2007 Clayton

OFF SITE MANUFACTURE AND MODULAR CONSTRUCTION THE FUTURE OF HOUSE BUILDING?
submitted by William Clayton
for the MSc in Quantity Surveying
at London South Bank University
Faculty of Engineering, Science and Built Environment
Department of Property, Surveying and Construction
year 2007
Restrictions on use
This dissertation may be made available for consultation within London South Bank University and may be photocopied or lent to other libraries for the purposes of clarification.
Signed:
William Clayton
(William Clayton)
Authors declaration
I declare that this dissertation is my own unaided work except where specifically referenced to the work of others.
Signed:
William Clayton
(William Clayton)
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following people for their support and assistance during the course of undertaking this dissertation:
Ben Kennedy Marketing Project Manager, Urban Splash
Gordon Callaway Group Policy Manager, Hyde Housing Association
Susan May Principal Development Manager, The Peabody Trust.
Keith Tweedy Senior Lecturer, London South Bank University
London South Bank University Dept. of Property, Surveying and Construction MSc Dissertation
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Contents
CONTENTS Page
Contents
List of Tables and Figures
Abstract
10
Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Scope of Chapter Rationale Aim Objectives Research Questions Assumptions Outline Methodology Dissertation Structure Chapter Appraisal 11 11 13 13 13 14 15 16 17
Off-site manufacture A History in Construction 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Scope of Chapter Definition of the Terms Origins of Off-site manufacture in the United Kingdom 1914 1939 1939 onwards Large-panel high-rise residential buildings 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.7 2.8 Ronan Point, Newham, East London Other problems with high-rise LPS systems 18 18 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 27 27 28 30
Non-Domestic Applications Policy Agenda 2.8.1 2.8.2 The Latham Report The Egan Report
2.9
Chapter Appraisal
Page 3 Off-site manufacture Current Applications and Implications for Future Use 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Scope of Chapter The Current Situation Benefits of Off-site manufacture Barriers to Application 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 3.5 3.6 General Image Perceived Performance Customer Expectation Perceived Value Industry Culture Product Awareness 31 31 33 35 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 39
Applications for Future Use Chapter Appraisal
Successful Projects Using Off-site Manufacture 4.1 4.2 Scope of Chapter Successful Projects using Off-site Manufacture 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.3 Moho Urban Splash Barling Court Hyde Housing Association Corbet House Hyde Housing Association Murray Grove The Peabody Trust Barons Court The Peabody Trust 41 41 42 43 45 47 49 51
Chapter Appraisal
Research Design and Methodology 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Scope of Chapter Statement of Research Aim Research Strategy Rationale of the Research Questionnaire Rationale of the Interviews The Research Sample Method of Analysis 53 53 54 55 59 61 62
Page 5.8 Chapter Appraisal 62
Data Analysis and Results Detailed Analysis 6.1 6.2 6.3 Scope of Chapter Detailed Analysis Moho Urban Splash Detailed Analysis Barling Court Hyde Housing Association 6.4 Detailed Analysis Corbet House Hyde Housing Association 6.5 Detailed Analysis Murray Grove The Peabody Trust 6.6 Detailed Analysis Barons Place The Peabody Trust 6.7 Chapter Appraisal 101 94 88 81 64 64 74
Data Analysis and Results Benchmarking 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Scope of Chapter Benchmarking Key Performance Indicators Assessment of the Construction Programme Assessment of the Construction Costs Chapter Appraisal 102 102 112 114 116
Conclusions and Recommendations 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Scope of Chapter Limitations Research Questions / Objectives Summary of Key Findings / Recommendations 118 118 120 122
References
124
Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4
Blank Questionnaire Questionnaire Response from Urban Splash Questionnaire Response from Hyde Housing Association Questionnaire Response from The Peabody Trust
Appendix 5 Appendix 6
Variables Affecting BCIS Estimated Construction Time Variables Affecting BCIS Average Prices
William Clayton (No. 2402164) List of Tables and Figures
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
Page
Table 6.2.1
Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Moho development
73
Table 6.3.1
Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Barling Court development
81
Table 6.4.1
Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Corbet House development
87
Table 6.5.1
Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Murray Grove development
94
Table 6.6.1
Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Barons Place development
101
Table 7.3.1
Variables affecting the BCIS Estimated Construction Time
113
Table 7.4.1
Variables affecting the BCIS Mean Construction Cost
115
Figures Figure 1 Off-site Manufacture and its related techniques 21
Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2
Urban Splashs Moho Development Hyde Housing Associations Barling Court Development
42 44
Figure 4.3
Hyde Housing Associations Corbet House Development
46
Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5
The Peabody Trusts Murray Grove Development The Peabody Trusts Barons Place Development
48 50
Figure 6.2.1 Figure 6.2.2 Figure 6.2.3 Figure 6.2.4
Moho location plan Construction of a unit at the Moho Development Computer generated image of a completed unit Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Moho project
65 66 66 68
Page Figure 6.2.5 Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Moho project Figure 6.2.6 Figure 6.2.7 Figure 6.2.8 The Moho modules under construction in the factory A completed Moho unit Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Moho project 70 70 72 69
Figure 6.3.1 Figure 6.3.2 Figure 6.3.3
Barling Court location plan Barling Court Typical Floor Plan Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Barling Court project
74 75 76
Figure 6.3.4 Figure 6.3.5
The exterior of Barling Court Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Barling Court project
78 79
Figure 6.3.6
Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Barling Court project
80
Corbet House location plan Diagrammatic construction of the BUMA system Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Corbet House project
82 83 84
Figure 6.4.4
Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Corbet House project
85
A typical bathroom at the Corbet House development Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Corbet House project
86 86
Murray Grove location plan The stacking style construction of Murray Grove Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Murray Grove project
88 90 90
Figure 6.5.4
Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Murray Grove project
91
Page Figure 6.5.5 Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Murray Grove project Figure 6.5.6 The Murray Grove development 93 92
Barons Place location plan Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Barons Place project
95 97
Figure 6.6.3
Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Barons Place project
98
The interior quality at Barons Place Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Barons Place project
99 100
KPI results for Urban Splash and the Moho development KPI results for Hyde Housing Association and the Barling Court and Corbet House developments
104 105
Figure 7.2.3
KPI results for The Peabody Trust and the Murray Grove and Barons Place developments
106
Figure 7.2.4
KPI Comparison of all developments with Construction Industry data for 2006 Client Satisfaction (Product)
108
Figure 7.2.5
KPI Comparison of all developments with Construction Industry data for 2006 Client Satisfaction (Service)
109
Figure 7.2.6
KPI Comparison of all developments with Construction Industry data for 2006 Defects
111
Figure 7.3.1
Comparison of Construction Programme for all projects
112
Figure 7.4.1
Comparison of Construction Costs for all projects
115
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Abstract
ABSTRACT
Off-site manufacture has been used in the construction industry for over 100 years, and as such, the benefits are both numerous and widely known. However, take-up in the housing sector, in the form of modular construction, has been much slower. Through detailed case study research, this work seeks to understand why this is the case, and whether these benefits can be transferred into the house building process, to help meet the current demand for new homes.
Three client organisations that have used modular construction recently with apparent success have been investigated as part of the research. By way of an initial postal questionnaire and follow up semi structured interview, each organisations perception and attitude towards modular construction, along with their principles of best practice have been examined and analysed.
This has led to a number of interesting conclusions being drawn. For example, modular construction will produce a better quality finished product, as well as significant savings in terms of the construction programme, when compared to traditional building methods. Furthermore, the research has suggested that those clients who procure using modular construction will be more satisfied as a result,
The schemes reviewed have proved to be a great success in the marketplace. This has led the author to feel that through careful planning and systematic implementation, off-site manufacture through modular construction is the future of house building.
10
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
If the industry is to achieve its full potential, substantial changes in the culture and structure are required to enable the improvements in the project process that will deliver our ambition of a modern construction industry Sir John Egan
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 1 Introduction
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1
Scope of Chapter
This opening chapter will set out the rationale, aim and principal objectives of the dissertation. It will also outline certain research questions that need to be
answered, and assumptions that have had to be made, in an attempt to prove the aim and meet the objectives of the study.
Furthermore, a diagrammatic outline to the research methodology will be presented and the structure of each subsequent chapter will be briefly described.
By the end of the chapter, a clear understanding of the reason for choosing the subject area, as well as the structure of the study, will have been presented.
1.2
Rationale
Construction needs to increase its use of off-site methods (Building, 2005a). That claim came seven years after the publication of the Construction Task Forces Report, Rethinking Construction (The Egan Report). This called for the industry to industrialise and modernise in order to meet the changing needs and objectives of its clients.
Why then, a considerable time since the Egan Report, and over a decade since Sir Michael Lathams Constructing the Team, is the industry still being urged to adopt more off-site manufacture? Both knights recommended it as a way of increasing efficiency and, while the situation cannot change overnight, why has takeup been so limited?
Don Ward, deputy chief executive of Constructing Excellence in the Built Environment, has offered a possible explanation. He feels that the problem is
caused by a catch-22 situation, with the supply chain and clients both being
11
reluctant to make the first move towards mass use of the method (Building, 2005a). As a result, take-up is not happening widely enough to lower unit costs.
This is clear with the large speculative house builders the sector of the industry that offers the most practical source of off-site manufacture, due to the standard range of products that they construct. The biggest players have generally failed to advocate these methods. In contrast, smaller, trendier developers such as Manchester-based, Urban Splash, and forward thinking Housing Associations, such as Hyde and The Peabody Trust have adopted them and, consequently, reaped the benefits.
Urban Splash pioneered the UKs first private-sector, multi-storey housing development to be based on prefabricated volumetric modules. The 102-flat, Moho development, just west of Manchester city centre, designed for young graduates and key workers, has gained high recognition. Its volumetric manufacturer, Yorkon, also won Building Magazines Off-site Specialist of the Year 2005 (Building, 2005b).
Meanwhile, in constructing Barling Court, in south-west London, Hyde Housing Association has built a four-storey key-worker apartment block, which is claimed to have taken 14 months less to build than similar traditional developments (Spring, 2004a), and reputedly worked out at 210,000 cheaper than a standard prefabricated solution. In addition, the Peabody Trusts Murray Grove, in east
London, was the first multi-storey housing project in the UK to be entirely factory built.
Through detailed case study research, the dissertation will analyse and evaluate the processes and procedures adopted by the organisations claiming to maximise the benefits of off-site manufacture. Examples will be drawn from the
private development sector, and the social housing market. Ultimately, suggestions for best practice will be made. It is hoped that these can then help to identify which off-site procedures could be adopted by the larger house builders to assist in meeting the Deputy Prime Ministers target of new housing over the coming years, thus proving that off-site manufacture has a key role to play in the future of house building.
12
1.3
Aim
To prove that off-site manufacture and modular construction is significant in the construction industry and, consequently, the future of house building in order to help meet current housing demand.
1.4
Objectives
The study has four key objectives, namely:
1.
To identify the various techniques of off-site manufacture used by each of the organisations.
2.
To highlight the benefits that those techniques bring to the relevant projects and their clients.
3.
To identify the areas in which the large speculative house builders should use off-site manufacture to improve their efficiency and effectiveness, and meet government housing targets.
4.
To show that modular construction has a significant place within the construction industry in helping to meet housing demand.
1.5
Research Questions
In order to meet the aim and key objectives of the study, it is necessary to answer a number of key research questions. These are:
1.
What specific techniques of off-site manufacture do the organisations use?
2.
What benefits do these techniques bring to the project, the organisation and the construction industry as a whole?
13
3.
Are there any reasons why off-site manufacture may not be adopted, and how can these be overcome?
4.
How does off-site manufacture compare in terms of construction time and cost to traditional building methods?
5.
What improvements could be made to the off-site manufacture procedure to make it more widely recognised and accepted?
6.
In which situations could the larger house builders adopt off-site manufacture to help in meeting housing demand, whilst improving their own efficiency and effectiveness?
7.
How relevant is off-site manufacture in terms of helping to meet current housing demand?
8.
Is off-site manufacture the future of house building?
1.6
Assumptions
Certain assumptions have had to be made in order to undertake the research if the aim is to be proved correct. These are:
1.
That the research can be carried out within the given timeframe.
2.
That the representatives from each organisation will be available to complete the questionnaire and be interviewed within the timeframe of the research period.
3.
That the representatives from each organisation will be willing to divulge potentially sensitive / confidential information on their project, in order to make the research an accurate reflection of off-site manufacture.
14
4.
That the data / information received will be of sufficient quality to formulate suitable conclusions to prove the aim / objectives of the work.
1.7
Outline Methodology
The methodology for the research is shown in the flow chart below:
Conception of idea
Development of idea
Literature Review
Assess questionnaire responses
Conduct questionnaire research
Devise research methodology
Conduct interview research
Assess interview transcripts
Analyse all data and formulate case studies
Conclusions and recommendations
Collate summary of key findings
Conduct benchmarking and KPIs
THE FUTURE IS MODULAR ?
15
1.8
Dissertation Structure
Following this introduction, the dissertation will be split into seven chapters and will be structured as follows.
Chapter 2 Off-site manufacture A History in Construction
The first literature review chapter will summarise the history behind off-site manufacture. It will show how the uptake of the techniques has evolved, from the aftermath of World War II and to the end of the last millennium.
Chapter 3 Off-site manufacture Current Applications and Implications for Future Use
The second literature review chapter will assess current applications of offsite manufacture. It will examine the situation since the turn of this century, and will also explore the implications and applications for future use.
Chapter 4 Successful Projects Using Off-site Manufacture
The final literature review chapter will highlight those organisations that are successfully using the techniques. It will focus on the three organisations under review, namely Urban Splash, Hyde Housing Association and The Peabody Trust.
Chapter 5 Research Design and Methodology
This chapter will outline the methodology for the research. It will refer to the literature in justifying the rationale, as well as detailing the questionnaire format and the principal themes of the interviews.
Chapter 6 Data Analysis and Results Detailed Analysis
This first results chapter will be a detailed analysis of each of the organisations and their projects, and will form the basis of the case study approach.
16
It will follow the format of the questionnaire, while comments and interpretation to some of the responses from the interview will be included where appropriate.
Chapter 7 Data Analysis and Results Benchmarking
The second analysis chapter will be centred on benchmarking and key performance indicators. The results from each organisation will be compared to each other, to the construction industry as a whole and, in particular, to the new build housing sector. Overall construction time and cost relevant to industry standards will also be covered.
Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations
The final chapter will detail a summary of key findings, and draw conclusions by referring back to the objectives to assess what the research has found. It will also highlight recommendations for future application of the techniques, whilst identifying the limitations to the research.
1.9
Chapter Appraisal
This first chapter has laid the foundation for the study by outlining the rationale and stating the aim of the research.
Four key objectives have been identified as critical if the aim is to be proved, while a number of research questions have been posed, which when answered will help to meet these objectives. Certain assumptions have had to be made in order to gain the data and information required and these have also been explained.
Finally, an outline methodology to the research, and a brief summary of each chapter has been detailed. It is now necessary to investigate the existing literature on the topic of off-site manufacture. This will be focus of the next three chapters, commencing with Off-site Manufacture A History in Construction.
17
CHAPTER TWO
OFF SITE MANUFACTURE A HISTORY IN CONSTRUCTION
Modular construction can produce existing, innovative buildings that are cost effective and provide value for money throughout the project lifestyle Alistair Gibb
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 2 Off-site Manufacture A History in Construction
CHAPTER TWO
Off-site Manufacture A History in Construction
2.1
Scope of Chapter
The literature review will be split into three chapters. The scope of this first chapter is two-fold. Firstly, to identify what is meant by the various terms concerning off-site manufacture. Secondly, to summarise the history behind off-site manufacture in the United Kingdom construction industry.
It will show how uptake of the techniques has evolved; from the 1800s, through its widespread use following the First and Second World Wars, to the boom periods of the 1950s and 1960s, leading up to the situation at the end of the last millennium. Specific attention will be paid to the large high-rise residential buildings that quickly became a feature of our towns and cities in the 1960s. However, a devastating occurrence with one in particular had long-lasting implications for future take-up.
Finally, the policy agenda will be examined, and reference made to the Latham and Egan Reports. Recommendations in these documents have shaped the applications and processes of off-site manufacture that are commonplace today. As Egan, commented: substantial changes in the culture and structure of UK construction are required to enable the improvements in the project process that will deliver our ambition of a modern construction industry (Egan, 1998). Off-site
manufacture has and will continue to play a vital role in achieving this ambition.
2.2
Definition of the Terms
Off-site manufacture, prefabrication and pre-assembly are part of the spectrum of innovative contemporary techniques available to those seeking greater cost effectiveness in construction (Gibb, 1999). Therefore, a natural starting point is to identify what is meant by the terms off-site manufacture, pre-fabrication and preassembly.
18
A number of definitions are available in the literature.
In his 1965 book,
Prefabrication A history of its development in Great Britain, White defined prefabrication as a useful but imprecise word to signify a trend in building technology. He argued that if prefabrication was related to every factory
manufactured product, the term could be stretched so wide as to lose all meaning. Thankfully, in the subsequent 40 years, the word has become commonplace and more precise. For the purposes of this work the following definitions will be used.
Stirling (2003) defines off-site manufacture as any part of the construction process that is carried out in controlled conditions away from the actual site.
The Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA) (1998) have proposed definitions for the other terms. They define pre-fabrication as the manufacture of component parts of a building and its services prior to their assembly on-site. The key concept of pre-fabrication is that of adding value to relatively
simple, low-intrinsic-volume materials and sub-components.
BSRIA (1998) goes on to identify pre-assembly as the manufacture and assembly of a complex unit comprising several components prior to the units installation on-site. The key concept here is that of combining several high-intrinsicvalue components into a finished entity, so that upon delivery to site only positioning and connection to relevant supplies / services is necessary before the product is put into use.
Many different terms are used to describe the process of pre-assembly; therefore a number of sub-definitions are also important to note. The following have all been developed by Alistair Gibb (1999 and 2001); a widely recognised authority in the field of research.
Non-volumetric pre-assembly The term non-volumetric is taken to mean those items that do not enclose usable space, and being assembled in a factory prior to being placed in their final position. They may include several sub-assemblies and constitute a significant part of the building or structure. Examples include wall panels, structural sections and pipe work assemblies.
19
Volumetric pre-assembly The volumetric category comprises units that enclose usable space, but do not themselves constitute the whole building. These units are also assembled in a factory, and are substantially complete in themselves. This leaves only a small amount of work to be completed on-site, and they are usually installed within an independent structural frame. Examples include toilet pods, plant room units, pre-assembled building services risers and modular lift shafts.
