefits to the future researcher in the field study of Modern Method of Construction.

KW - Modern Construction Method

KW - Shortage

KW - Social Housing

UR - https://www.ieomsociety.org/program-singapore2021.pdf

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114268797&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference proceeding

SN - 978-1-7923-6124-1

VL - (In-Press)

T3 - Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management

BT - Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, 2021

PB - IEOM Society

CY - Singapore

T2 - 11th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management<br/>

Y2 - 7 March 2021 through 11 March 2021

Modern methods of construction (MMC) - A long and ongoing journey!

Date published, in this article, stuart matthews (fistructe) gives his views on the history and development of mmc, types of construction, their advantages and disadvantages and what the future may hold., 1. introduction.

References to modern methods of construction (MMC) appeared following the publication of the Rethinking Construction / the Egan Report (Egan, 1998) which put forward recommendations on how to modernise the then UK construction industry by focussing on (amongst others matters) standardisation, prefabrication, preassembly and off-site manufacture (OSM). Joint UK Government and construction industry initiatives to implement the recommendations of the Egan Report included the formation of the Movement for Innovation (M4I) and the Construction Best Practice Programme (CBBP). However, prior to that time, UK government initiatives targeting the building industry had used other terminology, with the focus generally being upon what were then termed ‘non-traditional’ methods of construction and were principally focussed on housing. As much of the recent debate upon MMC has been in the context of housing, this viewpoint article examines the issues mainly from a housing perspective. Whilst M4I and CBBP and other bodies did sterling work, the process of getting to where we are today with MMC has actually been a long and uneven journey, which started much earlier than many may realise. It is over a century since the first government initiatives in the 1920s promoting the then new ‘non-traditional’ methods of house construction, as a response to the national housing crisis following World War I. The development journey of ‘non-traditional’ housing systems in the UK has included changes in terminology as they became part of various government initiatives, such as the ‘Industrialised Building Drive’ of the 1964-1970 Labour government. Numerous political and technical challenges have been encountered on the journey. 1954 was a high-point in overall UK housing production, with just under 350,000 dwellings (of all types) completed. After that output dropped steadily, before stabilising at around 300,000 in 1960. However, the need for new housing remained as pressing as ever and the vision was that ‘industrialised building’ could fill the gap between the desired political target of 500,000 homes a year, and the then output. 1970 saw the peak of non-traditional construction, with 55,701 dwellings reportedly completed. After that, as the then national economic situation worsened, non-traditional production tailed off to less than half that number in 1975. Without considering the later social consequences which arose from the then focus upon high- and medium-rise flats, it is clear that the UK government’s industrialised building drive did make a significant contribution to both the size and the physical improvement of the nation’s post-war housing stock. However, the volume of output could not be grown enough to achieve the targeted 500,000 homes a year. The above figures for home construction are appreciably higher than the achievements of more recent years. A total of 209,460 homes were built in 1979. However, completions dropped to about 106,000 in 2010, the lowest total between 1979 and 2019, but increased to 178,800 homes in 2019. Again, these levels of construction did not meet the demand for new homes. A major influence upon this situation was the UK and local government’s decision to greatly reduce its direct role in the building of social housing. It is understood that the private sector was expected to expand its output, but it has not been able to achieve that goal. The outcome is the ongoing shortfall in the number of new homes created. It is argued (De’Ath & Farmer, 2020) that, in respect of the development of MMC in the UK, that some form of government stimulus or intervention could be necessary to create an ongoing social new-build housing market to facilitate the commercial response necessary to address the established UK social housing need. MMC take-up is also occurring in the infrastructure arena (eg prefabrication / OSM for bridge and non-domestic building construction), with recent press reports highlighting a number of these applications, such as forms of segmental construction. Generally, although the term MMC is not employed in civil engineering, reference may be made to the use of offsite techniques. However, many of these techniques are reportedly now well embedded in contemporary civil engineering design and construction practice. The uptake of forms of MMC resulting in the evolution of ‘traditional’ forms of house / dwelling construction is briefly discussed in Section 6, which provides examples of some of the positive spin-offs from MMC. But where are we currently with MMC and where are we seeking to go in the future? Let us first ‘look back’ and ‘look now’, before we attempt to ‘look forward’.  

2. Types of MMC recognised at different times – An evolving situation

The types of construction and activities considered to be MMC has broadened over the years. Early UK government housing initiatives (1920s to 1970s) initially focused upon off-site / factory and related manufacturing, with innovative site-based methods being included later (from circa 2003, refer Table 1). Table 1: The Housing Corporation construction classification system for dwellings, 2003

In March 2019 the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) Joint Industry Working Group on MMC developed a comprehensive “Definition Framework for MMC Categories”, which identified the seven MMC categories listed in Table 2 below. These include MMC systems covering a range of approaches to construction including off-site, near-site and on-site pre-manufacturing, as well as site-process improvement gains and technology led applications. This updated definition of MMC encompasses a broader range of approaches, extending beyond OSM and those listed in Table 1 above, and provides a home for other technologies promoting change in the processes used in construction. Table 2: MHCLG Joint Industry Working Group on MMC - Definition Framework for MMC Categories 2019

Note: There are an extensive series of sub-categories for the above classes which are described in the document MHCLG Joint Industry Working Group on MMC - Definition Framework, March 2019  

3. Some advantages and limitations of MMC / OSM

When properly integrated early in the design process, OSM components and services assemblies can have a major positive impact upon the construction process. This can lead to improved performance by way of:

• Reduced time for on-site build and enhanced quality
• Precision of manufacture
• Standard of finish
• Reduced waste
• Less impact upon the neighbourhood during site works

Critically these techniques improve predictability of key aspects of project delivery (eg timing, quality, cost, etc). OSM increases the proportion of the construction value which can be delivered under better control in a factory environment. While prefabricated assemblies may initially cost more, reduced on-site assembly times and increased control over on-site processes should reduce risks and, in many cases, the overall project costs should be no more than those of conventionally constructed projects. Where there is a repeat aspect to the project or where there is a large volume of prefabricated components, overall cost may be appreciably reduced. OSM usually requires a minimum number of units to be put through the factory in one batch (40 dwelling units has been quoted by some as the minimum viable number). An oft-quoted disadvantage of OSM is that the design needs to be finalised in much more detail well in advance of the site-build, so that material and components can be ordered and stocked at the factory ready for use. However, is this an illusionary problem? If the total project period for design and build is taken into account, OSM requires a much shorter period for the site-build phase than conventional construction. Would this effectively largely offset the constraint of the earlier project ‘design freeze’ date? Another significant issue is reliance upon one supplier and concern about the risk that they could go bust, which typically causes considerable problems, delay and additional expense upon affected projects. Future maintenance and functional adaptability are also potential concerns for OSM buildings, presumably scenarios for both circumstances could be addressed in design. Many buildings have great longevity and some undergo significant adaptation during their lifetime. As it is recognised that holistically designed and manufactured MMC components can provide enhanced air tightness, thermal efficiency and build quality, etc, inevitably some specialised components and materials may be used in the manufacturing process. While it is accepted that design involves making compromises to achieve a satisfactory balance between conflicting performance and other requirements, will such materials and replacement / alternative units be available decades after building manufacture? However, such problems could also arise with unique / specialised elements employed in evolved ‘traditional’ and other forms of construction (refer Section 6), so making the issue more generic. Repair / replacement of such elements could be considered during design. Perhaps future advances in 3D printing techniques could allow suitable replacement units to be created. Another issue which could become increasingly relevant is that many of the composite materials used in MMC projects are likely to be difficult to reuse / recycle at the end-of-the-life of the building. This would make a negative contribution to a life-cycle analysis (LCA) of the environmental impacts and benefits of a project. Conversely, materials used in conventional construction will usually be more easily recycled. However, the issue of reuse / recycling at the end-of-the-life of the building could be addressed if OSM components used in MMC projects are designed for deconstruction and re-use as components. OSM processes alone do not guarantee quality. Good conceptual and detailed design, appropriate choice of system, careful construction detailing etc in the early stages of a project can mitigate many of the risks. One fundamental problem of mass production always applies – if a mistake is made, it will generally be replicated many times. The error is then both ubiquitous and expensive to remedy. Quality assurance checks are therefore key, especially those by a third party. In-depth reviews and checks must occur in design, before products leave the factory, once they are installed on site and during the remaining site operations. Oversight of on-site operations is essential to deliver high-performing, long-lasting structures.  

4 Contemporary context and developments - Recent MMC projects and advances

Figure 1: George Street, Croydon, UK. Credit: Tide Constuction  

5 Looking to the future – Some contemporary examples / recent case histories

Two examples are given below of future homes employing contemporary and future looking / experimental MMC and associated technologies for sustainable living.