Modular building This category comprises units that form a complete building or part of a building, including the structure. Again, they are substantially complete in themselves, which leaves only a small amount of work to be completed on-site. They also may be clad externally on-site, with cosmetic brickwork as a secondary operation. Examples include out-of-town retail outlets, such as McDonalds Drive-Thru restaurants, office blocks and motels, for example Forte, and, most recently, residential apartments, both by private and social housing developers (this will be discussed in more detail in chapter 3). This type of off-site manufacture will be the main focus of the research.
Figure 1 shows how off-site manufacture can be seen to encompass the other terms, and how the various techniques interact.
20
Figure 1 Off-site Manufacture and its related techniques
Off-site Manufacture
Pre-assembly
Pre-fabrication
Non-Volumetric
Volumetric
Modular Building
2.3
Origins of Off-site Manufacture in the United Kingdom
Off-site manufacture is not new to the industry. Gibb (1999) cites examples of timber buildings using off-site manufacture as early as the twelfth century. While a Building Research Establishment (BRE) Report in 2003 highlighted its use in the 1770s with the construction of the first Iron Bridge at Colebrookdale. Other early examples include Londons Crystal Palace, built in 1851 for the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park and then relocated to Sydenham in 1854, as well as the export of houses, churches and hospitals to the colonies during 19th century.
Gibb (1999) feels that industrialised building techniques, however, have not developed steadily and consistently, instead evolving in a sporadic fashion and have even being totally disregarded at times. White (1965) has been more critical. He wrote that the examples of prefabrication before the 19th century were isolated phenomena that had virtually no influence on the later course of building evolution.
Before the First World War, housing standards were extremely poor for much of the UKs population. Therefore, there was a great need to replace the sub-
standard properties as well as to increase the number available for rent (BRE, 2003).
21
The impetus for developing mass prefabrication, however, occurred after the Second World War. This was due to the necessity for new housing, following the mass destruction of existing stock that had occurred, and because such numbers could not be produced by traditional methods.
Unfortunately, the ability of what was left of the house building industry to respond to these demands was very limited, as inevitably, there was a shortage of both traditional materials and skilled personnel. These circumstances, therefore,
created the need to reconsider the procurement and construction of buildings to service the demand.
2.4
1914 - 1939
Fortunately, the government recognised the problems of dealing with postwar building at an early stage during the First World War. This led to the formation of the Ministry of Reconstruction in 1917, whose brief was to consider and advise upon the problems which may arise out of the present war and may have to be dealt with on its termination (BRE, 2003). In time, the Ministry was to conclude that it was in the field of steel and concrete housing that prefabrication was most significant.
White (1965), however, summarised that prefabrication in the inter-war period can be dismissed as a brief attempt to introduce alternative buildings methods to the industry, after a lapse of sixty years since the days of the export of cast-iron buildings.
Prefabrication following the First World War had virtually ceased by 1928. This was primarily because it had not managed to consistently compete with traditional building. Its main contribution had been to provide a small additional
number of houses, which would probably not have been built using traditional methods due to material shortages. Essentially, this period had been one that,
although helpful in terms of the number of houses built, remained detached from the approach to building used by the rest of the industry and, therefore, had no long-term impact on construction at the time (BRE, 2003).
22
2.5
1939 onwards
Following the destruction caused by the bombings of the Second World War, there was again a shortage of housing stock and a need for the deficit to be reduced quickly. In September 1942 then, an Interdepartmental Committee on House
Construction was appointed. Presided over by Sir George Burt, it became known as the Burt Committee.
Its brief was to consider materials and methods of construction suitable for the building of houses and flats, having regard to efficiency, economy and speed of erection. This included considering the application of prefabrication.
The committees subsequent reports prepared the background for further development of prefabrication, and led to an increase in the number of non-traditional properties being built in the UK. This included timber frame houses, which were imported in significant numbers.
These post-war years were marked by massive government intervention and by the granting of subsidies and, in October 1944, The Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act was passed. It authorised the government to spend up to
150,000,000 on the provision of temporary housing (BRE, 2003) and between 194548, around 157,000 temporary houses were manufactured, or imported, and erected. However, this was significantly less than the numbers expected, and the gap between expectations and actual provision has contributed to the perception of a poor performance.
Richard Sheppard, in his 1946 book Prefabrication in Building, was an advocate of the techniques. However, instead of questioning its feasibility believing it had been amply demonstrated that efficient buildings could be constructed from mass-produced factory units he summarised achievements in the prefabrication of buildings in England and America.
Sheppard agreed that large measures of prefabrication were required in order to meet both the housing demand and the demand for new schools. However, he
23
noted that there was a tendency to assume that prefabrication developed merely to supplement orthodox methods of construction during a period of emergency.
In summary of this period, White (1965) identified that it has been characterised by changes in materials and techniques, which had implications far beyond the field of housing.
A characteristic of the 1950s was the major push to provide increasing numbers of housing units within a very short space of time, while making maximum use of restricted site space. These constraints and cost limits led to the introduction of Large Panel Systems (LPS) Construction, using existing technology first developed in Denmark in 1948 (BRE, 2003).
2.6
Large-panel high-rise residential buildings
In the early 1960s, the first of many tower blocks began to be built in areas of London, such as West Ham an area badly affected by the bombs of the Second World War, and with several approaching slum status. The design chosen for many of these was the Larsen Neilson method: one where pre-cast reinforced blocks are slotted into place on site, then bolted and cemented together. This was seen as a safe and quick way to provide new homes.
In 1965, the London Borough of Newham commissioned nine, twenty-two storey blocks. As the end of the decade approached, many of these tower blocks had been constructed, giving local people a chance to move out of old, usually unfit properties, into smart new homes in the sky. The various social problems created by the tower block lifestyle had not yet come to light and many people were fairly content to move into a new high-rise flat in order to escape damp, dirty and rundown houses.
However, one event had both devastating occurrences and long-lasting implications for the future perception of prefabrication.
24
2.6.1
Ronan Point, Newham, East London
Construction of the Ronan Point block started in July 1966, being handed over to the council in March 1968. It was 80ft by 60ft in area and 210ft high, and consisted of 44 two-bedroom flats and 66 one-bedroom flats.
At 5.45am, on 16 May 1968, an explosion occurred in Flat 90, four floors from the top of the building. This momentarily lifted those top floors, while the now
unrestrained flank wall was blown out. When the load from those floors returned, the supporting walls were no longer present to offer any resistance and hence the weight of some of the upper construction descended through a storey height before impacting on the next lower floor of the south-east corner. The modern design of the building had proved to have a major fault, which allowed the domino style collapse of the wall and floor sections.
Only eight flats remained vacant at the time of the explosion and it was fortunate that four of these were situated in the south-east corner which collapsed (BRE, 2003). However, there were still five fatalities (four directly as a result of the explosion and collapse).
The cause was later found to be a build-up of gas from a leaky cooker connection that was ignited by a lady hoping to make an early morning cup of tea, contrary to the initial local rumours that it was caused by an IRA bomb maker gone wrong.
The incident led to a ban on the supply and use of gas in high-rise premises, although this has now been revised, partly due to the difficulties in upgrading and renewing heating methods in the blocks themselves. However, the implications in terms of the publics perception of prefabrication have had long-lasting implications.
2.6.2
Other problems with high-rise LPS systems
Following the collapse of Ronan Point, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government instructed local authorities, in August 1968, to appraise the structural design of the existing and proposed LPS blocks. The BRE noted that this
25
programme was intended to reduce the probability of progressive collapse in the event of the loss of load-bearing elements (BRE, 2003). The result was a nationwide programme of assessment and the strengthening of many existing LPS blocks.
However, there have also been other problems with these large-panel highrise buildings. For example, the BRE (2003) has noted that many of the systems have also suffered from water penetration and poor thermal performance. Frequent condensation has also led to concern and dissatisfaction among tenants. However, many of the problems with these systems are a result of poor workmanship rather than design, leading to prefabrication being associated with poor quality buildings. Although the specific problems at Ronan Point were not all related to the form of construction, the publicity has been closely associated with the method of building, which has again contributed to a negative view in some quarters.
Even though the techniques have increased over time, both in terms of scope and number, there has still been prevailing stigma attached to off-site manufacture. Therefore, in order for off-site manufacture to prosper, these problems must be recognised and overcome. This will be discussed in more depth in chapter 3.
However, White (1965) noted that where prefabrication has been successful, there has been a unity of purpose and close collaboration between client, designer, manufacturer and contractor. He felt that many failures since the war can be put down to a lack of effective co-operation and timing whereby the correct solution presented by and to the right people at the right time has often been the basis of the success achieved.
Since those dark times for off-site manufacture, the situation has changed. This has been a result of both advances in innovation and a general improvement in the efficiency of construction firms. As such, the benefits of off-site manufacture are now widely recognised. These have been published by research organisations, such as the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) and the BRE.
The benefits of off-site manufacture are the subject of chapter 3. However, they will be briefly mentioned here. A CIRIA report in 1999, entitled Adding Value to Construction Projects through Standardisation and Pre-assembly, focussed on the
26
value to be gained from the application of off-site manufacture. The report concluded that the deliberate and systematic use of pre-assembly, started early in the process, will add value to projects by increasing predictability and efficiency (Gibb, 2001).
2.7
Non-Domestic Applications
Non-domestic applications are generally considered outside the scope of this work. However, it will briefly be touched upon here to ensure the continuity of the historical context, and because the use of prefabrication is well established, while the scope for future application is considerable. This is because the size, shape, form and fabric of non-domestic buildings are more diverse than those found in UK housing (BRE, 2003).
Many commercial clients perceive the construction time of new outlets as a delay in their ability to trade and, as such, apply pressure for faster build times. Fast track construction schemes have been tried for a number of years to reduce time spent developing new outlets, and prefabrication has been identified by many as one of the ways of achieving faster completion. For example, McDonalds Restaurants use prefabrication to build their new outlets, recently setting their record of a completed outlet being built and open for business, in Runcorn, Cheshire, within 13 hours of starting construction on prepared ground (BRE, 2003). They have also built the largest fast-food restaurant in Europe a 2,200m2 unit near Greenwichs Dome in just 15 weeks using modular construction (Robert Gordon University, 2002). These fast, economic developments have considerable commercial implications for the businesses. A range of clients from hotels (such as Travelodge in the form of
prefabricated bathroom pods) to retail outlets are now using some form of prefabricated procurement.
2.8
Policy Agenda
2.8.1
The Latham Report
In 1994, the UKs Joint Review Body published Constructing the Team by Sir Michael Latham. The report, more commonly known as The Latham Report, was jointly commissioned by government and the industry, with the participation of many
27
major clients. It was set up to consider procurement, contractual arrangements and the current roles, responsibilities and performance of the participants, including the client (Latham, 1994). The report was produced by a single individual, not a working party or committee, and in the authors own words was a personal report of an independent, but friendly, observer.
In essence, the review attempted to put forward solutions to problems that it had identified were preventing clients from obtaining the high quality projects they required. The report concluded that an enhanced performance could only be
achieved by team work in an atmosphere of fairness to all of the participants a process of finding win-win solutions (Masterman, 2002).
Altogether the Latham Report made thirty recommendations. One specifically important in this context was for a 30% reduction in construction cost. Much of the debate about meeting this target has centred on greater use of industrialised building methods, such as off-site manufacture. Since the publication of the report, Evans (1995) has noted today the pressures on the industry and the capabilities of more flexible manufacturing technology are different from the 1960s. There is a growing sense that now is the time for another push towards economies of scope and towards prefabrication.
The recommendations were initially accepted in principle by all those involved; however, putting them into practice has been slower than envisaged. Furthermore, work on their implementation has been somewhat overtaken by the recommendations of Rethinking Construction.
2.8.2
The Egan Report
The Egan Report Rethinking Construction was published in 1998 by the Construction Task Force. It was commissioned by the Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) as a result of the growing dissatisfaction of both public and private clients with the performance of the industry. The task force was charged with investigating and identifying methods of improving the efficiency of the industry and the quality of its products.
28
The report was very critical of the industry for its past poor performance and called for radical change in the way projects were implemented. It concluded that the industry needed to concentrate on becoming more efficient, improving the quality of its output and improving the satisfaction of its clients (Egan, 1998). One of its
recommendations was to move towards sustainable construction, with the emphasis on prefabrication and off-site assembly.
There has been some criticism of the report in certain quarters. This has centred on its provocative and unnecessarily hostile approach and its failure to address the needs of occasional / one-off clients and the implementers of small to medium sized projects that make up a large proportion of the industrys annual workload (Masterman, 2002).
However, the report highlighted how the construction industry should follow the example set by manufacturing as a way of improving effectiveness and efficiency. In particular, the housing sector can be viewed as the frontline for off-site manufacture. The report showed how Housing Associations, such as The Peabody Trust, The Guiness Trust and Southern Housing Group have implemented the lessons learnt from abroad to improve the procurement of low-cost, high-quality adaptable housing. In fact, it went so far as singling out the social housing sector as exemplary, stating: the Task Force believes that the main opportunities for improvements in house building performance exist in the social housing sector. However, we would expect improved practice in social housing to affect activity in the wider housing market (Egan, 1998). Yet, history has proved that the wider housing market and, in particular, the larger speculative house builders are sceptical and slow to copy the success of their not-for-profit counterparts.
The report has also led to a range of initiatives that have had a major impact on the industry, such as the Movement for Innovation (M4I) and the Construction Best Practice Programme. Prefabrication has been identified as a major way forward in delivering these required improvements.
29
2.9
Chapter Appraisal
This chapter has set the background for off-site manufacture, prefabrication and pre-assembly in the UK construction industry. It has defined the various terms since an understanding of these is critical to the overall understanding of their application in the industry and has given a brief historical summary, by looking at the origins of off-site manufacture, from sporadic beginnings pre-19th century to more widespread adoption following the two World Wars. This was in an attempt to deal with the chronic shortage of housing stock that resulted from the devastating bombings. It showed how the techniques supplemented the more traditional
methods, rather than providing the answer to all the industrys problems.
From there, it has been shown how government intervention in the 1940s and uptake of methods increased in the 1950s and 1960s. However, a notable
occurrence the Ronan Point block collapse has resulted in the techniques suffering from a poor perception among the wider population.
Finally, recent government-sponsored policy agenda has been investigated. This has taken the form of the Latham and Egan Reports reports that were intended to change the way the construction industry operates by encouraging firms to become more like the manufacturing industry through greater adoption of increasingly industrialised building techniques.
It is now necessary to assess whether the recommendations made by Sir Michael and Sir John have had an effect on the uptake of off-site manufacture in the industry. This will be the focus of chapter 3, along with an evaluation of the benefits and potential barriers to adoption. Finally, it will summarise the applications of offsite manufacture since the turn of the new century up to the present day.
30
CHAPTER THREE
OFF-SITE MANUFACTURE CURRENT APPLICATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE USE
Prefabrication is much more than a trendy concept, it offers the possibility of remoulding construction as a manufacturing industry. It represents one of the positive ways forward for underpinning the major changes that have been identified as necessary for improving construction Building Research Establishment
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 3 Off-site Manufacture Current Applications and Implications for Future Use
CHAPTER THREE
Off-site Manufacture Current Applications and Implications for Future Use
3.1
Scope of Chapter
This chapter will assess whether the recommendations made in the Latham and Egan Reports have had an affect on the industry by detailing the current applications of off-site manufacture, from the start of the millennium up to the present day. It will show how the industry is now applying the techniques in various forms.
The benefits of off-site manufacture are both widely recognised and publicised, and will be discussed to improve the overall understanding of the current situation. Some of these benefits will impact directly on project performance and cost, while others have more indirect advantages to both the client and project team.
However, there are still various barriers to adoption. A number of these have resulted from the perceived poor performance of the techniques during difficult periods in the 1960s. These will be detailed, and it will be shown how they can be overcome, and how successful projects using off-site manufacture can be developed as a result.
Finally, the chapter will explore the applications and implications for future use, as off-site manufacture is much more than a trendy concept. Instead, it could offer the possibility of remoulding construction as a manufacturing industry. These methods are being used in an attempt to meet the housing targets set by the Deputy Prime Minister.
3.2
The Current Situation
The UK construction industry is currently using prefabrication in a wide variety of forms and applications. This ranges from the simple prefabricated site hut, to volumetric units that can be delivered to site and integrated into the structure of a building.
31
The BRE (2003) has identified modularisation or modular design as key to prefabrication. Modular design refers to construction using standardised units or
standardised dimensions. Modular buildings do not have to be built by prefabricated techniques, however they are usually involved. A variety of successful modular
developments have recently been procured in the UK and these will be described in chapter four.
Off-site manufacture is not just limited to the building fabric, but can also be applied to the plant and services within a development. BSRIA recently completed a DETR study into the application of prefabrication of services (Wilson, Smith and Deal, 1998). This included a comparison with the traditional approaches and
identification of some of the issues that determine whether the approach is successful. The prefabrication of building services is generally considered outside the scope of this work. context of current uses. However, it is mentioned here to provide an up-to-date
An important point to note is that the implementation of off-site manufacture in the UK has been sporadic. It is often dominated by the larger construction
companies, which have shown most interest in using prefabrication techniques to improve productivity and move towards leaner construction (BRE, 2003). The
concept of lean construction was one of the main recommendations by Sir John Egan. However, uptake of off-site manufacture by the house building industry, and in particular the larger developers, has been much slower. Instead, it has been the smaller developers, and notably the Housing Associations, who have used the techniques to great effect. Perhaps an explanation for this is because they are more concerned with client satisfaction and quality of product than profit margins and share prices. In reality, the larger speculative house builders need more convincing of the benefits, as they have more to lose if things go wrong, in respect of the relationship that they have with their shareholders.
In April 2000, the DETR produced a Housing Green Paper entitled Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All. This identified prefabrication as a means of providing affordable housing, and considered the ways in which more resources could be used. Specifically, the paper stated: we expect to see progressive take-up
32
of the technique over the next few years, for both social and private house building, as the benefits are more clearly demonstrated (DETR, 2001a).
3.3
Benefits of Off-site Manufacture
Off-site manufacture has many benefits to the industry as a whole, as well as at project level. Much of this benefit and added value is indirect. Davis Langdon (2004) note that, while the cost issue remains unresolved, the supporters of off-site manufacture argue a broader case based on social and environmental issues.
For example, using prefabrication allows the time spent working on site to be reduced. This means that the impact of the site on the local environment is for a shorter period of time. Furthermore, site work is traditionally vulnerable to disruptions from extremes of weather. By using prefabrication, the site will be vulnerable for a shorter time, and hence, the risk of delay and the requirements for protection will be reduced. Fast track construction systems often use prefabricated components to rapidly erect a weather tight shell for the building. This enables the internal fit-out to be moved forward in the process and continue despite the external weather conditions.
Many of the benefits of prefabrication will be gained when it is considered early in the design process, and ideally at the concept design stage (Reid, 1999). Alternatively, problems of a lack of compatibility, and a resulting increased cost, can occur where the techniques are not considered until later in the process. In fact, prefabrication requires all involved in the process to go through a learning curve to optimise the benefits of using the system.
All these factors have benefits to the programme. As Davis Langdon (2004) point out, there are opportunities to compress project durations and reduce risk by transferring work off site and by simplifying site operations and on-site snagging. However, the downside of this programme compression is that more work needs to be completed pre-contract, and hence earlier design freeze dates are required.
33
Prefabrication can also offer opportunities for dealing with the problems of the declining workmanship standards and skilled labour shortages on site. This was something that was highlighted as a way of meeting Egans targets. In a factory environment, the quality of the finished product is much easier to assure than on site. All that remains is to ensure that the on-site assembly meets the required standards to allow the design to perform to its requirements. However, the BRE note that careful attention is needed with this, as it has been a stumbling block in the past application of prefabricated systems (BRE, 2003). In fact, concern has been voiced that the very move to prefabrication will further reduce the skills base in the industry. In 2001, Ian Davis, the Director General of the Federation of Master Builders said: increased prefabrication is seen as one answer to problems that beset the industry, including the skills shortage, inconsistent quality and low margins. Whilst
prefabrication has a role in improving the industry it must not be pursued at the expense of the skills shortage training needed for traditional forms of construction.
Careful quality control of manufacturing processes enables waste to be controlled and minimised through appropriate design and recycling opportunities. In addition, the use of prefabricated components should cut the volume of site spoilage associated with current practices of over-ordering and poor site handling for the equivalent traditional processes.
Benefits of quality are derived from standardised processes under factory conditions. Davis Langdon (2004) point out that one of the benefits of the factory process is that improvements developed on one project can progressively improve the basic product. This has further benefits in respect of safety and working
conditions, in that safety improves by transferring work into a controlled environment.
Davis Langdon (2004) identify another benefit in the whole life costing. Enhanced specification standards and build quality can also reduce occupancy costs related to energy use, defects and repairs. However, these benefits of good whole life performance can be offset by high costs of adaptation. On large projects, economies of scale can be achieved through off-site manufacture with orders of 500 units attracting a discount of 5 10% (Davis Langdon & Everest, 2002). These savings will be partially offset by transport costs
34
and on smaller projects additional design and set-up costs. However, there are also further indirect savings through reduced site supervision, simplified inspections, fewer variations and less re-working.
3.4
Barriers to Application
Robert Gordon University conducted a government sponsored research report in 2002 entitled Overcoming Client and Market Resistance to Prefabrication and Standardisation in Housing. It examined potential barriers to the use of
prefabrication and the ways in which these may be overcome. Six key areas were highlighted.
3.4.1
General Image
The image of prefabrication has been clouded by the experience of past applications and, in particular, the 1960s high rise housing schemes. However,
many of these problems have resulted from poor workmanship rather than design deficiencies (Robert Gordon University, 2002). The effect has been that these
experiences present a barrier to some parts of the industry accepting prefabrication as a viable method of building procurement.
This is now being countered through one-off demonstration systems, where close supervision of site activity ensures that the end result is a product with workmanship quality equivalent to that of traditional systems (BRE, 2003). Thus, the quality of assembly is important in ensuring the long-term success of prefabricated systems. An indication of fitness for purpose for the Murray Grove development is the fact that no alterations to the form or fabric of the building has been carried out in the six years since completion (Spring, 2006).
3.4.2
Perceived Performance
Many of the prefabricated buildings that were constructed between 1946 and the mid-1970s have been viewed as having a shorter lifespan than that of equivalent traditional buildings. The Robert Gordon University (2002) study noted that the
35
perception that prefabrication offers a non-permanent solution is one of the potential barriers that exist for its wider acceptance as a mainstream procurement option.
Building Magazine recently instigated a return visit to the modular Murray Grove development in North London seven years after its construction to assess whether the reality has lived up to expectations. The result was positive, with good performance being achieved in the critical areas of functionality and build quality, and moreover, the building has low maintenance costs. Although not without its teething problems, such as noise penetration, Murray Grove has shown that barriers such as the perceived performance can be overcome.
3.4.3
Customer Expectation
One barrier to adoption in housing, in particular, is the perception that the public want a traditional brick finished house. However, the masonry industry is developing new factory prefabricated systems that can be delivered to site, and which maintain the traditional masonry appearance (Robert Gordon University, 2002).
Positive feedback has again been received from the Murray Grove site. It indicated that tenants are attracted by the modern external appearance of the building, which suggests a possible move away from traditionally finished houses in some quarters of the housing industry.
3.4.4
Perceived Value
It has suggested by Craig, Laing and Edge (2000) that resistance to off-site manufacture, particularly in the housing sector, is partly caused by the perception that property is an investment. As such, off-site manufacture is not necessarily seen to be a good investment, based on historical experience.
Evidence from Murray Grove has suggested that the build cost was 5% more than traditional construction costs, according to the BRE. The construction cost was 1,015/m2, with the average cost per flat of 77,800 (Spring, 2006). However,
36
maintenance costs at Murray Grove are also considerably lower than the Building Cost Information Service comparison - 7,000 per annum for external and internal maintenance compared to 34,400 (Spring, 2006).
3.4.5
Industry Culture
One factor the Robert Gordon University (2002) report found that is restraining the use of some prefabrication in housing is the availability of plant for handling the larger systems on site. They found that a change in site culture, and industry use of plant, would encourage the use of panel prefabrication systems.
Furthermore, the attitude of the construction industry has suggested that it is reluctant to try new methods and believes that off-site manufacture will cost more than traditional methods of construction. Despite evidence to the contrary, this
attitude, still found in some parts of the industry, is difficult to counter.
3.4.6
Product Awareness
The procurement of prefabricated components for a project is often a matter of designers being aware of the availability of a given system. The BRE (2003) note that designers are unlikely to use a system for which they do not appreciate the benefits for the construction, or for which they do not understand how the system impacts on the design process. Manufacturers are producing innovative
prefabricated products; however they consider that it is the designers that are conservative and reluctant to try out new systems (Reid, 1999).
Davis Langdon (2004) highlight two further potential barriers to adoption as being the need for project specific research and issues with planning. There are more than 40 different suppliers of panellised and volumetric systems in the UK, with no standard means of comparison or historic cost data (Davis Langdon, 2004). Greater availability of information concerning the competitive position of alternative technologies would enable clients to proceed without having to undertake their own comparative studies. Furthermore, decisions by planners can act as a constraint by
37
influencing the layout and appearance of buildings, or by extending the preconstruction period.
The barriers mentioned above are often based on a perception of difficulties that have arisen from past experience, rather than from actual technical constraints. However, none of these barriers should exist if the industry is educated of the merits of using prefabrication (BRE, 2003). Furthermore, it is important to note that some aspects of prefabrication used in construction have managed to avoid many of these problems and are now well established systems.
The real test for prefabrication is to move from the successful one-off demonstration projects to mainstream developments. Both private and social
housing markets will provide the keys for this success. A number of successful projects that have used off-site manufacture are examined in chapter four.
3.5
Applications for Future Use
Off-site manufacture is currently used to some degree in all aspects of construction. However, the extent of this future application can be affected by the barriers previously mentioned. In fact, the most important challenge for the future of off-site manufacture is to overcome these barriers and, in particular, to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated (BRE, 2003). Failure to do this will result in off-site manufacture not meeting its massive future potential.
Off-site manufacture is much more than a trendy concept, it offers the possibility of remoulding construction as a manufacturing industry. It represents one of the positive ways forward for underpinning the major changes that have been identified as necessary for improving construction (BRE, 2003).
Off-site manufacture has the capacity to drive down costs and improve productivity. However, claims for the level of improvement that could be achieved need to be scrutinised and evidence is required to support them. With regard to the other benefits, all the issues need to be understood and properly demonstrated
38
before the more conservative parts of the industry respond. This, in turn, should lead to a greater uptake of the systems.
The potential environmental benefits of off-site manufacture are numerous. However, real assessments are required of the different applications to show whether these benefits are marginal, or more significant, when compared to traditional methods. Furthermore, environmental legislative pressures on construction activity are likely to continue to grow in the future. If the environmental benefits can be demonstrated for some of the techniques, then they should flourish in the future.
A BRE report in 2003 noted that off-site manufacture could allow greater client choice and involvement, particularly in housing, where a variety of different systems can be realised from manufacturers. However, Alistair Gibb has noted their application and drivers, pragmatism and perception need to be considered in the light of current technology and management practice (Gibb, 2001).
The future application of off-site manufacture in the UK will be determined by the economic and environmental benefits for the particular applications. In order to ensure that these are successful, the performance of the systems needs to be established over the whole life of the structure. Furthermore, without market
acceptance of the end product, off-site manufacture will not flourish. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the aesthetics of the system meet market demand. This is a design, rather than technological, challenge.
3.6
Chapter Appraisal
This chapter has assessed whether the recommendations made by Sir Michael Latham and Sir John Egan have had the desired effect on the industry. It has detailed the current applications of off-site manufacture, from the turn of this century to the present day. Consequently, the industry is now applying the
techniques in a variety of forms and applications.
The benefits of off-site manufacture are widely recognised, and these have been highlighted as a way of improving the overall understanding of the current
39
situation. These beneficial effects have been described in terms of factors such as performance and cost, while more indirect advantages to all parties that advocate the techniques have also been mentioned.
However, there are still various barriers to adoption. In a number of cases, these have resulted from the perceived poor performance of the techniques during past decades. Although, it has been shown how these difficulties can be overcome.
The chapter has also explored the applications and implications for future use in delivering quality housing in an attempt to meet the governments targets. Off-site manufacture offers the possibility of remoulding construction as a manufacturing industry this was one of the issues that laid the foundation of the Egan Report.
It is now necessary to examine those organisations that are successfully using the techniques. Examples will be drawn from both the private and social
housing sectors. Through detailed examination, it will be shown where the benefits lie and where the larger house builders should take heed.
40
CHAPTER FOUR
SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS USING OFF-SITE MANUFACTURE
Murray Grove has been hailed by the Government and others as a breakthrough for innovative housebuilding. We hope it will prove a catalyst for innovation in the industry as a whole Dickon Robinson, Director of Development, Peabody Trust
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 4 Successful Projects Using Off-site Manufacture
CHAPTER FOUR
Successful Projects Using Off-site Manufacture
4.1
Scope of Chapter This chapter will examine those organisations that are successfully using off-
site manufacture. Reference will be made to Urban Splashs Moho development in Manchester; Hyde Housing Associations Barling Court and Corbet House sites in London; and Murray Grove and Barons Place, developments by The Peabody Trust, also in London, which all deploy off-site manufacture to great effect. They have featured heavily in trade magazines, the national press and an architectural exhibition, as pioneering developments in the pursuit of greater use of modern methods of construction. design and construction. They have won numerous awards for their innovative
Through detailed examination of such successful projects, it will be shown where the benefits lie to the industry, and where the larger house builders can learn from their smaller counterparts.
4.2
Successful Projects using Off-site Manufacture
Following the Egan Report, developers such as Urban Splash and Housing Associations such as Hyde and The Peabody Trust have implemented off-site manufacture to great effect. These volumetric and modular developments, for both the private and key-worker sectors, have recently received much recognition and credit in sources such as Building.
Each of these successful developments will now be examined in more detail to improve the understanding of the benefits to the house building industry as a whole.
41
4.2.1
Moho Urban Splash
Moho is a pioneering development of 102 flats in Manchester by developers Urban Splash and architects ShedKM. Arguably, it has made prefabricated housing fashionable.
Figure 4.1 Urban Splashs Moho Development
(Source: courtesy of Urban Splash)
The seven storey development of fully furnished units is the UKs first privatesector multi-storey housing development to be based on prefabricated volumetric units. While other house builders were hesitating with off-site manufacture, Urban Splash went the whole hog. This was as a result of a greater demand for smaller, compact units to suit young graduates or key workers and to do so within a tight timeframe, to a high quality and without defects (Spring, 2005).
What makes Moho unique is that the modules are realigned end-to-end to give maximum window space, and it is the first scheme with each flat contained within a single module. However, as Spring (2005) points out, there is no
claustrophobic feeling. In fact, he notes there is a liberating sense of space and daylight, with the living room looking onto a communal courtyard through floor-to-
42
ceiling glazing.
The flats also benefit from clip-on balconies, which shade the
windows from the high summer sunshine. With an internal area of just 38m2 the flats are small. However, innovative thinking by ShedKM, using principles derived from yacht design, ensures that all available space is used efficiently. For example, storage areas are hidden behind sliding doors in odd corners off the bedroom. Even the furniture is yacht-inspired and has been supplied by furniture shop Mooch.
The flats are arranged in three seven storey wings, around a central courtyard serving as a communal garden for residents, and doubling-up as the roof of a car parking podium one floor above street level. The ground floor on all sides is
occupied by shops and cafs that open onto the pavement.
Unlike other schemes, there has been no attempt to disguise Mohos modular construction, with its faades being made up of rectilinear grids of panels, which the architects call a modular Cubist look (Spring, 2005).
Overall, Moho should be popular with young people setting up home. The starting price of 131,000 might prove to be a sticking point, however, being a little above the starter homes average; although, as Spring (2005) notes, that seems a small price to pay for contemporary, urban chic, and modular housing has at last found a place within the aspirational world of young urban professionals.
In recognition, Moho has won a number of prestigious awards, including Building Magazines Off-site Specialist of the Year 2005 for its manufacturer Yorkon; and Best Major New Housing Development; as well as Best Innovative Technology at the National Homebuilder Design Awards.
4.2.2
Barling Court Hyde Housing Association
Hyde Housing Association teamed up with PCKO Architects in procuring the Barling Court development in south-west London. On face value, it appears no
different from other prefabricated developments; however, what makes Barling Court different is the location of its prefabrication plant Krakow, southern Poland.
43
Figure 4.2 Hyde Housing Associations Barling Court Development
(Source: Author)
In Poland, technical competence is combined with labour costs that are just one-sixth of UK rates. The result is that Barling Courts all-in construction costs, including full fitting out, amounts to 700,000, or 1,260m2. Hyde claims that it is at least 12% lower than a traditional new-build and 20-30% less than equivalent modular systems (Spring, 2004a). Furthermore, the flats were erected in just four days on prepared concrete strip foundations. The whole scheme was fully finished with services working and site landscaped in less than four months.
The BUMA System named after the factory where the prefabricated units are assembled has a number of benefits. Firstly, it provides a quality that can only be achieved under factory conditions. Not only are the modules completely clad and roofed in the factory, but are also fully fitted-out with kitchens, bathrooms, plaster, paint and flooring. Even the communal entrance and staircase leading to each flat was prefabricated as four modules, one for each floor.
Another benefit is that the modules can be quickly and repeatedly unbolted, transported to a new site and reassembled. In fact, a prototype system was de-
44
assembled and re-erected eight times as a travelling exhibition (Spring, 2004a). The system also has a good EcoHomes rating exceeding sound insulation and energy efficiency standards. Added to this are the benefits gained through cost and speed of construction.
The main challenge for the BUMA system is how can it shake off the stigma of the mean, poky, repetitive, flimsy prefabs that has persisted over the last halfcentury? BUMAs answer lies in the structure of the apartments, which are designed for a 60-year life, no matter how many times they are dismantled and re-erected (Spring, 2004a). The flats are made up of two modules, measuring 50m2 for a one-bedroom flat and 65m2 for a two-bedroom flat. Spring (2004a) notes that with their sense of space, high-quality fittings, smooth plaster finishes and solid floors, there is nothing about the interiors that suggests prefabrication. However, their prefabricated origin is more evident from the external appearance, and it is something that architects PCKO has not shied away from. High quality aluminium panels and render have been used, and sliding sun-screens of slatted timber have been added to soften the buildings slightly repetitive, commercial appearance.
The Barling Court site has also featured in the recent Prefabulous London The A to Z of Modern City Homes Exhibition produced by the Building Centre Trust. This showcased innovative and pioneering prefabricated developments across London. It has also recently been commended in the Best Innovative Technology category at the National Homebuilder Design Awards 2005.
4.2.3
Corbet House Hyde Housing Association
This development is the second collaboration between Hyde Housing Association and PCKO Architects using the BUMA System. The scheme consists of 18 flats 9 one-bedroom and 9 two-bedroom.
45
Figure 4.3 Hyde Housing Associations Corbet House Development
(Source: Author)
Cost and speed of construction are again key factors in the procurement process. The Polish workforce assembled six of the flats in just three days. The remaining flats which are delivered complete with carpets and Ikea kitchens including appliances were put together in two phases during the summer of 2005.
Hyde Housing Association claims that the cost of the scheme is 10% less than traditionally constructed housing, due to the cheap Polish labour. Polish
workers are paid less than half of the UK minimum wage (Weaver, 2005). A further benefit of the BUMA system is its flexibility. This will allow Hyde to relocate them when the short-term lease on the Corbet House site expires.
Hyde is planning to provide around 150 BUMA homes in Britain over the next five years, and to supply a further 150 for other house builders and housing associations (Weaver, 2005).
46
Like its Hyde counterpart Barling Court, Corbet House also featured in the Prefabulous London Exhibition.
4.2.4
Murray Grove The Peabody Trust
The Peabody Trust one of the largest and oldest housing associations in London has always been keen to develop new construction technologies and to set new standards in cost-effective quality house building.
In March 1998, Peabody received planning permission for 30 factory-built, modular homes on a difficult brownfield infill site in Hackney. They wanted the
project to reflect the innovation of modular technology, reduced construction times and minimised disruption on site. The resulting development was the first multi-storey housing scheme to be built in a factory.
In an attempt to achieve a fixed-price contract, the Trust developed this scheme as a prototype in prefabricated housing using modular construction. Spring (1999) points out that building costs were 20% higher than conventional building costs. However, he expected these to be largely recouped in the extra six months rental revenue earned by halving the construction time. The accommodation was targeted at young single people, couples and flat sharers who prefer low rental housing to the greater commitment of a mortgage, and who do not qualify for social housing.
The one-bedroom flats are made from two 8m x 3.2m modules, with the twobedroom versions using three modules. Internal corridors have been omitted to save space, with access gained by external balconies facing the street. Each flat also has a private balcony, which overlooks a south facing communal landscaped courtyard. All flats arrived on site fully fitted-out with kitchens and bathrooms, wired, plumbed and decorated. Furthermore, the steel panel roof and the circular entrance, lift and stairwell were also delivered as modular elements. The construction period was just 10 days.