• Midland Heart’s ‘Eco Drive’ Development – Meeting the Future Homes Standard (March 2022): This is a research and development project building a 12-home development on a former brownfield site in Handsworth, Birmingham whose performance is to meet the new Future Homes Standard that will become a building regulation requirement from 2025. (See Figure 2)

Figure 2: Midland Heart’s ‘Eco Drive’ Development, Handsworth, Birmingham. Credit: Midland Heart Housing Association

• The Barratt ZED-House - Exceeding the Future Homes Standard (October 2021): This is a zero-carbon demonstration concept home, built on the University of Salford’s main campus, which is intended to showcase the future of the sustainable living in the UK and whose performance is intended to go substantially beyond the requirements of the Future Homes Standard. (See Figure 5)

Figure 3: The Barratt ZED-House. Credit: Barratt Developments

While the MMC and related construction and services technologies are extremely important to meet future performance requirements and aspirations, perhaps the most critical aspects to future achievements are the contractual and organisational relationships and collaborations. For example, the Zed House, built using MMC, was part-funded by the UK government and was developed in partnership with over 40 leading organisations from across the housebuilding, sustainability and technology sectors. These collaborations contributed to broadening knowledge and enabled the lessons learnt to be shared across the industry. Potentially lessons might also be learned from the design and construction practices adopted in other countries / parts of the world.  

6 The evolution of ‘traditional’ forms of construction - Positive spin-offs from MMC

While the appearance of UK homes has remained largely unchanged - attributed by some commentators to be the result of restrictive planning policies - there are many examples of OSM / ‘non-traditional’ / MMC methods which have over time been incorporated into the mainstream ‘traditional’ construction process (eg timber roof trusses, stairs, doors and window sets, precast beam and block flooring, composite cladding panels, prefabricated foundation systems and insulated walling panels, to list just a few), as well as building services pods (such as air-conditioning or refrigeration packs). Thus, contemporary ‘traditional’ construction now incorporates many forms of construction which were once seen as being MMC. These have now become well established as elements of ‘standard’ systems used in contemporary construction. NHBC Guide NF85 describes some of the many technical advances incorporated into traditional methods of house construction over the last century or so. This process has resulted in a significant improvement in the performances achieved, especially over the last two decades. The NF85 report makes clear that the contemporary ‘traditional’ construction of new homes is quite different from what formed ‘traditional’ construction in earlier years. It is expected that this gradual evolution of ‘traditional’ (conventional) construction, with associated improvements in performance, will continue in the future.  

7 Concluding remarks

Figure 4: Ten critical points of market failure. Credit: Cast Consultancy

Could there be issues which would adversely impact upon the take-up of MMC in the owner-occupier homes market? Financing and the ability to get a mortgage are critical factors.  Owner-occupier’s may need reassurance that their home / their largest financial asset will be durable. Also, could the ‘shadow’ of the Grenfell Tower fire disaster potentially raise concerns about the safety of modern construction technologies more generally. Could these have adverse connotations for the wider take-up of MMC?  

8 References and further reading

• De’Ath M & Farmer M (2020), Build homes - Build jobs - Build innovation: A blueprint for a housing led industrial strategy , September 2020
• Egan J (1998), Re-thinking Construction, Report of the Construction Task Force to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the scope for improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction / The Egan Report, Department of Trade and Industry, London
• Farmer M (2016), The Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model: Modernise or Die - Time to decide the industry’s future , Construction Leadership Council (CLC), October 2016.
• (The) Future Buildings Standard (2021): Consultation on changes to Part L (conservation of fuel and power) and Part F (ventilation) of the Building Regulations for non-domestic buildings and dwellings; and overheating in new residential buildings - Summary of responses received and Government response. Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities , December 2021
• Gardiner J (2022), Urban Splash modular business owes more than £20m , 20 June 2022
• Green S (2019), Modern methods of construction: Unintended consequences , 27 Sep 2019
• MHCLG Joint Industry Working Group on MMC (2019) – Definition Framework for MMC, March 2019.
• NHBC Guide NF85 (2019), Developments in traditional methods of construction - House building: A century of innovation , NHBC Foundation, October 2019
• Wilmore J (2023), Legal & General to ‘cease production’ of new homes at modular factory , Inside Housing website, 4 May 2023

Related Resources & Events

Eurocode 5: the essentials of timber design.