47
Figure 4.4 The Peabody Trusts Murray Grove Development
(Source: Author)
A quality architectural image was again critical to the developer in order to overcome the perceptions often associated with system-built housing (Design for Homes, 2006), and so they appointed an architect, Cartwright Pickard, to improve the design process. However, the prefabricated construction is expressed through the Yorkon system, in pre-cast concrete balconies, steel-rod cross bracing and clip-on terracotta tile cladding, all of which was assembled on site. Curved perforated
aluminium screens also form a translucent veil in front of the balconies and stair tower. This tower houses a glazed lift and is highly visible being located at the junction between the two wings. Due to its bespoke features, the main contract was awarded to Kaijima, a Japanese based world leader in prefabricated housing.
The advantages of the Yorkon modules are better quality control and reduced construction times. The site work was done with conventional pile foundations, at the same time as the modules were being manufactured. This was in fact the first time that Yorkon had used their modular assembly for housing, previously being used for classrooms and fast food outlets.
48
In recognition of its success, Murray Grove has won a string of awards since its completion, including: the Housing Design Award 2000; the RIBA Award for Architecture (London region) and the Royal Fine Art Commission Millennium Building of the Year 2000 (Housing category). It has also been short-listed for the prestigious Stirling Prize, all of which would no doubt make Sir John Egan proud.
4.2.5
Barons Place The Peabody Trust
Barons Place represents The Peabody Trusts third venture in prefabricated volumetric modular housing. It was completed in late 2004 near to Waterloo Station in central London. Like the developments before it, fully finished modules were
craned into position in just a few hours.
However, Barons Place is different from the standard. The units are tiny being intended to be rented out for short periods to key workers, and perhaps more importantly the system cost just 1,100/m2, roughly two-thirds of normal building costs (Spring, 2004b). The smallest one-bedroom flat at Barons Place is just 36m2, which David Gregory, a member of the Peabody research team, says is the same as a flat in the Citys famous Barbican development. A two-bedroom sharer flat is also offered measuring 54m2 (Spring, 2004b). The small size means that fittings and storage is vital. However, measures such as a fitted wardrobe taking up one wall of the bedroom and under floor heating have helped to alleviate these problems.
Externally the building is clad in small horizontal panels in beige, light grey and dark grey-green an effect that reflects the modern image of the building. At the same time, it hides the inherent boxiness of volumetric construction by masking the vertical joints between the modules. The modern look is further heightened by
window panels and projecting canopies in lime-green, sky-blue and magenta.
For this project, The Peabody Trust moved away from their previous manufacturer, instead opting for the Spaceover Group, who provided an all-in turnkey service. One of the benefits of the scheme is that the services are contained within a riser accessible from the communal access deck at the rear. This meant that all the service runs for each module could be connected up without tradesmen clambering
49
through fully fitted kitchens and bathrooms. A further advantage is that the system is fully demountable, allowing re-erection on another site.
Figure 4.5 The Peabody Trusts Barons Place Development
(Source: Author)
Off-site manufacture had the desired effect at Barons Place, as construction times were reduced by 40% overall. Construction started in February and the
finished block was handed over in mid-September.
The Spaceover product is the only complete volumetric accommodation system that has full accreditation from the BRE and Zurich Insurance. Furthermore, they are fully mortgageable and insurable, meaning that each site can contain a mixture of units for rent, shared equity and sale (Spring, 2004b).
The development has featured in the Prefabulous London Exhibition and in 2004, won a London Lifestyle Award at the New Homes Awards. The judges were looking for the best design-led property or development that made the most innovative use of space, energy conservation, materials and technology (The
50
Peabody Trust, 2005).
The development also helped Spaceover to win
Manufacturer of the Year at the recent Building Awards 2006.
These examples have shown how the potential barriers to the adoption of offsite manufacture can be overcome. They also show how the industry is moving away from the previous perception of prefab being boring and ugly. That all bodes well for the future of off-site manufacture.
The government is keen to encourage more housing associations and house builders to use modern methods of construction such as these as a way of cutting down on spiralling building costs. However, an ethical argument remains over the use of cheap foreign labour to solve a crisis that has been created in the UK. Granted, the methods may go so far in solving the problems, but the deliberate exploitation of this cheap labour remains prominent.
These examples have shown that off-site manufacture, and in particular modular construction, does have a place in the industry. Furthermore, it has an important role to play in helping to deliver the quality housing that is required to meet those targets set by the Deputy Prime Minister. However, the main challenge is to convince the larger speculative house builders of the merits of the techniques, so that they are adopted in greater quantity.
4.3
Chapter Appraisal
This chapter has highlighted those organisations that are successfully using off-site manufacture. Reference has been made to Urban Splashs Moho
development; Hyde Housing Associations Barling Court and Corbet House sites and The Peabody Trusts Murray Grove and Barons Place.
It has shown how the successes from these projects goes so far in combating the potential barriers to adoption discussed in the previous chapter. Furthermore, it has demonstrated how off-site manufacture has played an important role in the industry over the past few years and how this is likely to continue in the years to come.
51
However, the outstanding challenge is now to convince the larger house builders of the virtues of the techniques. Therefore, this research seeks to show how the larger speculative house builders should follow the lead of those Housing Associations and smaller developers, in optimising the various methods of off-site manufacture.
52
CHAPTER FIVE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The Task Force believes that the main opportunities for improvements in house building performance exist in the social housing sector however, we would expect improved practice to affect expectations and activity in the wider housing market. Consequently we see much scope for cross-fertilisation of innovation between the public and private sectors Sir John Egan
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 5 Research Design and Methodology
CHAPTER FIVE
Research Design and Methodology
5.1
Scope of Chapter
This chapter will detail the methodology for the research in order to achieve the dissertations objectives. In the first section, the research strategy will be
explained, with reference made to the literature in justifying the rationale.
For the research, two forms of data collection have been used an initial postal questionnaire, followed by an in-depth, semi-structured interview. The
reasoning for this combined approach will be highlighted, and a comprehensive explanation of both the format and detail of the questionnaire will be discussed. Furthermore, the structure of the interview will be explained, as well as highlighting some of the areas covered.
The penultimate section will discuss and explain why the three organisations were chosen for the sample and again reference will be made to the literature in justifying this approach. It will be shown why this was the most suitable form of sampling due to the specific nature of the research.
Finally, a brief summary of the method of analysis will be detailed. This is the main focus of chapter six and hence it will only be outlined here so as to maintain the context and continuity of the chapter.
5.2
Statement of Research Aim
To prove that off site manufacture and modular construction is significant in the construction industry and the future of house building in order to help meet current housing demand.
53
5.3
Research Strategy
Naoum (1998) defines the research strategy as the way in which the research objectives can be questioned, and comprises quantitative research and qualitative research. The strategy chosen here is the qualitative approach as the research is subjective in nature, emphasising meanings, experiences and descriptions.
Naoum (1998) identifies that the information gathered in qualitative research can be classified under two categories; exploratory and attitudinal. Even though an interview technique is to be adopted later in the research period, which is a characteristic of the exploratory method, the attitudinal approach is more applicable. This is because the data collected is to be used subjectively to evaluate the opinion, view or perception of the organisations towards off-site manufacture.
This research falls into the fieldwork category, as it is a primary method of data collection, and the chosen approach is the case study. The case study will be separated into two parts. This comprises an initial postal questionnaire, and a semistructured in-depth interview. Two methods of data collection were decided upon because it would be the best way to obtain the information required in order to achieve the objectives of the dissertation.
The case study approach has been chosen because it is my intention to support the argument by an in depth analysis of each organisation and their attitude towards off site manufacture. It will be an explanatory case study, which Naoum (1998) describes as the theoretical approach to the problem. This type of case study explains causality and attempts to highlight similarities in certain aspects of the investigation. In essence, the author intends to collect facts and study the
relationship of one set of facts to another, with the aim of finding some causal relationship between them. However, the research will also have an element of the analytical approach, as it will attempt to establish relationships and associations between certain attributes of the data collected.
A further reason for choosing the case study approach is that as the sample is small, a questionnaire approach alone would not provide a sufficient level of detail.
54
However, as Naoum (1998) suggests, due to the small sample size, any relationships cannot be tested statistically. Instead, they can be discussed intellectually.
The methods detailed above will form each organisations case study, and will be supplemented by visits to those sites that have successfully used off-site manufacture. These have been highlighted previously.
5.4
Rationale of the Research Questionnaire
The first part of the research was a questionnaire. Naoum (1998) argues that the questionnaire is most suited to surveys whose purpose is clear enough to be explained in a few paragraphs and in which the scheme of questions is not over elaborated.
Questionnaires have the advantages of economy (perceived as offering relatively high validity of results); speed (quick method of conducting a survey) and consultation (other documents / colleagues can be consulted if the respondent is unsure of an answer). However, the main limitations are that the questions must be kept simple; they are inflexible and do not allow probing; accuracy is questionable; there is no control over the respondents and the industry is often swamped by requests for questionnaires and therefore they receive a lower priority. In this case, it is hoped that some of these limitations can be overcome by adopting the supplementary interview.
The purpose of the questionnaires was three-fold. Firstly, to collect valuable data about specific projects for example, location, size, cost, programme time and market sector etc. Secondly, to identify the reasons behind the adoption of the
technique and to understand each organisations attitude and background perspective in general. Finally, the responses to the questionnaires would provide a starting point for the interview stage of the research.
The questionnaires were devised so that they offered a combination of both open and closed-ended questions. This has benefits to both parties, as it means that the author can gain an understanding of the organisations attitude towards the
55
various techniques of off-site manufacture. Furthermore, through the longer open questions, respondents have the freedom to develop their ideas further.
The questionnaires were sent by email along with a covering letter to personnel within each organisation, and respondents were given one month to return the completed forms. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. The questionnaires were sent to Ben Kennedy, Marketing Project Manager at Urban Splash; Gordon Callaway, Group Policy Manager, at Hyde Housing Association and Susan May, Principal Development Manager from The Peabody Trust. In reality, it was approximately two months before all the questionnaires were returned and each organisation had to be chased for their responses.
The questionnaire was divided into four sections: 1) Key Facts; 2) PreConstruction Period; 3) Construction Period and 4) Post-Construction Period. This sequence was devised to mimic the stages of construction and to provide a logical order for the organisations to complete the questions.
The questionnaire was designed in Microsoft Excel and personalised for each organisation. It was decided to submit the questionnaire in electronic format so that it could be completed easily and so that formulas could be set up beforehand to assist in the analysis of the results. Respondents were given clear instructions only to complete the white boxes of the questionnaire, as those shaded in grey contained the formulas that would be automatically calculated upon entering other information. The respondents were assured that the information received would be treated in strict confidence and would not be divulged to any third parties, other than for completing the MSc dissertation for London South Bank University. For Hyde
Housing Association and The Peabody Trust, where two sites are under investigation, an identical questionnaire was included under a different worksheet within the same document.
The first section Key Facts sought to answer general questions about the project. Questions included the project name, location, gross internal floor area, net internal floor area, the number of storeys and the number of units in the building. Also asked were questions regarding the market sector (for example, whether the
56
building was procured for private / key worker sale or rent) and the sale value or rental value range, whichever was applicable.
The reason these questions were asked in the first section was to introduce the respondent to the questionnaire by asking straightforward questions and so that the author could gain a background understanding of the project. The answers
received would mean that simple comparisons between each of the projects could then be undertaken.
The second section Pre-Construction Period contained 13 questions and concentrated on the design period of the procurement process. investigated the clients reasons for adopting modular construction. Furthermore, it
It started by investigating the form of procurement used and gave the respondents the opportunity to expand on their answer, so that the author could gain a better understanding of the reasoning behind the procurement choice. There then followed a series of questions that asked the respondents to rate certain factors in terms of their importance for choosing modular construction for the project. This was measured on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 = no significance and 5 = extremely significant) and covered factors such as aesthetics, cost, time, site constraints and previous experience. It also covered some of the recognised benefits of off site manufacture, such as better quality, reduced wastage, improved economies of scale and greater client choice. The final topic looked at some of the barriers to adoption and whether they had played a role for example, general image / public perception, customer expectation, industry culture and product awareness. For each of these questions, the respondents were again given the opportunity to add further comments. By using a scale ranking system, it meant that the author could easily see which factors had the greatest affect in choosing modular construction and which had very little affect. This ensured that comparisons between the organisations could be made on a like for like basis, and any similarities would be quickly recognisable.
The final part of this section asked simple, short answer questions concerning the cost and anticipated construction time at the pre-tender stage, as well as the forecasted life expectancy of the building and whether factors such as EcoHomes and Scheme Development Standards were taken into consideration.
57
The next section was the Construction Period. It started by finding out the actual construction period, and subsequently any difference from the anticipated period at the pre-tender stage was calculated. If the project was delayed, it sought to investigate the reasoning behind these delays and asked whether they could have been prevented by alternative means. The respondents were then asked whether, in their opinion, the on-site construction period was shorter or longer than if traditional building methods had been used. They were asked to comment further and the author was seeking to gain an understanding of their perception of construction time using modular construction.
The final part of section three asked similar questions centred on the construction cost. It asked what the actual construction cost of the project was, and the difference from the pre-tender estimate was calculated. The respondents were also asked whether they felt modular construction offered a more economical form of procurement when compared to traditional methods and they were asked to explain their reasoning.
The final section covered the Post-Construction period. Firstly, the cost per square metre (both gross and net), along with the cost per unit were all calculated automatically from answers given in the earlier sections. However, the main focus of this section were questions relating to the Construction Industrys Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
The first KPI covered was client satisfaction in relation to the product and the service received from consultants and the main contractor. The respondents were asked to rate the factors on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = totally dissatisfied and 10 = totally satisfied.
The next KPI was defects, and again the organisations had to rate the level of defects on the project on a scale of 1 to 10. They were also asked to detail any defects, whether they were efficiently resolved and if they were not, to explain the reasoning.
The final KPI under examination was predictability, both in terms of cost and time. Each of these headings was further broken down to separate the design period
58
and the construction period.
Once the estimated cost and duration had been
completed the Performance Percentage for each of the four scenarios was automatically calculated from answers supplied earlier.
Key Performance Indicators play an important role in assessing the overall success of a project, hence the inclusion of these areas in the questionnaire. It also meant that when all the data had been collected, comparisons could be made between each of the organisations and the industry as a whole.
The final part of the questionnaire asked questions about whether the organisations would consider using modular construction as a form of procurement in the future and to explain their reasoning. It also assessed the value of work in the pipeline where those organisations stated that they would continue to use the techniques. Furthermore, it sought to investigate the key lessons that could be learnt from this project and hence implemented on future schemes.
Finally, the respondents were given the opportunity to add any further comments and thanked for their time in completing the questionnaire. Instructions for the return of the completed questionnaires were included at the end.
5.5
Rationale of the Interviews
The second part of the case study research was a personal interview. Naoum (1998) notes that this is a major technique for collecting factual information as well as opinions a situation where questions are asked to elicit answers pertinent to the research hypothesis. Interviews can take three forms, unstructured, structured and semi-structured.
A semi-structured form of interview was chosen in this case.
This was
because it was felt that the unstructured form would be generalised and the structured form too rigid and would not offer the organisations enough freedom to express their views.
The semi structured interview technique is more formal than the unstructured type in that there are a number of specific topics around which the interview is built.
59
It uses a combination of open and closed-ended questions, however, the questions are not asked in any specific order and no schedule is used. Although it is important that the same questions are asked to each organisation in order to maintain continuity.
Merton and Kendal (1946) identify four characteristics of the semi-structured interview:
1.
It takes place with respondents known to have been involved in a particular experience.
2. 3.
It refers to situations that have been analysed prior to the interview. It proceeds on the basis of an interview specifying topics related to the research hypothesis.
4.
It is focused on the respondents experiences regarding the situations under study.
The author followed this format for the basis of the interviews by adopting the following procedure.
1.
Through previous research, those persons interviewed were known to have been involved in projects using off-site manufacture, and were also those who had completed the questionnaires. This ensured that the
purpose of the research was still fresh in their minds, as opposed to interviewing someone else from the organisation completely detached from the process. 2. The questionnaire that the respondents had previously completed was used as a basis for the questions asked in the interview. 3. The interview sought to expand on specific points raised in the questionnaires and situations encountered during the construction of the projects in an attempt to prove the research hypothesis. 4. The respondents were given the freedom to express their personal experiences and views as well as those of their organisation when assessing the success of the project.
60
The nature of the interview technique meant that indirect questions were asked first in order to build up a rapport with the respondent. Thereafter, more
specific issues were explored not simply the views and opinions of the organisation, but also any particular problems that arose during the construction of the projects. This type of interview technique also gave the author more freedom to probe the various areas of off-site manufacture, as well as giving the opportunity to raise specific queries that occurred during the course of the interview.
5.6
The Research Sample
Selected sampling was used for this research, which is usual with the interview approach. This involves choosing participants that share specific
characteristics; in this case, three organisations that maximise the benefits of off-site manufacture to procure their buildings. One of these was a private developer, with the other two being Housing Associations.
The private developer was Manchester-based Urban Splash, and for the Housing Associations, Hyde and The Peabody Trust were investigated. A selected sample of organisations was thought to be more appropriate than a random sample due to the specific nature of the study. Naoum (1998) identifies that if the interviews are based on organisations that have different characteristics, philosophy and experience, then the questions will have different meanings for each of them. The answers can therefore be ambiguous for the subject under investigation. In this case, not every client organisation currently procures using off site manufacture and so it is essential to only investigate those that do in an attempt to meet the dissertations objectives.
However, as Naoum points out, it does not mean that samples with different characteristics are not permitted, as it may be required to compare the views of groups with different backgrounds, or in this case, from different client sectors; for example, the private housing sector and the social housing sector.
61
5.7
Method of Analysis
The method of analysis will be explained in greater detail in the next chapter, however, it will be briefly summarised here.
As discussed previously, a case study approach has been adopted for the research. Therefore, each organisation will be taken in turn and will be considered in much greater detail. This will involve studying, assessing and analysing the The data will be
responses of the questionnaire and subsequent interview.
presented and examined graphically, while other comments and answers will be discussed intellectually, with possible reasons suggested for certain observations and similarities.
In addition, the data collected from each organisation will also be compared both within and across the sectors. For example, the responses from Hyde can be compared with those from The Peabody Trust to evaluate an opinion of the social housing sector. This in turn can be compared to those responses from Urban
Splash, who form the view of the private sector.
Furthermore, specific reference will be made the construction industry as a whole and, more specifically, to the New Build Sector, as well as to the Industrys KPIs and the Building Cost Information Services (BCIS) database.
Finally, any similarities and principles of best practice can be gathered together in an attempt to meet the aim of the dissertation and prove the hypothesis.
5.8
Chapter Appraisal
This chapter has highlighted the research design and methodology of the study.
The research strategy has been explained, and the reasoning for adopting two forms of data collection been discussed. Furthermore, a comprehensive
explanation of the format and detail of the questionnaire and interview has been given.
62
The method of selected sampling has been detailed and explanations given as to why the three organisations were chosen. It has been shown how this was the most suitable form of sampling due to the specific nature of the research. Finally, a brief summary of the method of analysis has been offered.
The next chapter will detail the individual case studies; presenting and analysing the results graphically and discussing intellectually any other comments or observations that have arisen through the research. It will also highlight any
similarities between the projects and organisations, and put forward the principles of best practice.
63
CHAPTER SIX
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS DETAILED ANALYSIS
We hope that Murray Grove demonstrates how architects and designers can benefit from working with modular construction and thus leads to new opportunities in the housing industry James Pickard, Project Architect, Cartwright Pickard Architects
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 6 Data Analysis and Results Detailed Analysis
CHAPTER SIX
Data Analysis and Results Detailed Analysis
6.1
Scope of Chapter
The data analysis and results are split into two chapters. The purpose of this first chapter is to study, assess and analyse the responses from the questionnaires and to comment on the answers given during the interviews.
Each organisation will be taken in turn and subjected detailed analysis. This follows the format of the questionnaire, commencing with the key project facts, followed by the pre-construction and construction periods. The format for the post construction period will be slightly different: the organisations will be viewed together so that any similarities and comparisons can be made.
Throughout the chapter, respondents quotations and comments will be included to provide background information and clarification where necessary.
6.2
Detailed Analysis Moho Urban Splash
Moho, which stands for Modular Homes is the UKs first private-sector multistorey housing development to be based on prefabricated volumetric units. The 6,766m2 (gross internal area), 102 unit (48no one-bedroom and 54no two-bedroom), seven storey building is located in the Castlefield area of Manchester (Figure 6.2.1).
The development is aimed at key workers, with original sales prices ranging from 131,000 to 160,000 (one-bedroom) and 176,000 to 200,000 (twobedroom). However the fully-furnished units are small, with a one-bedroom flat measuring just 38 m2, and a two-bedroom measuring 54 m2. This equates to a Net Internal Area of 4,740 m2, and a net to gross ratio of 70%. This net to gross ratio is low for a residential development and might be an area in which Urban Splash would like to improve in future.
64
Figure 6.2.1 Moho location plan
Junction of Ellesmere Street and Arundel Street, Castlefield, Manchester, M15
(Source: www.multimap.com)
Traditionally, modular dwellings are lined up side by side, giving a narrow frontage and a deep plan. However, what makes Moho different is that the units are condensed into a single volumetric module by realigning them end to end, which gives them a wide window frontage and a shallow plan. The modules are then enlarged by adding dining pods, a 1.5 metre balcony, entrance lobbies and second bedroom extensions. This allows the scheme greater diversity. A steel frame was also used that forms a spine for the access walkways to the apartments and acts as a bracing system for the building. Figure 6.2.2 shows how a unit is constructed, and Figure 6.2.3 shows a computer generated image of the completed unit.
65
Figure 6.2.2 Construction of a unit at the Moho Development
(Source: Spring, 2005)
Figure 6.2.3 Computer generated image of a completed unit
66
For the Moho project, Urban Splash decided on the traditional procurement route. Their reasoning was that they wanted the scheme to be fully designed before committing time and finance to the project. This is understandable and sensible given the inexperience of the client in using off-site manufacture. It also gives
greater flexibility in the style, layout and design of the development. Urban Splash worked closely with the volumetric manufacturer Yorkon considered leaders in their field, which was a big factor we chose to work with them throughout the design process, and their experience and knowledgeable input was invaluable.
Urban Splash were asked to rate seven factors in terms of their significance for choosing modular construction, and the results are shown in Figure 6.2.4. A scale of 1 to 5 was used, where 1 = no significance, 3 = some significance and 5 = extremely significant.
As can be seen, the two most significant factors were the fact that it is a pioneering development and the construction time. Urban Splashs ethos is to be at the forefront of design and innovation and, therefore, it comes as no surprise that they chose modular construction ahead of their competitors in private development. They felt that the construction time using modular techniques would be reduced, when compared to traditional methods, and it will be seen later in the analysis whether this has proved to be correct.
Urban Splash also felt that the design time and the aesthetics of the building were important factors. They believed the design period could be reduced as
standard modules were being designed, and the overall appearance of the building could be controlled, thus moving away from the poor image that had plagued modular construction in the past.
The overall cost of the project was significant; however, Urban Splash appeared unsure at the pre-construction stage whether it would prove to be a cheaper form of procurement than the traditional method. It will be seen later which route was correct.
67
Figure 6.2.4 Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Moho project
Pioneering Development
Site Constraints
Previous Experience
Factor
Overall Cost
Construction Time
Design Time
Aesthetics
2 Level of Significance
Finally, the site constraints and previous experience were the least telling factors. This can be expected, as the site would have been suitable for a traditionally constructed development, and as this is Urban Splashs first project using off-site manufacture, they had no previous experience.
Furthermore, Urban Splash noted that there was a demand for smaller, compact units, which could be constructed within a tight timeframe. Along with
seeking a higher quality product without defects, they felt that modular construction was the most suitable type of construction. They were also wanting to complete as much of the work as possible off site, minimize co-ordination of trades on site. The principle we aimed for was to deliver the units fully complete and weather tight with only the final service connections and external cladding to be finished.
It is widely recognised that off-site manufacture has a number of benefits, and Urban Splash were asked to rate six of these in terms of their significance for choosing this form of procurement. The results are shown in Figure 6.2.5.
68
Each factor was rated using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = no significance, 3 = some significance and 5 = extremely significant. Urban Splash felt that each of the six benefits had at least some level of significance.
The two most important factors were that waste is minimised and that there is a better quality finished product. Both of these are understandable, as greater quality control can be implemented in the factory environment, and because the modules are standardised there is virtually no waste produced on site. In fact, the finished quality of the modules is probably the most important factor in choosing modular construction, as this will have a bearing on whether the product can be successfully sold to the end-user. Figure 6.2.6 shows the modules in the factory and Figure 6.2.7 shows the exceptionally high standard of a completed unit.
Figure 6.2.5 Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Moho project
Greater client choice
Improved economies of scale
Better whole life costing Factor
Waste is minimised
Better quality finished product
Reduced construction period
Level of Significance
69
Figure 6.2.6 The Moho modules under construction in the factory
Figure 6.2.7 A completed Moho unit
A reduced construction period and better whole life costing were also seen as offering benefits. In fact, Urban Splash felt that the construction time was reduced because the finishing trades were running in parallel with the preparatory works and this situation could only occur with modular construction. The life expectancy of the
70
modules is 60 years, and the product should last as defects are likely to be negligible because of quality control in the factory.
Greater client choice and improved economies of scale were also mentioned. As the units are, in essence, identical, they will not give much choice in terms of style and design. However, economies of scale will result if a substantial number of units are used. Therefore, Urban Splash are correct in their assumptions, and it is likely that they would have seen the benefit of economies of scale, as the Moho project consists of 102 units.
The results for the question relating to barriers to adoption are shown in Figure 6.2.8. These factors were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = no affect at all, 3 = some affect and 5 = significant affect. On the whole, Urban Splash appear relatively unconcerned by barriers to adoption, feeling that they can instead be overcome by constructing a high quality product.
The most significant factor was the perceived value of the finished product. This is measured by way of property as an investment. The way that this has been overcome is by targeting the apartments to graduates and young professionals who are going to be more concerned with style and image than investing in property for the future. Only time will tell if this assumption becomes true; however, uptake of the units has been high and any re-sales quickly snapped up, suggesting that there is a viable market in Manchester for this type of property. Furthermore, demand will always be sustained by the city centre location and good transport links.
Customer preference for a traditionally finished brick property also had some significance. However, this again is partly overcome by Urban Splashs target
market and the fact that the company takes pride in being innovative in terms of design. Customers are well aware what Urban Splash stands for and many are drawn to its young and dynamic image. The high uptake of Moho units suggests a combination of clever marketing and good design can overturn customers qualms about pre-fabrication as far as Urban Splash is concerned.
71
Figure 6.2.8 Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Moho project
Product awareness
Industry culture
Perceived value Factor
Customer expectation
Perceived performance
Poor general image / public perception
The other factors poor general image / public perception, perceived performance, industry culture and product awareness all had little affect. As
mentioned earlier, Urban Splash are not unduly concerned by public perception or industry culture they are confident of their place in the market, are innovative in terms of style and design, and have a good network of contacts who are willing to try new methods of construction.
The focus of the next section is construction cost and programme.
The
budget and actual figures, along with the difference in each case is shown in Table 6.2.1.
For the purposes of clarity, the budget construction cost is taken as the pretender estimate and the actual construction cost as the final account.
72
Table 6.2.1 Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Moho development
Construction Costs Budget Construction Cost Actual Construction Cost Construction Cost Difference Programme Budget Construction Time Actual Construction Time Construction Time Difference 70 weeks 74 weeks 4 weeks 8,850,000 9,000,000 150,000
As can be seen, both the actual construction cost and time are greater than the budget estimates. However, there may be reasonable explanations for this, and it does not suggest that Urban Splash were incorrect in believing that modular construction is more cost effective and quicker than traditional construction. Instead, this measure simply relates to the specific project and how the figures differ from the estimate.
Urban Splash has provided explanations as to why there were differences from the initial budget figures. They stated that the project programme was delayed by four weeks, partly because there were some tolerance issues between the modules and on-site works which required site modifications. Furthermore,
additional delays were caused by increased external works implemented from the originally designed scheme. Therefore, the first issue is a design / main contractor problem, while the second is, in effect, a client variation. When asked whether these delays could have been prevented, they felt that they possibly could through better design calculations and modelling during the design stage. On the whole, Urban Splashs opinion was that modular construction was shorter than if a traditional form of building had been used. One reason for this is because the modules can be fitted quickly into the steel frame structure.
In terms of cost, the project was 150,000 (or 2%) greater at final account than the pre-tender estimate, which represents a relatively low increase. The reason given for this additional cost was the modifications which were required to the
73
steelwork connections and a higher specification for the external works. However, based on this scheme, Urban Splash also felt that modular construction is more expensive than traditional building methods. However, Urban Splash were quick to point out that building larger volumes may generate economies of scale, which may reverse this opinion. Furthermore, even though they found the modular approach marginally more expensive, this was not to the extent that caused a problem to the project viability or to put us off using off-site manufacture again.
6.3
Detailed Analysis Barling Court Hyde Housing Association
Barling Court, located in Stockwell, south-west London (Figure 6.3.1) is Hydes first modular development and is based on the Polish BUMA system. It is an eight unit development (4no one-bedroom and 4no two-bedroom), totalling 555 m2 (gross internal area), being spread over four floors.
Figure 6.3.1 Barling Court location plan
Larkhall Lane, Stockwell, London, SW8
The units at Barling Court are larger than at Moho, with a one-bedroom flat measuring 50.7m2 and a two-bedroom 65.4m2, each being made up from two
74
modules. Figure 6.3.2 shows how the modules fit together with a single communal staircase module separating the units. The Net Internal Area is 465m2 and thus the net to gross ratio is 84%. The units have been built for the key worker rental market, with a one-bedroom fetching 110 per week and a two-bedroom 150 per week.
Like Urban Splash, Hyde chose the traditional procurement route.
Their
reasoning for adopting this type of procurement was because it was a new method of construction and, therefore, wanted all the design work to be carried out by the main architect in direct relation with the Polish manufacturers and structural engineer. This is a sensible approach to take as a design and build route would have placed uncertainty on the client. For the first project, it is important to get things correct and, therefore, the traditional route will provide reassurance, as long as their requirements are clearly stated at the outset.
Figure 6.3.2 Barling Court Typical Floor Plan
(Source: Building Magazine)
75
Hyde identified three factors as extremely significant in choosing modular construction: a pioneering development, the overall cost and the construction time. Hyde considered Barling Court to be a pioneering development, because the method was still relatively untried and it was their first project using off-site manufacture. Hyde also believed that the overall cost would be cheaper (due to the reduced labour rates for the Polish workforce) and that the construction time would be reduced (due to less work required on site), when compared to traditional methods.
Figure 6.3.3 - Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Barling Court project
Site Constraints
Previous Experience
Factor
Overall Cost
Construction Time
Design Time
Aesthetics
Site constraints also played an important role in the decision making process. The site is quite confined and so modular construction was thought to be a better proposal to provide the number of units required. The demountable nature also means that they can be moved to another site if required at a future date.
Factors of less significance were aesthetics, design time and previous experience. However, this has been overcome to some degree by the choice of materials from the architect. PCKO Architects did not shy away from expressing the buildings prefabricated nature and used aluminium cladding panels, quality render
76
and sliding slatted timber sun-screens to soften the buildings repetitive appearance (see Figure 6.3.4). Yet Hyde did comment that the way a product looks affects its value on the market. For example, if it looks modular then values against the same flat built by traditional means are about 10% lower for the modular flat this is because UK purchasers and tenants are slightly sceptical about something that doesnt look like a house! As far as design time was concerned, Hyde wanted the scheme to be fully designed before starting on site. They were not concerned if this took longer to complete. Finally, previous experience was of no real significance, as it was Hydes first project using modular construction.
Hyde also commented that by using modular construction, a shorter construction time and a reduced construction cost was expected. We also wanted to try new methods of construction and move away from traditional building. It was hoped that modular construction could help towards tackling the shortage of affordable homes for key workers in the south-east.
Furthermore, Hyde noted there are three principal drivers for considering modular construction quicker, cheaper and better. If we can achieve any or
preferably all of these then it can be argued that there is some benefit to modular over traditional. If it cannot offer any of these benefits then there is no reason to consider anything other than traditional, unless securing adequate on-site labour presents a significant problem (as it does in the south-east of England), or you are being told by your regulators that you have to adopt it (which we in the Resident Social Landlord sector are!). The rather absurd outcome of this, of course, is that we may use modular construction techniques that cost more, take longer and are worse quality than traditional, simply to meet regulatory requirements. However, it is
hoped that this latter statement does not come true in reality, and organisations adopt the technique because of the many benefits that the scheme offers.
77
Figure 6.3.4 The exterior of Barling Court
(Source: Author)
In terms of the benefits, the two factors that Hyde thought had the greatest significance were a reduced construction period and a better quality finished product. As mentioned before, a reduced construction period is expected as the modules can be constructed in the factory environment and then quickly assembled when on site. In fact, with this development the eight units were assembled in just four days. So the benefit of reducing the construction time is quite clear. Furthermore, a high
quality finished product is likely because of better quality control in the factory and the fact that the units are sealed and locked when they arrive on site. This negates the perennial problem that occurs with traditional building sites of different trades entering apartments to carry out work and involuntarily causing damage which in turn has to be corrected.
Also significant was better whole life costing. This was gained from the 60 year life expectancy of the building and the fact that the units are demountable. It is also expected that the units will require less on-going maintenance, due to the fact that a close control can be kept during the manufacturing stage.
78
Figure 6.3.5 - Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Barling Court project
Waste is minimised
Greater client choice and the fact that waste is minimised received slightly less weight. However, the latter is a notable benefit to the modular process. Finally, Hyde saw economies of scale as having low significance, yet this was due to the fact that only eight units were constructed. By definition, economies of scale will result when more units are constructed. constructed a larger scheme. Hyde may benefit in this respect if they
Both the perceived performance of the building and the poor general image of off-site manufacture had the greatest significance in terms of barriers. If the scheme was to be successful, then these factors needed to be overcome. In this case, they were resolved by procuring an attractive, high quality building with a long life expectancy, and using the BUMA modular system.
79
Figure 6.3.6 - Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Barling Court project
Product awareness
Industry culture
If other factors did not play as important a role, customer expectation is always crucial. Hyde managed to overcome this through the high quality and the fact that defects are minimal at handover. Furthermore, by choosing to adopt modular construction when many other organisations are still considering it, Hyde have immediately overcome the barriers of product awareness and industry culture. This is extenuated by the fact that the modules are made in Poland and goes to show Hydes high level of commitment to modern methods of construction.
When the construction cost and programme are analysed, it shows a similar situation to that established by Urban Splash. Table 6.3.1 shows the comparison of cost and programme for the project.
In this case, the construction cost was 125,000 higher than expected at the pre-tender stage. The explanation given for this increased cost was that the design work changed from the initial plans and more design of the service cores was required. Therefore, it can be expected that the construction cost increased by a significant proportion if a large amount of redesigning was required. However, on the
80
whole, Hyde felt that modular construction provided a cheaper alternative to traditional building methods, stating that the project was at least 12% lower than traditional building and 210,000 cheaper than a standard prefabricated solution.
Table 6.3.1 Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Barling Court development
Construction Costs Budget Construction Cost Actual Construction Cost Construction Cost Difference Programme Budget Construction Time Actual Construction Time Construction Time Difference 16 weeks 17 weeks 1 week 575,000 700,000 125,000
In terms of programme, Barling Court was only one week over the original plan, and this is good considering it was Hydes first modular development. The reason that the project was slightly delayed was due to groundworks and external works, in that the service sleeves were misplaced and had to be drilled out and repositioned. However, these delays could easily have been prevented through improved co-ordination with the sub-contractor responsible for positioning the service sleeves. Furthermore, Hyde were quick to point out that all the modules were bolted together in just one week and they felt that modular construction provided a shorter construction period when compared with traditional methods.
6.4
Detailed Analysis Corbet House Hyde Housing Association
Hyde continued their procurement of the BUMA modular scheme with the construction of Corbet House, on Wyndham Road, Camberwell, SE5 (Figure 6.4.1). This is a three storey development of 18 units (9no one-bedroom and 9no twobedroom), totalling 1,150 m2 (gross internal area).
81
Figure 6.4.1 Corbet House location plan
Wyndham Road, Camberwell, London, SE5
The scheme is again aimed at the key worker rental market, with similar weekly rents for the one and two bedroom units. As the standard BUMA system is used, the Net Internal Areas of the units are the same as at Barling Court (50.7m2 for a one-bedroom and 65.4m2 for a two-bedroom apartment). However, greater
efficiency of space has been possible at Corbet House and the net to gross ratio is increased to 91%, with a total Net Internal Area of 1,045m2. This has been made possible due to the more elongated nature of the development, with the units being arranged along both sides of a long central corridor.