This one-day, online course offers an introduction to timber design to Eurocode 5.

Understanding structural behaviour

This two-day course shows engineers how to arrive at a qualitative solution to both create a structure and check computational results.

SME business practice conference 2024

A hands-on conference, tailored to SME owners, equipping SME practitioners with a comprehensive toolkit to capitalise on emerging industry priorities and maximise business potential.

Reclaiming the air (sponsored content)

This afternoon's webinar, sponsored by Getzner, explores a detailed case study on innovative vibration isolation solutions and structural design challenges in Boston’s first air rights project in over 30 years.

Metallic bridge fatigue – experimental testing and numerical analysis

The talk will present an overview of the outcomes of a four year research programme that has been carried out at the University of Surrey funded by Network Rail.

Digital in discussion: do digital design tools compromise creativity?

An expert panel discusses whether structural engineers should fully embrace automated design tools, or if it compromises creativity and expertise.

Assessment of existing structures safety tool

This technical lecture introduces a new assessment tool for those involved in checking and renovating existing building structures.

Spotlight on Structures (July 2024)

This article reveals the winning papers for the Structures prizes 2024: Best Research Paper and Best Research into Practice Paper. It also highlights the Editor's Featured Article for Volume 62.

Novel materials: bio-based solutions

Discover how bio-based materials such as cork, whole-trees and sugarcane are reshaping the construction industry and how to use them successfully in your projects.

Item Added to basket

• DOI: 10.1002/9781118280294.CH9
• Corpus ID: 106432703

Modern Methods of Construction

• Published 24 February 2012
• Engineering

Figures from this paper

34 Citations

Industrialized construction chronology: the disputes and success factors for a resilient construction industry in malaysia.

• Highly Influenced

Czech Journal of Civil Engineering_2015_2

Design, procurement and construction strategies for minimizing waste in construction projects, modern methods of construction (mmc) and innovation negativism in the uk public sector, isbu modular construction and building design prototypes, the role of construction technology techniques in improving the performance of contemporary housing complexes, bismayah city in iraq: a case study, adoption of offsite manufacturing in nigeria, implementation of bim and lean construction in offsite housing construction: evidence from the uk, review of motivations, success factors, and barriers to the adoption of offsite manufacturing in nigeria, construction industry offsite production: a virtual reality interactive training environment prototype, 43 references, introducing new process technologies into construction companies, the globalisation of the construction industry - a review, standardization and pre-assembly- distinguishing myth from reality using case study research, models of construction innovation, offsite production in the uk: the construction industry and academia, offsite production: a model for building down barriers: a european construction industry perspective, construction as a manufacturing process similarities and differences between industrialized housing and car production in japan, strategic decisions and innovation in construction firms, construction skills training for the next millennium, educating the 21st century construction professionals, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• Building Studies and Construction Dissertations
• All Building Studies and Construction Dissertations

The Use of Modern Methods of Construction in Assisting to Resolve the UK Social Housing Deficit (2012)

UK Social Housing Deficit and Modern Methods of Construction Dissertation – This research study will begin by examining the current structure of the social housing sector, in order to determine the required criteria and specifications set out by local government bodies, for the construction of social housing developments within the UK. It will then go on to critically appraise the MMC currently available within the UK housing industry.

Finally, an investigation will be carried out as to what level MMCs are being used within the sector and with what success, to determine the potential of MMC for the production of social housing developments within the UK. The aim is to investigate the use of modern methods of construction (MMC) for the production of social housing developments within the UK in order to overcome the current and forecasted deficits. The objectives of this research study are to:

• Investigate social housing in the UK, with particular consideration to the required criteria and specifications set out by local government bodies for social housing developments.
• Evaluate modern methods of construction (MMC) currently available within the UK construction industry, in order to identify the advantages and disadvantages they could offer social housing developments.
• Identify the modern methods of construction currently used by Registered Social Landlords (RSL) to produce social housing developments and ascertain whether or not the advantages and disadvantages from objective 2 are being realised.
• Find out the reason for slow and/or limited uptake of modern methods of construction (MMC) in social housing developments.
• 12,000 words – 84 pages in length
• Excellent use of literature
• Good use of cases
• Good analysis of the subject area
• Includes questionnaire
• Ideal for construction management and quantity surveying students

1: Introduction Dissertation Rationale Research Aim Research Objectives Hypothesis Outline Research Methodology Dissertation Structure

2: The UK Social Housing Sector Defining Social Housing The UK Social Housing Deficit Right to Buy The Recession Social Housing Providers The Decent Homes Standard Arm’s Length Management Organisations Housing Transfer Private Finance Initiative Results of the Decent Homes Standard Conclusion

3: Modern Methods of Construction Background to Modern Methods of Construction Defining Modern Methods of Construction Off-site Manufactured – Volumetric Construction Potential Advantages of Off-site Manufactured – Volumetric Construction Potential Disadvantages of Off-site Manufactured – Volumetric Construction Off-site Manufactured – Panellised Construction Potential Advantages of Off-site Manufactured – Panellised Construction Potential Disadvantages of Off-site Manufactured – Panellised Construction Off-site Manufactured – Hybrid Construction Potential Advantages of Off-site Manufactured – Hybrid Construction Potential Disadvantages of Off-site Manufactured – Hybrid Construction Off-site Manufactured – Sub-assemblies and Components Potential Advantages of Off-site Manufactured – Sub-assemblies and Components Potential Disadvantages of Off-site Manufactured – Sub-assemblies and Components Non Off-site Manufactured Modern Methods of Construction Tunnel Form In-Situ Concrete Insulating Formwork Aircrete Conclusion

4: Research Methodology Refined Research Research Aim Research Strategy Data Collection Techniques Semi-Structured Online Questionnaire Respondents Pilot Study Data Collection and Analysis

5: Data Collection and Analysis Justification for Questions Asked Analysis of Questionnaire Results Discussion of Findings

6: Conclusions, Recommendations and Limitations Summary Conclusions Industry Recommendations Limitations Further Study Recommendations

How To Order

1. Dissertation cost £55 GBP

2. Click the PayPal button

3. Click the “Click Here” button on the PayPal page to submit your credit/debit card payment

4. We will email your chosen dissertation in PDF format within 24 hours

Dissertations

Help & advice.

Login to your account

Change password, your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Create a new account

Can't sign in? Forgot your password?

Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

•   
• Institutional Access

Cookies Notification

Our site uses Javascript to enchance its usability. You can disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com to view the full content.

Select your blocker:, adblock plus instructions.

• Click the AdBlock Plus icon in the extension bar
• Click the blue power button
• Click refresh

Adblock Instructions

• Click the AdBlock icon
• Click "Don't run on pages on this site"

uBlock Origin Instructions

• Click on the uBlock Origin icon in the extension bar
• Click on the big, blue power button
• Refresh the web page

uBlock Instructions

• Click on the uBlock icon in the extension bar

Adguard Instructions

• Click on the Adguard icon in the extension bar
• Click on the toggle next to the "Protection on this website" text

Brave Instructions

• Click on the orange lion icon to the right of the address bar
• Click the toggle on the top right, shifting from "Up" to "Down

Adremover Instructions

• Click on the AdRemover icon in the extension bar
• Click the "Don’t run on pages on this domain" button
• Click "Exclude"

Adblock Genesis Instructions

• Click on the Adblock Genesis icon in the extension bar
• Click on the button that says "Whitelist Website"

Super Adblocker Instructions

• Click on the Super Adblocker icon in the extension bar
• Click on the "Don’t run on pages on this domain" button
• Click the "Exclude" button on the pop-up

Ultrablock Instructions

• Click on the UltraBlock icon in the extension bar
• Click on the "Disable UltraBlock for ‘domain name here’" button

Ad Aware Instructions

• Click on the AdAware icon in the extension bar
• Click on the large orange power button

Ghostery Instructions

• Click on the Ghostery icon in the extension bar
• Click on the "Trust Site" button

Firefox Tracking Protection Instructions

• Click on the shield icon on the left side of the address bar
• Click on the toggle that says "Enhanced Tracking protection is ON for this site"

Duck Duck Go Instructions

• Click on the DuckDuckGo icon in the extension bar
• Click on the toggle next to the words "Site Privacy Protection"

Privacy Badger Instructions

• Click on the Privacy Badger icon in the extension bar
• Click on the button that says "Disable Privacy Badger for this site"

Disconnect Instructions

• Click on the Disconnect icon in the extension bar
• Click the button that says "Whitelist Site"

Opera Instructions

• Click on the blue shield icon on the right side of the address bar
• Click the toggle next to "Ads are blocked on this site"

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

Domain-Specific Bodies of Knowledge in Project Management

Building a body of knowledge in modern methods of construction and offsite construction.