The BUMA system is constructed slightly differently to that used by Urban Splash, in that they are bolted and stacked together instead of fitted into a steel frame structure. They are also arranged in the traditional side-by-side manner. Figure 6.4.2 shows how they are constructed.
82
Figure 6.4.2 Diagrammatic construction of the BUMA system
1. Structural frame of galvanised mild-steel channels 2. Floor screed laid on orientated strand board 3. Plasterboard ceiling and insulation to lower module 4. Metal cladding 5. Insulated render on orientated strand board 6. Plasterboard lining over mineral wool insulation
(Source: Spring, 2004a)
The traditional procurement route was again chosen and Hyde felt that previous experience suggested that this was the suitable form of procurement, as the design needs to be fully completed before manufacture starts. This approach means that Hyde are learning from, and implementing, their knowledge gained during the previous development.
In this case, Hyde identified four factors as extremely significant: site constraints, previous experience, overall cost and construction time. Hyde have
used their knowledge and experience from Barling Court and put it to good use on the Corbet House project.
The company is likely to rate these factors highly. Hyde obviously felt that the overall cost and construction time taken on the Corbet House project were a great improvement on traditional construction methods. The site constraints were seen as significant, as the lease is short and, therefore, modular construction provided the
83
only viable option since the units can be moved to another site once the lease expires. With traditional construction, this would not have been possible.
Figure 6.4.3 - Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Corbet House project
Site Constraints
Previous Experience
Factor
Overall Cost
Construction Time
Design Time
Aesthetics
Hyde also learnt from their previous project the importance of design time and aesthetics, hence the rating shows some significance. Again the design was fully developed before commencing on site, and similar materials were used for the external elevations. In this case however, sliding metal slatted sun-screens were used instead of timber. Finally, as this was their second scheme, the pioneering development factor showed little significance, as expected.
The responses in to the question of the benefits are shown in Figure 6.4.4. Hyde stated that they wanted a shorter construction period and a better quality finished product than traditional construction would offer, and this is shown in the fact that both received the maximum possible score.
84
Figure 6.4.4 - Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Corbet House project
Waste is minimised
Again, previous experience would have affected on this decision, as they were confident that a high quality finished product could be achieved in a shorter period of time using modular construction. Figure 6.4.5 shows a typical bathroom at the development and the level of quality that is achieved.
Previous experience was again crucial in the rating of the other factors. However this time, economies of scale received greater significance as they were made possible by the additional number of units This is to be expected.
In respect of the barriers to adoption, it would be expected that these factors would receive less significance than Hydes first project, simply due to the fact that they would have been discussed and, hopefully, overcome when procuring the initial development. Figure 6.4.6 shows this assumption to be correct.
85
Figure 6.4.5 A typical bathroom at the Corbet House development
(Source: Author)
Figure 6.4.6 - Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Corbet House project
Product awareness
Industry culture
86
In all cases, the level of significance was lower than for Barling Court, with the perceived performance having the highest rating. Hyde stated that they were
confident that the effect of the factors was dramatically reduced due to the success of their earlier scheme. Furthermore, this shows that Hyde were comfortable that the perceived performance of the building was still an important reason for adoption.
The comparisons between cost and time are shown in Table 6.4.1. What is interesting to note is that, for the first time, one of the factors improves on the original budget.
The project was completed two weeks ahead of schedule and Hyde gave the reason that this was due to better co-ordination with the manufacturers and installers because of the success of the previous scheme. Hyde again felt that the
construction period was shorter using modular construction than it would be with traditional procurement.
Table 6.4.1 Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Corbet House development
Construction Costs Budget Construction Cost Actual Construction Cost Construction Cost Difference Programme Budget Construction Time Actual Construction Time Construction Time Difference 24 weeks 22 weeks -2 weeks 1,375,000 1,450,000 75,000
As far as the construction cost was concerned, the project was 75,000 over the original pre-tender estimate. Hydes explanation for this was the higher risk
borne by the contractor of the relatively unknown method of construction. However, Hyde stated that using modular construction was a cheaper form of building than by traditional means, and they believed that Corbet House was 10% cheaper that traditionally constructed housing. Hyde commented that if there was a consistent design and construction team and template designs are used over and again, then
87
the project risks are lower, the resources required to bring a scheme to site are less and the factory processes are more efficient, leading to a reduced overall cost.
6.5
Detailed Analysis Murray Grove The Peabody Trust
Murray Grove developed by The Peabody Trust was the first multi-storey housing project in the UK to be entirely factory built. It is located in Hackney, north London (Figure 6.5.1). The scheme is 2,150 m2 (gross internal area) and comprises 30 units (16no one-bedroom and 14no two-bedroom) over five storeys. The total Net Internal Area is 1,894m2, with each one-bedroom apartment measuring 51.2m2, while a two-bedroom measures 76.8m2. The development also has a good net to gross ratio of 88%. Like all of Peabodys schemes, the units are intended for rent to key workers, and rents are in the region of 270 per week.
Figure 6.5.1 Murray Grove location plan
Shepherdess Walk, Hackney, London, N1
Unlike their previous two counterparts, Peabody chose a negotiated design and build procurement method. This was because they wanted a bespoke
88
architectural design that would lift the scheme above the run-of-the-mill standard for modular construction. This was achieved through close collaboration between the architect (Cartwright Pickard), contractor (Kajima) and the volumetric manufacturer (Yorkon). Although the design and build route can place more risk on the contractor, and subsequent uncertainty for the client, Peabody were confident that this could be dealt with through the detailed brief they supplied to the architect and contractor. The scheme was constructed using the traditional side-by-side stacking method (as per Barling Court and Corbet House). This is shown in Figure 6.5.2 below.
Figure 6.5.3 shows the significant factors and how they were rated. Two factors stand out as extremely significant: the pioneering development and construction time. When the scheme was constructed in 1999, there were no other modular construction projects to speak of, hence the pioneering development factor was rated highly. In fact, Peabody noted their frustration at traditional building
construction methods, in explaining their choice. There were also concerns over build quality, time and confidence in the end product. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the construction time was rated as extremely significant. This also fits with the earlier trend established by Urban Splash and Hyde.
89
Figure 6.5.2 The stacking style construction of Murray Grove
(Source: courtesy of The Peabody Trust)
Figure 6.5.3 - Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Murray Grove project
Site Constraints
Previous Experience
Factor
Overall Cost
Construction Time
Design Time
Aesthetics
90
The site constraints and overall cost of the project were rated as the next most significant factors. The site was previously a brownfield site and so either form of construction could have been used. Peabody, however, wanted a development that could be occupied as soon as possible, and modular construction was the logical choice. The other three factors previous experience, design time and aesthetics received less importance.
Figure 6.5.4 - Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Murray Grove project
Waste is minimised
Peabody were impressed by the level of quality, the reduced construction period and better life costing that is offered by modular construction, hence these factors received the greatest level of significance. This mirrors the opinions of both Urban Splash and Hyde and shows a significant trend appearing. The merits of each of factor has been previously discussed. Peabody obviously saw the potential of modular construction too. Peabody further commented that a better quality product is achieved through modular construction via better control. It felt that greater client choice and improved economies of scale were the least significant factors. This is
91
because the standard nature of the units means that client choice is limited, which in turn keeps costs down. Economies of scale should also have been seen on this project, as 30 units were constructed. However, it seems Peabody were unsure of their significance in the pre-construction stage.
Customer expectation and public perception received the highest significance in terms of barriers to adoption, and is shown in Figure 6.5.5.
Figure 6.5.5 - Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Murray Grove project
Product awareness
Industry culture
These factors were overcome by creating an attractive looking building, with terracotta and timber cladding and glazed balconies (see Figure 6.5.6). This has the effect of disguising the prefabricated nature, while constructing to a higher specification than for normal social housing ensures renting would be an attractive option. In fact, Building Magazines return visit in 2006 to assess how the building has performed following completion concluded that in terms of functionality, impact and build quality it scored a rating of four out of five. While, the scheme has had some teething problems, the majority of the residents appear pleased with their apartment and the building as a whole.
92
Peabodys high rating of adverse industry culture needs to be considered in light of when the project was built. In 1999, take-up of modular construction was limited. However, in contrast to the other schemes analysed so far, Peabody felt that the perceived performance was not as significant, suggesting they were confident in the 50 year life expectancy of the units. Finally, the perceived value was rated with some significance, but this is difficult to measure since the units are continually rented out. Matters would be different if the units were on sale, as the re-sale value could then be used to assess the perceived value.
Figure 6.5.6 The Murray Grove development
(Source: Spring, 2006)
Table 6.5.1 shows the comparison between construction costs and programme for Murray Grove. It can be seen that this development had the greatest overrun in both the initial budget and programme. However, Peabody have offered explanations.
The programme was delayed by 17 weeks. However, 12 weeks of this was due to the traditionally constructed external steel and cladding works and was the result of a delayed start due to steelwork problems. Peabody believed that these
93
delays could have been prevented through prefabrication of the external cladding works and better management of the steelwork procurement process.
Even though this project was delayed, Peabody felt that modular construction is shorter than the traditional, because on site construction is reduced by factory production of the units and overall the construction time is halved when compared to traditional building.
Table 6.5.1 Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Murray Grove development
Construction Costs Budget Construction Cost Actual Construction Cost Construction Cost Difference Programme Budget Construction Time Actual Construction Time Construction Time Difference 27 weeks 44 weeks 17 weeks 1,984,750 2,335,000 350,250
The final account was 350,250 more than the pre-tender estimate. Peabody stated that this was due to the fact it was a pioneering project, and we wanted to demonstrate good design through innovation. Furthermore, they pointed out that the prototype scheme is 20% higher than conventional building costs; however, this should be largely recouped by the extra six months rental revenue earned by halving the construction time. Consequently, and unlike to the other organisations, Peabody thought that modular construction was the more expensive form of procurement.
6.6
Detailed Analysis Barons Place The Peabody Trust
Peabodys six unit (3no 1-bedroom and 3no 2-bedroom sharer flat) development is constructed over three floors and located at Barons Place, near Waterloo Station in London (Figure 6.6.1). The building measures 510 m2 (gross internal area) and is targeted at the key worker rental sector.
94
Figure 6.6.1 Barons Place location plan
Barons Place, Waterloo, London, SE17
This scheme is much smaller than Murray Grove, hence the net to gross ratio is not as economic at 77%. The individual units are also smaller with a one-bedroom at 52m2 and a two-bedroom measuring 57m2, giving a total Net Internal Area of 393m2.
Peabody again decided on a design and build route for the development. They stated that this was for cost certainty and the control of the design and build by the contractor through prefabrication of the modules. This also shows that they had confidence with the method following the success of their initial project, even though a different project team was involved. However, instead of approaching an
established steel-module manufacturer, Peabody teamed up with a complete outsider. This was the Spaceover Group, who did not actually manufacture the
modules but provided an all-in turnkey service, devising a volumetric system and then subcontracting the fabrication of all its elements.
As was illustrated with Hydes second project (Corbet House), the results were different, showing that lessons had been learnt and problems overcome.
95
Therefore, it is expected that a similar situation will occur when the Barons Place data is analysed.
The results in relation to the significant factors for choosing modular construction are shown in Figure 6.6.2. As has been previously highlighted, and is to be expected, both the construction time and overall cost have been rated with the most significance. It is widely recognised from the data analysed so far that time is shorter with modular construction, yet whether the costs are cheaper has still to be proved. Although, Peabody obviously noted their benefits and this had a large
impact on the decision to choose modular construction.
Somewhat surprising though, is that they rated pioneering development as extremely significant. As this was Peabodys third project using modular construction it is difficult to understand why. The assumption is that because the method is still relatively untried in the wider construction sphere, it is considered pioneering by some organisations since it is not their usual form of procurement. Peabody actually stated that the objective was to demonstrate the modular approach for small units for key-workers of high quality and with a short construction period.
The previous experience factor was rated with some significance showing that the lessons and knowledge learnt from Murray Grove had been taken into consideration. Finally, the factors of aesthetics, design time and site constraints had no significant role in the decision making process.
In terms of the benefits, Peabody rated two factors as extremely significant: the better quality finished product and reduced construction period. This information, along with the other results is shown in Figure 6.6.3. Also receiving some
significance was the fact that waste is minimised. However, the other three factors (better whole life costing, improved economies of scale and greater client choice) were not seen as significant. It is expected that economies of scale would not be significant as only six units were constructed.
96
Figure 6.6.2 - Significant factors in choosing modular construction for the Barons Place project
Site Constraints
Previous Experience
Factor
Overall Cost
Construction Time
Design Time
Aesthetics
A better quality finished product and a reduced construction period have already been described as important, and a significant trend has appeared from the analysis of the other projects and organisations highlighting the importance of modular construction to the housing industry. Figure 6.6.4 shows the interior quality of one of the units at Barons Place.
When the data is analysed in respect of the barriers to adoption, three factors have been rated with extreme significance poor general image / perception, customer expectation and industry culture, as shown in Figure 6.6.5. These findings contradict those from the previous organisations, as well as the data received from Murray Grove. The reasoning for this is unclear as it would be expected that the lessons learnt at Murray Grove would be incorporated into the results for Barons Place. However, as there were different teams involved at Peabody with the Murray Grove and Barons Place projects, it seems as though the questionnaires were answered independently, and in the case of Barons Place, without reference to the earlier scheme.
97
Figure 6.6.3 - Benefits of off-site manufacture and their significance to the Barons Place project
Waste is minimised
Furthermore, by procuring a building with a high quality finish, it would have been assumed that the poor perception and customer expectation factors could have been overcome, as at Murray Grove. However, at the pre-construction stage,
Peabody thought that this was not the case.
Peabody were still obviously concerned by the industry culture factor and, despite the success of the development at Murray Grove, they still had reservations over the technique. A possible explanation is because take-up of the method was slow by other organisations; this has prevented Peabody from having full confidence in modular construction.
98
Figure 6.6.4 The interior quality at Barons Place
(Source: Spring, 2004b)
Perceived performance and value were rated as having some significance and this is more in line with the information received from Murray Grove. Perceived performance may have been influenced by the size of the units in that as they are so small, they are only intended for short-term rent. In fact, one member of the research team commented the Trust fully supports the application of the current minimum space standards for general housing; however, Peabody only considers these flatlets suitable for specialist key-worker accommodation for rent.
99
Figure 6.6.5 - Barriers to adoption of off-site construction and their affect on the Barons Place project
Product awareness
Industry culture
When cost and programme are analysed, it shows a similar pattern to Murray Grove with both running over the original budget figures.
The final cost was 175,182 in excess of the pre-tender estimate. Although the pre-tender estimate was 660,000, by the time works commenced on site this had already increased to 750,000. Peabody reasoned this was due to the fact that it was a showcase scheme, and due to the prototype nature of the development and the desire to have high quality finish. Furthermore, they again thought that modular construction was more expensive than traditional building.
With respect to the programme, the project was four weeks late at handover. The reason given was there was a time delay in discharging the planning conditions, as well as additional works required due to the showcase scheme. However, they felt these problems could have been prevented if a longer lead in time was given and the showcase items were identified at an earlier stage. On the question of whether modular or traditional building was shorter, Peabody believed modular
100
construction to be shorter.
This was because on site construction is reduced
through factory production of the units.
Table 6.6.1 Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Barons Place development
Construction Costs Budget Construction Cost Actual Construction Cost Construction Cost Difference Programme Budget Construction Time Actual Construction Time Construction Time Difference 26 weeks 30 weeks 4 weeks 660,000 835,182 175,182
6.7
Chapter Appraisal
This chapter has assessed and analysed in detail the results of the questionnaires and interviews from each of the organisations.
It commenced by looking at the significant factors for adopting modular construction, the benefits of the method and the ways in which potential barriers to adoption were overcome. Each organisation had specific reasons for choosing the method on the five projects investigated. However, similarities appeared and the explanation for these has been commented upon.
The overall cost and programme for the projects has also been compared to the pre-tender estimates and explanations given in the circumstances where these differed greatly.
The next chapter will focus on benchmarking and Key Performance Indicators, and each project will be compared to both the construction industry as a whole and, in particular, to the New Build Housing sector.
101
CHAPTER SEVEN
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS BENCHMARKING
Fast-changing urban life requires flexibility of buildings and sites, so when a new use is found for a site, it is much better to dismantle and re-erect the units where they are needed Andrew Ogorzalek, Director, PCKO Architects
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 7 Data Analysis and Results Benchmarking
CHAPTER SEVEN
Data Analysis and Results Benchmarking
7.1
Scope of Chapter
This second data analysis and results chapter will cover benchmarking and Key Performance Indicators. Three factors will be investigated client satisfaction in relation to the product, the service received from the consultants and main contractor and the satisfaction in respect of defects at the time of handover.
Each of these factors will be compared to the construction industry as a whole and in particular to the new build housing sector.
The overall construction programme and cost will also be analysed in relation to the industry from information gained from the BCIS. Each programme will be compared to an estimated construction time calculated by the BCIS, while cost will be compared to two calculated average prices for similar-sized projects held on the BCIS database. The first is based on the number of storeys, and the second on the gross floor area of the individual units.
As with the previous chapter, quotations and comments received during the interview process will be included to provide background information and clarification where necessary.
7.2
Benchmarking Key Performance Indicators
Construction Excellence has identified benchmarking as a method of improving performance in a systematic and logical way by measuring and comparing individual performance against others, and then using lessons learned to make targeted improvements (Constructing Excellence, 2007).
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) play a crucial role in benchmarking, and have been defined by Constructing Excellence (2007) as the measure of performance of an activity that is critical to the success of an organisation. Every
102
year, Constructing Excellence produces KPI Wall charts that contain graphs which can be used by organisations to benchmark their performance across a number of sectors against the rest of the industry.
Each organisation was asked to rate the performance of certain factors on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 = totally dissatisfied, 5 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 10 = totally satisfied. The questions asked related to 1) the client satisfaction in terms of the product, 2) the level of service given by the consultants, 3) the level of service given by the main contractor and 4) the level of satisfaction in terms of defects at time of handover.
For Hyde and Peabody who have two projects under review, the results are shown on the same graph. Figure 7.2.1 shows the results for Urban Splash.
Urban Splash rated each of the four factors very highly. A rating of nine was given for client satisfaction in respect of the product, as well as in relation to the service received from the consultants and main contractor. rating was given in respect of defects at handover. Finally, a maximum
This was measured on the
following basis, where 1 = totally defective; 3 = minor defects with major impact on the client; 5 = some defects with some impact of the client; 8 = some defects with no significant impact on the client and finally 10 = defect free.