• Edited by: 
• Monty Sutrisna ( Massey University, New Zealand )  and 
• Wajiha M Shahzad ( Massey University, New Zealand )
• Add to favorites
• Download Citations
• Track Citations
• Recommend to Library
• Description
• Supplementary

This book brings together the latest developments in modern construction and offsite construction methods. It does so by capturing the current state of practice, future outlook, social and economic benefits, and challenges and risks associated with the management of projects involving modern methods of construction and offsite construction.

Modern methods of construction encompass the building approaches that strive for higher quality outputs, boost project efficiencies like faster delivery, cost optimisation, and defects minimisation, as well as those which enhance sustainability proficiencies, such as waste minimisation and reduction in carbon footprint. These methods typically incorporate the adoption of various leading-edge strategies, including but not limited to offsite construction and additive manufacturing, along with technological innovations for site processes, and construction automations.

Recent trends, such as stringent on-site health and safety practices and post-pandemic moves to reduce reliance on on-site workers, have further encouraged the construction industry to adopt modern methods of construction and offsite construction. The Body of Knowledge consolidated in this book will equip project managers, industry practitioners, students and academic researchers with the most up-to-date knowledge and skills required not only to better manage construction projects with modern methods of construction and offsite construction, but also to make optimal decisions in selecting suitable modern methods to be deployed on a project, together with an appropriate mix of off-site and on-site operations.

• Consolidating and Developing the Growing Body of Knowledge in Modern Methods of Construction and Offsite Construction
• Digital Technology Applications in Modern Construction Projects
• An Integrated Framework of Advancing Construction Safety Management: A Systematic Review
• Using Bayesian Network Analysis to Evaluate Chinese Offsite Construction Manufacturing Risk
• Critical Risk Factors of Modern Methods of Construction
• Implementing Modern Methods of Construction: Barriers and Enablers
• Modern Methods of Construction for Sustainability: Achieving Zero Carbon
• Circular Economy Concepts and Possibilities in the Prefabrication Industry: A Focus on Timber-Made Systems
• Efficiency and Performance in Offsite Construction — Synchronising the Manufacturing and Construction Processes
• Leveraging Offsite Performance Through the Thematic Structural Alignment of Core Design, Manufacturing and Construction Drivers
• Demand, Supply and Need Analysis for Offsite Construction in a Post-COVID World
• Procurement and Supply Chain Management for Offsite Construction: Challenges and Lessons for Capacity and Capability Improvements
• Applicability of Manufacturing Industry-Based Performance Measurement Metrics (PMM) for Offsite Construction
• Construction Industry's Capability and Capacity for Modern Methods of Construction
• Building a Body of Knowledge in Offsite Construction and Modern Methods of Construction for a Sustainable Future of Our Construction Industry

Monty Sutrisna is Professor of Construction and Project Management and is the Head of the School of the School of Built Environment at Massey University, New Zealand. He is the Immediate President of the Australasian Universities Building Education Association (AUBEA) and a current member of the Board of the International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB). His research expertise includes Construction and Engineering Management, Construction Productivity, Construction Procurement and Contracts, Construction IT and other Advanced Technologies applied in Construction including Offsite Construction, Decision Making Modelling/Support, Knowledge Based Systems and Artificial Intelligence. Prior to joining Massey University, he was the Head of the Construction Management Department at Curtin University in Western Australia, and he was the Director of PG Research Training & Outreach as well as the Programme Director for Construction Management Programme at the University of Salford, UK.

Wajiha Shahzad is a highly experienced academic specialising in construction management. Presently, she holds the position of Senior Lecturer in Construction Management while also serving as the Postgraduate lead for the School of Built Environment at Massey University, New Zealand. Wajiha is the current President of the New Zealand Built Environment Research Symposium (NZBERS). Her research encompasses a spectrum of domains notably offsite construction, construction innovation, modern methods of construction, and construction productivity. Her research has been recognized for its impact and novel contributions to the field of construction management and offsite construction. She has published various quality-assured journal papers, conference papers, book chapters, and industry reports. Her work has played a significant role in shaping policies surrounding the advancement of the construction industry in New Zealand.