Therefore, Urban Splash believed Moho was defect free at handover. This is an exceptional standard to achieve, and it is highly unlikely that this would have been possible with traditional building methods. Urban Splash stated that one of their reasons for choosing modular construction was that the factory-based approach promised improvements in quality control because we could avoid the usual coordination and snagging issues that usually arise when numerous trades are operating on site. It will be seen later how the performance of Moho relates to the other schemes as well as to construction industry standards and housing sector in particular.
103
Figure 7.2.1 KPI results for Urban Splash and the Moho development
Moho
Product 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Defects 1 Service (Consultants)
Service (Main Contractor)
Moho
The results for Hyde can be seen in Figure 7.2.2. Again, this shows a very high overall standard in each category, with Corbet House scoring higher in three cases, suggesting a good improvement over the original scheme.
For Barling Court, a score of eight was recorded for the product, the consultant and main contractor service elements. Considering this was their first modular project, this represents a very good standard of performance.
This was exceeded, however, in the defects category, which Hyde rated as nine out of ten. Again, this confirms the outstanding level of quality that is achievable with modular construction.
When Corbet House is analysed, the scores for the product and service received from the consultants and main contractor are all rated as nine. This
represents an extremely high performance and an improvement on the previous scheme.
104
Figure 7.2.2 KPI results for Hyde Housing Association and the Barling Court and Corbet House developments
Barling Court
Corbet House
Finally, the defects at Corbet House was rated as nine, being the same as Barling Court. This shows that Hyde managed to maintain their extremely high
standard of finishes in the development, and further confirms the fact that modular construction produces a better quality finished product.
As Figure 7.2.3 shows, the standard of performance by Peabody is again very high overall. Furthermore, the trend of the second project out-performing the first is maintained, suggesting that lessons have been learnt and improvements made.
When Murray Grove is looked at, scores of nine were recorded for the level of service from the main contractor and consultants, as well as the finished product. This shows that Peabody were very pleased with the overall performance. However, the defects factor, with a score of eight, slightly mars the performance of the scheme as a whole. A possible reason for this lower rating could be that as the project was completed first, in 1999, not as much was known about modular construction and therefore standards were not as good or harder to achieve. In recent years,
105
improvements have been made to the process, with the result of increasing the overall quality of the product.
Figure 7.2.3 KPI results for The Peabody Trust and the Murray Grove and Barons Place developments
Murray Grove
Barons Place
In respect of Barons Place, the performance indicators have been exceeded in every category, with both levels of service factors achieving perfection, ten out of ten scores. The remaining factors product and defects both scored ratings of nine, suggesting that Peabody were very pleased with the level of performance achieved. This also shows a marked improvement on the scores achieved for
Murray Grove.
The KPI scores from all the organisations will now be compared to the construction industry as a whole. The data for this comes from the UK Construction Industry Key Performance Indicators Housing KPI Toolkit 2006, published by Constructing Excellence.
106
For each organisation, the results have been compared to three industry standards. These are All Construction, All Housing and New Build Housing. An index figure has been calculated for each of the three critical factors, using the 2006 UK New Build Housing Economic KPIs wall chart. This has been achieved by taking the performance rating given by the organisation (e.g. client satisfaction product = 9), and using the wall chart, a benchmark percentage score can be read off (e.g. 80%). This is then compared to the industry standard percentage scoring 8/10 or better. For example, this was 78% for New Build Housing in 2006. Dividing 80 by 78, and then multiplying by the industry index figure, in this case 123.8, gives 127.0 as the index figure. The base used is 2001 when the index was 100. The same process has been undertaken for each organisation for the three variables. It is important to note that as each product was completed at a different time, the data for the organisations has been based to equivalent 2006 figures.
Figure 7.2.4 shows the comparison data for client satisfaction in terms of the product. As can be seen, the new build housing sector outperforms the construction industry as a whole, with the all housing category lagging some way behind both. What is clear, however, is that in all bar one case, the modular construction schemes have outperformed both the construction industry as a whole and the new build housing sector. This suggests that clients who use modular construction are more satisfied with the product than for those who use traditional means. Therefore, this is a notable benefit of the method.
The exception to this rule is Barling Court. A score of eight was given by Hyde for this factor, which in itself is a good score. However, this only equates to a benchmark percentage of 50%, suggesting that half the clients questioned were more satisfied with the product, hence, the low index figure. When their second project at Corbet House is analysed, the index has increased significantly, and is above both the industry as a whole and the new build housing sector. Therefore, this shows a marked improvement in the standard of the product and is reflected by Hydes happiness with the scheme overall.
107
Figure 7.2.4 KPI Comparison of all developments with Construction Industry data for 2006 Client Satisfaction (Product)
140
130
120
110
Index
100
90
80
70
60 All Construction All Housing New Build Housing New Build Housing Moho Barling Court Corbet House Murray Grove Barons Place
All Construction
All Housing
Moho
Barling Court
Corbet House
Murray Grove
Barons Place
With respect to the other schemes under investigation they all scored highly, and the organisations can bring confidence from the fact that they have exceeded their industry counterparts. Urban Splash would need to compare their next modular project to the rating achieved by Moho; however, it has provided a good starting point. Furthermore, the two developments by Peabody have performed well, and the high standard has been maintained by assessing the rating of their follow-up scheme at Barons Place.
Figure 7.2.5 shows the data in relation to the level of service given by the consultants and main contractor. In this case, the rating given by each organisation for the consultants and main contractor has been converted into an average score.
This shows that in the majority of cases the level of service received is comparable with industry standards; however, the evidence is not as conclusive as for the product previously assessed. One possible explanation for this is because the clients are new to the modular process; there may be some teething problems and general uncertainty, which has an impact on their overall assessment.
108
Therefore, it would be expected that as their experience in the procurement method grows, so the ratings achieved would be higher.
Figure 7.2.5 KPI Comparison of all developments with Construction Industry data for 2006 Client Satisfaction (Service)
180 170 160 150 140 130 Index 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 All Construction All Housing New Build Housing New Build Housing Moho Barling Court Corbet House Murray Grove Barons Place
All Construction
All Housing
Moho
Barling Court
Corbet House
Murray Grove
Barons Place
In fact, this situation has occurred, with both the second projects by Hyde and Peabody outperforming their predecessors by some margin. The Corbet House
project is also on a par with the new build housing standard, but slightly behind the construction industry as a whole, though, overall performance is still good. The
Barons Place scheme, by contrast, has exceeded both industry standards by a significant amount and is by far the best performing project under review.
Barling Court is again below its competitors.
This is explained by the
uncertainty of the modular process as a whole and the first project factor experienced by Hyde, even though respectable scores of eight were given. However, lessons will always need to be learnt, and Hyde can take comfort from the fact that performance has significantly improved for Corbet House.
109
Both the Murray Grove and Moho developments have exceeded the construction industry as a whole and the new build housing standards and, when seen against their competitors, are in second place behind Barons Place. This
represents a high standard of performance given by the consultants and main contractor on the first project, and shows that the organisations were wise to use the experience of the volumetric manufacturer Yorkon during the construction process.
The overall conclusion that can be drawn from this data is that, on the whole, using modular construction will provide a level of service in terms of client satisfaction that compares well to and in some cases far exceeds that provided by traditional procurement.
Attention is now turned to the level of defects recorded at the time of handover, and the comparisons for the schemes in relation to industry standards is shown in Figure 7.2.6
An important point to note at the beginning is that the level of defects in new build housing is something that besets the industry, and has done for some time. Therefore, modular construction is seen as one solution to this problem, and it is expected that the satisfaction level of in terms of defects recorded for the projects will be greater than the new build housing standard, meaning fewer defects at time of handover.
This assumption proved to be correct in all bar one case.
However,
improving on the poor level of satisfaction in respect defects for the new build sector would not be all that difficult. However, it does prove that modular construction
provides a very high level of finished quality, with minimal defects, and this notable benefit should not be under-estimated when looking to expand the method further.
It appears that Hyde were equally as satisfied by both their schemes and this should be taken forward to future schemes. Furthermore, it shows that the projects out-performed the new build housing standard as a whole.
110
Figure 7.2.6 KPI Comparison of all developments with Construction Industry data for 2006 Defects
Defects
210 200 190 180 170 160 150 Index 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 All Construction All Housing New Build Housing New Build Housing Moho Barling Court Corbet House Murray Grove Barons Place
All Construction
All Housing
Moho
Barling Court
Corbet House
Murray Grove
Barons Place
However, for Peabody, there is a marked difference in the satisfaction levels between the two projects. Although Murray Grove received a score of eight, this only represents a performance percentage of 53.5%, which shows that nearly half of the clients questioned were more satisfied with the finished standard of their schemes. One redeeming factor, though, is that Barons Place scored very highly, outperforming the industry as a whole, and showing that improvements have been made to the standard of modular schemes procured by Peabody.
Finally, Urban Splash rated Moho as defect free and this is represented by the high index score achieved. This level of satisfaction far outweighs that of all the other projects and is comfortably in excess of both the industry as a whole and the new build housing sector.
Therefore, it can be concluded that modular construction will provide a quality of finish that is greater than can be achieved through traditional methods and, as a result, client satisfaction will be greater too.
111
7.3
Assessment of the Construction Programme
Figure 7.3.1 shows the comparison between the budget and actual construction programmes with an estimated construction time derived from the BCIS database. The Estimated Construction Time has been calculated using the BCIS Building Construction Duration Calculator and the variables are detailed in Table 7.3.1.
Figure 7.3.1 Comparison of Construction Programme for all projects
80
70
60 Construction Time (weeks)
50
40
30
20
10
0 Moho Barling Court Corbet House Project Name Budget Construction Time Actual Construction Time BCIS Estimated Construction Time Murray Grove Barons Place
As can be seen, the actual construction period for the modular projects is shorter than would be expected with traditional methods. The conclusive evidence that modular construction is quicker is a notable benefit and is a very important factor to take forward when considering the method for future schemes.
Furthermore, it also shows that massive improvements to the construction programme can be made for smaller scale projects. When the Moho project is
assessed, the difference between the actual time and the BCIS estimate is not that much. However, by looking at the other schemes, the difference is much greater, with Barling Court showing the largest variation. This difference can be explained by
112
the fact that there were 102 units at Moho, but only eight at Barling Court. Each of the other three smaller schemes also showed a notable reduction in the construction time from the BCIS estimate.
Table 7.3.1 Variables affecting the BCIS Estimated Construction Time
Moho
Barling Court
Corbet House Traditional
Murray Grove Design & Build
Barons Place Design & Build London 835,000 4Q 2004 One Stage
Procurement Traditional Route Region Value Date Contractor Selection Client Private North West 9,000,000 3Q 2005 One Stage
Traditional
London 700,000 3Q 2004 One Stage
London 1,450,000 2Q 2005 One Stage
London 2,335,000 4Q 1999 Negotiated
Housing Association
Housing Association
Housing Association
Housing Association
A further point to consider is the nature of the construction. A steel frame was constructed at Moho (which takes a certain amount of time to erect), with the modular units then being fitted into place. Conversely, all the other schemes are constructed by simply stacking the modules on top of one another, which has obvious programme savings. However, it should be pointed out that the stacking method will have a limit to the number of storeys that can be constructed, whereas this is not the case for the steel frame method. In fact, Urban Splash commented that so far 6 7 storeys is probably the tallest built in the UK, but that is not to say the system could not be engineered to go higher. If the steel frame structure was used this would be possible as, the configuration used would allow greater heights to be achieved because the modules are structurally braced by a separate spine frame, so the height of the building is not governed by the ability of the module walls to act as diaphragms. However, there is no limit (apart from site size) on the amount of floor area that can be taken up by the modules in the stacked method.
Therefore, modular construction will produce significant savings in terms of the construction programme, and this will be further increased when the size of the
113
development is small to medium sized. This investigation has shown that statement to be true for developments up to 30 units in number.
7.4
Assessment of the Construction Costs
Figure 7.4.1 shows the comparison between the actual construction cost per square metre for all the projects, with two average costs derived from the BCIS database. The first average price is based on the number of storeys in the target building, while the second on the gross floor area of the individual units concerned. In this case, an average size of the units has been taken, and this comes under the up to 75m2 GFA per unit category. The lower quartile figure has been taken for the BCIS costs, as this is the most representative of the standard of specification for the projects under review.
The categories used to gain the comparable figures are shown in the Appendix, however, briefly they comprised: Type of Work New Build; Building Function Category 800 Residential Facilities; 816 Flats (apartments).
Each of the comparable figures was then rebased using the variables specified in Table 7.4.1, to adjust to the same date and location as the projects under investigation. This is also shown in the Appendix.
As the graph shows, each of the modular projects under investigation has proved to be more expensive per square metre than both the BCIS average costs. However, it should be pointed out that the BCIS costs have been calculated from a number of projects, and so some will have been more per square metre than the modular schemes, and conversely, some less.
The upper quartile figures could have been used. However, it was thought that this would be representative of a specification greater than that used for the modular schemes, and so any comparisons would not be on a like-for-like basis. Furthermore, even if the BCIS median figures were used, the results would still be same, with the modular schemes proving more expensive. However, the difference would be reduced as in every case the median is greater than the lower quartile figure.
114
Figure 7.4.1 Comparison of Construction Costs for all projects
1,800
1,600
1,400
Construction Cost (/m2)
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0 Moho Barling Court Corbet House Project Name Actual Cost per m2 (Gross) BCIS Cost 1 (Storeys) BCIS Cost 2 (GFA) Murray Grove Barons Place
In an ideal situation, identically sized projects with the same specification would have been used for the comparison, yet this has not been possible, due to the unavailability of the information. Therefore, the figures stated represent the only information available on which a comparison can be made.
Table 7.4.1 Variables affecting the BCIS Average Prices
Moho
Barling Court
Corbet House London Postal Districts 2Q 2005
Murray Grove London Postal Districts 4Q 1999
Barons Place London Postal Districts 4Q 2004
Location
Greater Manchester
London Postal Districts
Date No. of storeys Avge. GFA of unit
3Q 2005
3Q 2004
6 46m2
4 58m2
3 58m2
5 64m2
3 55m2
115
It could be argued that because the difference between the costs is greatest with the Barons Place scheme, due to the small number of units constructed. This would suggest that economies of scale are at work for the larger projects, which has the effect of pushing the overall cost down.
However, the difference is also quite marked with the Moho and Murray Grove schemes, each of which are larger projects and would have benefited from economies of scale. Therefore, this could suggest something either about the
construction process, or a lack of experience of the clients and design teams. Or as the methods are not as widespread, the result is that the unit cost is greater, meaning quite simply that modular construction is more expensive. As all five schemes have been shown to be more expensive than the BCIS averages, the latter point seems more likely.
Therefore, it seems as though modular construction does not produce a more cost effective solution to house building compared to traditional methods. However, there is still an opinion in some areas that modular schemes, in particular those produced by the Polish BUMA system, are cheaper. Yet this has not been proved from the investigation undertaken.
7.5
Chapter Appraisal
In this chapter, three critical factors have been identified and analysed in relation to benchmarking standards through Key Performance Indicators. These
have been assessed individually and compared with each other. Furthermore, the results from each organisation have been analysed with respect to the industry as a whole, as well as to the new build housing sector in particular.
The construction programme and cost for each project has also been analysed and compared in relation to industry information gained from the BCIS. This was an estimated construction time and two average costs for similar sized projects, based on the number of storeys and the gross floor area of the units.
Following the detailed case study analysis of the five projects and their respective organisations, and the comparisons with the construction industry and
116
new build housing sector, some key conclusions can be drawn as to when and why modular construction will prove to the be the most suitable form of procurement to the housing industry. This will be summed up in the final chapter.
117
CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Murray Grove demonstrates the efficiency of modular construction and epitomizes many aspects of the Governments Egan Report. The lesson for all is clear modular construction is the building method of the future Keith Blanshard, Director and General Manager, Yorkon.
William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 8 Conclusions and Recommendations
CHAPTER EIGHT
Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1
Scope of Chapter
This final chapter will draw conclusions from the investigation and make a number of recommendations why it is felt that off-site manufacture offers a viable form of building for the housing sector.
It will start by outlining certain limitations to the study. These are factors that the author would have liked to improve, had all the necessary resources been available. All the same, it is felt that the study has not been adversely affected.
The research questions posed in the introduction will also be answered and consequently, it can be judged whether the four objectives of the study have been met.
Finally, a number of key findings will be summarised and explained and the recommendations for the future will be put forward.
8.2
Limitations
Before any conclusions can be drawn and explained further, it is necessary to highlight certain limitations to the research, which may have had an impact on the final results.
1.
Form of off-site manufacture as mentioned in the early chapters, off-site
manufacture takes a variety of forms. However, this study has decided to focus on modular construction, because this topic is of particular interest to the author. If other forms of off-site manufacture, such as pre-assembly and standardisation, were covered, then the study would have been more comprehensive. However, both of these topics are worthy of a dissertation in themselves.
118
2.
Resourcing this work has been undertaken within a pre-determined
timeframe and fully at the authors cost. These parameters have therefore limited the amount of time that could be spent analysing each organisation and project as an equal amount of time had to be dedicated to each of the three organisations. If the research timeframe were extended, then the results / conclusions achieved could have been more detailed. Furthermore, if additional funding was in place, then a wider and more comprehensive study could have been undertaken.
3.
Number of organisations questioned as uptake of off-site manufacture is still
relatively slow, the study has focussed on only three particular organisations, which represents a limitation. If more organisations were included in the study then the results attained would be more comprehensive and, possibly, a more accurate reflection of the industry as a whole. For example, The Peabody Trust has
completed another modular scheme at Raines Dairy which could have been included if resources permitted. It is also believed that other organisations are using modular construction, yet these are not as well publicised. That is not to say, however, that the results of this study are inaccurate.
4.
Best practice blueprint it was originally intended that a best practice
blueprint for adoption would be produced that showed certain situations in which offsite manufacture would be particularly beneficial to the larger speculative house builders. However, due to time constraints this has not been possible. Furthermore, this could be considered the subject of a dissertation in its own right.
5.
Accuracy of comparable data when the construction time and cost was
compared to industry standards, the comparable data used was gained from the BCIS database. In terms of programme, the construction calculator is an estimating computer model, based on certain criteria such as the type of client involved, the location of the project and the contract sum. A more accurate comparison of the programme could have been achieved by finding similar sized projects both in terms of contract sum and gross floor area. However, a number of these would have been required, and this information was not easily available within the timeframe.
In terms of cost, the comparison was from data based on a square metre rate for new build residential developments. This is generated from an analysis of the
119
variety of projects submitted to the BCIS. However, the cost range is high due to the varying specification and, furthermore, projects are drawn from around the country (although rebasing factors have been used). A more accurate comparison could have been achieved through investigating similar sized schemes in terms of floor area, with a similar specification in the same location as the target project. However, this has not been possible due to the time constraints of the investigation. Likewise, different figures from the cost range, such as the median or upper quartile, could have been used, although there is no indication as to the internal specification of these comparable projects.
8.3
Research Questions / Objectives
In order to prove the aim of the study, it is necessary to answer the research questions stated in the introduction, and to assess whether the four key objectives have been met.
Research Questions 1 and 2 the study has shown that modular construction is the principal technique of off-site manufacture used by the three organisations. This brings the benefits of a reduced construction period, a better quality finished product, the fact that waste is minimised and improved economies of scale. Therefore, it can be seen that the first two key objectives have been met.
Research Question 3 there are certain barriers to adoption of the methods, such as the previous poor image / perception, a lack of industry knowledge / product awareness and the unwillingness of the industry to move away from traditional methods. However, these can all be overcome by improving industry knowledge and understanding through successful showcase schemes, such as the ones which this study has highlighted.
Research Question 4 off-site manufacture has been shown to compare very favourably to traditional methods in respect of construction time. In fact, all projects under review were completed quicker than would have been anticipated though traditional building. In terms of cost, the evidence is inconclusive. However, there is a suggestion in some areas that modular construction is cheaper. Furthermore, it
120
appears that this situation will be accentuated as the experience level of the client increases and the methods become more widespread.
Research Question 5 the main improvements to the procedure can be made through increasing the knowledge and understanding of the industry as a whole. The best way to do this is by highlighting the successful projects, which this study has attempted to do. Furthermore, if the methods can be adopted by higher profile The key to
organisations, then wider recognition and uptake will surely follow.
achieving this is by highlighting the notable benefits, and especially if it can be proved that off-site manufacture provides a more cost effective solution.
Research Questions 6 and 7 off-site manufacture has been shown to be an effective process in house building, through reduced construction times and a better quality finished product with minimal defects. This is particularly evident where small to medium sized sites are involved, and it offers a far more environmentally friendly form of construction. Furthermore, excellent client satisfaction will result from the process. Therefore, through research conducted for this study, it is felt that the larger private house builders should follow the lead of their smaller compatriots and start to adopt the techniques, in conjunction with their existing methods. believed that key objective number three can be met. As such, it is
Once this happens, the
methods will become more commonplace, and costs will be driven down through increased competition between the manufacturers. Perhaps one way to assist these larger developers in taking up modular construction is by removing the level of choice from the developer and offering government incentives to go modular. This could be achieved by setting modular targets, in that each large developer should build a certain percentage of modular units per annum and this could be regulated via the planning process. For example, councils and local authorities would only approve a scheme for planning if say, 25% of the units were modular. A similar process is currently in operation with affordable housing. The situation is not as critical in the social housing sector, as Housing Associations are already using modular construction to a much larger degree.
Therefore, off-site manufacture is extremely relevant and plays a significant role in terms of helping to meet current housing demand. Consequently, it is felt that the final objective of the study has been met.
121
8.4
Summary of Key Findings / Recommendations
The final task is to summarise the key findings of the investigation and make certain recommendations for the future of the techniques. This will highlight why, and in which situations, it is felt that modular construction will be the most suitable form of procurement for the housing industry.
1.
A better quality finished product will result with modular construction. This is
due to the increased quality control procedures that can be implemented in the factory, as well as the fact that the units are locked and sealed when they arrive on site. Furthermore, this also negates the perennial problem with traditional building sites of different trades entering apartments to carry out work and inadvertently causing damage.
2.
Modular construction is Environmentally Friendly. As the units arrive on site
fully completed, less waste is produced and the on-going problem of over-ordering is reduced. Both these factors are better for the environment.
3.
Design time is reduced with modular construction.
This is particularly
applicable for follow up projects, due to use of standard modules.
4.
Modular construction is the viable option for small sites and where short
leases are present. This is because of the quick assembly and demountable nature of the units.
5.
Clients who use modular construction are more satisfied with the product.
This statement has been shown to be correct after the benchmarking and KPI analysis when compared to those clients who use traditional methods.
6.
Modular construction will provide an excellent level of service in terms of
client satisfaction in respect of their consultants and main contractor. This study has shown that the service level is equally comparably to, and in a number of cases, far exceeds that provided by traditional procurement methods.
122
7.
Modular construction will provide a finished product which has minimal, if any
defects at handover. The result of this is greater client satisfaction.
8.
Modular construction will produce significant savings in terms of the This has proved to be correct in each of the projects
construction programme. investigated.
The situation will be further increased when the size of the
development is small to medium sized.
9.
Modular construction may not produce a more cost effective solution to house
building. This is when compared to traditional methods on a single project, yet savings may be possible on roll-out schemes. However, there is an opinion in some areas that modular schemes, in particular those produced by the Polish BUMA system, are cheaper.
It is clear, therefore, that modular construction provides notable benefits not just to the client organisation, but also to the end-user as well as to the environment. As such, this has great implications to the housing industry, and if adopted in greater numbers will go a long way to help to solve the current shortage of homes in this country.
The techniques have been shown to be a great success within both the social housing sector as well as in the private marketplace. Therefore, through careful planning and systematic implementation, it is felt that modular construction could be adopted by the larger developers and house builders in the UK being used in conjunction with their existing methods in the same way that it has by those Housing Associations investigated. Consequently, it is felt that off-site manufacture in the form of modular construction is the future of house building.
123
William Clayton (No. 2402164) References
REFERENCES
Bagenholm, C., Yates, A & McAllister, I. (2001), Prefabricated housing in the UK A case study: Murray Grove, Hackney. BRE Information Paper IP16/01 Part 1. British Research Establishment, London.
Bagenholm, C., Yates, A & McAllister, I. (2001), Prefabricated housing in the UK A summary paper. BRE Information Paper IP16/01 Part 3. British Research Establishment, London.
Bell, J. (1993), Doing your Research Project A guide for first-time researchers in education and social science, 3rd Edition. Open University Press, Maidenhead.
BRE (2003), DTI Construction Industry Directorate Project Report : Current Practice and Potential Uses of Prefabrication. Number 203032. British Research Establishment, London. Project Report
Building (2005a), News Team Clients call for more off-site. Issue 18, 06 May 2005.
Building (2005b), Specialist Contractor Awards Supplement. Issue 45, 11 November 2005.
CIRIA
(1999),
Adding
Value
to
Construction
Projects
through
Standardisation and Pre-assembly, complied by Gibb, A. G. F., Grok, S., Neale, R. H. and Sparksman, W. G., Report R176, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London.
Constructing
Excellence
(2006),
UK
Construction
Industry
Key
Performance Indicators, Housing KPI Toolkit. Constructing Excellence, London.
124
Constructing Excellence (2007), Introduction to Benchmarking. Published at http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/zones/kpizone/benchmarking/defaul t.jsp
Craig, A., Laing, R. & Edge, M. (2000), The social acceptability of prefabrication and standardisation in relation to new housing. 16th IAPS Conference, 21st Century: Cities, social life and sustainable development, Paris, 4th 7th July.
Davis, Langdon & Everest (2002), Prefabrication and Preassembly Cost Model February 2002. Building, 15 February 2002 [http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=1015426&sectioncode=13]
Davis Langdon (2004), Off-site manufacture Cost Model, October 2004. Building, Issue 42, 22 October 2004, 76-81.
Design for Life (2006), Murray Grove, hackney, London. http://www.designforhomes.org/projects/built/murray/murray.html
Published at
DETR (2001a), Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All. DETR Housing Green Paper, April 2001. Published at http://www.housing.dtlr.gov.uk/information/consult/homes/green
DETR (2001b), Construction and Materials Products, April 2001. Published at http://www.construction.dtlr.gov.uk/material/scpsummary.htm
Edum-Fotwe, F. T., Gibb, A. C. F. & Benford-Miller, M. (2004), Reconciling Construction Innovation and Standardisation on Major Projects. Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11, 5, 366372.
Egan, J. (1998), Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force, DETR, London.
125
Gibb, A. G. F. (1999), Off-site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-assembly and Modularisation, Whittles Publishing, Scotland.
Gibb, A. G. F. (2001), Standardisation and pre-assembly distinguishing myth from reality using case study research. Management and Economics, 19, 307-315. Journal of Construction
Gibb, A. G. F. & Isack, F. (2001), Client drivers for construction projects: implication for standardisation. Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8, 1, 46-58.
Grok, S. (1992), The Idea of Building Thought and action in the design and production of buildings, E & FN Spon, London.
Home Design Awards (2005), Barling Court, Larkhall Lane, Stockwell, London, SW4 6RN. Published at http://www.homedesignawards.com/homebuilder/homebuilder_2005/Category 7/barling/barling.htm
Housing Prototypes (2006), Murray Grove. Published at http://www.housingprototypes.org/project?File_No=GB007
Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO, London.
Merton, R. & Kendal, P. (1946), The focused interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51, 541-557 in Naoum, S. G. (1998), Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students. Butterworth, London.
Naoum, S. G. (1998), Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students. Butterworth, London.
Partington, R. (1999), Urban Pioneer. November 1999, 26-34.
The Architects Journal, 25
126
Reid, J. (1999), Innovative Application of Prefabricated Construction Techniques, DETR Project Report, CR39/99.
Robert
Gordon
University (2002),
Overcoming
Client
and
Market
Resistance to Prefabrication and Standardisation in Housing, DTI, London.
Sheppard, R. (1946), Prefabrication in Building, Architectural Press, London.
Spring, M. (1999), From factory to Hackney.
Building, 07 May 1999
[http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=6751&sectioncode=32]
Spring, M. (2004a), Flat Out. Building, Issue 31, 06 August 2004, 38-41.
Spring, M. (2004b), Dont Supersize Me. Building, Issue 40, 08 October 2004, 38-42.
Spring, M. (2005), Moho Rising. Building, Issue 28, 15 July 2005, 45-51.
Spring, M. (2006), Four Hail Murrays. Building, Issue 8, 24 February 2006, 50-54.
Stirling, C. (2003), BRE Good Building Guide 56 Offsite Construction: An Introduction. BREPress, London.
The Peabody Trust (2005), First Place for Barons. http://www.peabody.org.uk/main/pressroom_110505.htm
Published at
Weaver, M. (2005), Key workers offered new flat pack homes. Published at http://society.guardian.co.uk/keyworkers/story/0,1266,1481470,00.html
Wilson, D. G., Smith, M. H. & Deal, J. (1998), Prefabrication and Preassembly applying the techniques to building engineering
127
services.
Building Services Research and Information Association
Advanced Construction Techniques ACT 1/99, DETR, London.
128
APPENDIX ONE
BLANK QUESTIONNAIRE
Modular Construction Questionnaire This questionnaire forms part of the research for an MSc dissertation in Quantity Surveying at London South Bank University into the adoption and benefits of off site manufacture and specifically, modular construction in the residential sector. All the information supplied will be treated in strict confidence and will not be divulged to other parties other than for the purposes of completing the MSc dissertation for London South Bank University. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire, your input is greatly appreciated. The questionnaire is divided into four sections: 1) Key Facts, 2) Pre-Construction Period, 3) Construction Period and 4) Post-Construction Period. Please place your answers to the following questions in the white boxes below. You should not try to change the answers in the shaded boxes, as these will be generated automatically by the answers which you give to the other questions. Section One This section details general questions about the project. S1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Key Facts What is the project name? In which city is the project located? What is the Gross Internal Floor Area (m2)? What is the Net Internal Floor Area (m2)? The net to gross ratio is calculated at: How many storeys does the building have? How many units are there in the building? What is the breakdown of accommodation of these units (i.e. number of 1 beds, 2 beds etc)? What is the Net Internal Area of the individual units (m2)? 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom (if applicable) Please identify the market sector for the project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer) Private Sale Social Sale Key worker Sale Private Rent Social Rent Key worker Rent #DIV/0!
1.9 1.9.1 1.9.2 1.9.3 1.10
Blank Questionnaire - Appendix 1
1.11 1.11.1 1.11.2 1.11.3 1.12 1.12.1 1.12.2 1.12.3
Please state the sale value range (if applicable) for each type of unit: 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom (if applicable) Please state the rental value range (if applicable) for each type of unit (per week): 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom (if applicable)
From
To
From
To p.w. p.w. p.w.
Section Two This section asks questions about the pre-construction (design) period and looks at the reasons for adopting Modular Construction. S2 2.1 Pre-Construction Period What form of procurement was adopted for this project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer) Traditional Design and Build Turnkey Management Contracting Construction Management Prime Cost
2.2
What was the reasoning behind adopting this form of procurement?
2.3
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.4
Please rate the following factors in terms of their significance for choosing Modular Construction on this project, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No significance; 3 = Some significance; 5 = Extremely significant Aesthetics Design Time Construction Time Overall Cost Previous Experience Site Contraints Pioneering Development Please add any further comments in relation to question 2.3:
2.5
2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 2.6
The following factors have been identified as benefits of offsite manufacture. Please rate these in terms of their significance for choosing Modular Construction on this project, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No significance; 3 = Some significance; 5 = Extremely significant Reduced construction period Better quality finished product Waste is minimised Better whole life costing Improved economies of scale Greater client choice Please add any further comments in relation to question 2.5:
2.7
The following factors have been identified as barriers to the adoption of off-site manufacture. Please rate the affect these have had on your organisation in choosing this form of construction to meet current housing demand, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No affect at all; 3 = Some affect; 5 = Significant affect Poor general image / public perception (due to previous problems) Perceived performance (shorter lifespan) Customer expectation (customers wanting traditional brick finish) Perceived value (property as an investment) Industry culture (reluctant to try new methods) Product awareness (lack of awareness from designers)
2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 2.7.6
2.8
Please add any further comments in relation to question 2.7:
2.9
What was the initial budget cost of the project (i.e. the pretender estimate)? What was the initial budget construction time of the project (in weeks)? What is the approximate design life of the building (in years)?
2.10
2.11
2.12
What is the EcoHomes rating for the building (if applicable)?
2.13
Have the Scheme Development Standards been taken into account when designing the project (Yes / No)?
Section Three This section asks questions about the on-site construction period. S3 3.1 Construction Period What was the actual construction time of the project (in weeks)? This is a difference from the initial budget construction time of: If the project was delayed, what were the reasons for this delay? 0 weeks
3.2
3.3
3.4 3.4.1
Could these delays have been prevented (Yes / No)? If yes, how?
3.5
In your opinion, was the on-site construction period shorter or longer than if a traditional form of building had been used?
3.5.1
Please explain your reasoning for this answer:
3.6
What was the actual cost of the project (i.e. the final account)? This is a difference from the initial budget cost of: What were the reasons for the change in cost from the initial budget? -
3.7 3.8
3.9
In your opinion, was the actual cost of the project cheaper or more expensive than if a traditional form of building had been used? Please explain your reasoning for this answer:
3.9.1
Section Four Post-Construction Period 4.1 4.2 4.3 The cost per m2 (gross) has been calculated at: The cost per m2 (net) has been calculated at: The cost per unit has been calculated at: Client Satisfaction - Product (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the finished building, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the consultants, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the main contractor, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Defects (KPI) How would you rate the condition of the building with respect to defects at the time of handover, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally defective; 3 = Minor defects with major impact on the client; 5 = Some defects with some impact on the client; 8 = Some defects with no significant impact on the client; 10 = Defect-free If there were any defects, please detail what these were: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.7.1
4.7.2 4.7.3
Were these defects resolved efficiently (Yes / No)? If no, why not?
4.8
Predictability - Cost (KPI) Design Cost What was the estimated cost of design at Commit to Invest (i.e. when the project was originally sanctioned)? What was the final cost of design at Available for Use? 5
4.9
4.10
The Performance Percentage has been calculated at: Construction Cost What was the estimated cost of construction at Commit to Construct (i.e. the tender sum)? What was the final cost of construction at Available for Use (i.e. the contractor's final account)? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at:
#DIV/0!
4.11
4.12
#DIV/0!
4.13
4.14
Predictability - Time (KPI) Design Time What was the estimated duration of the design phase at Commit to Invest (i.e. when the project was originally sanctioned)? What was the actual duration of the design phases at Commit to Construct (i.e. when the construction actually commenced)? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at: #DIV/0!
4.15
4.16
4.17
Construction Time What was the estimated duration of the construction phase at Commit to Construct (i.e. the contract period)? What was actual duration of the construction period at Available to Use? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at: Please state if the building is demountable (Yes / No)? If yes, are there any plans to to move the modules in the near future? If so, where to? 0 weeks #DIV/0!
4.18
4.19 4.20 4.20.1
4.20.2
4.21.1
Would you consider adopting Modular Construction again in the future (Yes / No)? If yes, why?
4.21.2
4.21.3
If no, why not?
4.22
How many projects using Modular Construction are in the pipeline? What is the estimated value of these pipeline projects?
6
4.22.1
4.23
What key lessons can be learnt from this project and implemented on future projects?
4.24
Please add any further comments which you wish to make:
This now completes the questionnaire. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
APPENDIX TWO
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE FROM URBAN SPLASH
Modular Construction Questionnaire This questionnaire forms part of the research for an MSc dissertation in Quantity Surveying at London South Bank University into the adoption and benefits of off site manufacture and specifically, modular construction in the residential sector. All the information supplied will be treated in strict confidence and will not be divulged to other parties other than for the purposes of completing the MSc dissertation for London South Bank University. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire, your input is greatly appreciated. The questionnaire is divided into four sections: 1) Key Facts, 2) Pre-Construction Period, 3) Construction Period and 4) Post-Construction Period. Please place your answers to the following questions in the white boxes below. You should not try to change the answers in the shaded boxes, as these will be generated automatically by the answers which you give to the other questions. Section One This section details general questions about the project. S1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Key Facts What is the project name? In which city is the project located? What is the Gross Internal Floor Area (m2)? What is the Net Internal Floor Area (m2)? The net to gross ratio is calculated at: How many storeys does the building have? How many units are there in the building? What is the breakdown of accommodation of these units (i.e. number of 1 beds, 2 beds etc)? What is the Net Internal Area of the individual units (m2)? 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom (if applicable) Please identify the market sector for the project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer) Moho Manchester 6,766 4,740 70% 6 102 48x 1 bedroom, 54x 2 bedroom
1.9 1.9.1 1.9.2 1.9.3 1.10
38.0 54.0 N/A Private Sale Social Sale Key worker Sale Private Rent Social Rent Key worker Rent
Moho Questionnaire - Appendix 2
1.11 1.11.1 1.11.2 1.11.3 1.12 1.12.1 1.12.2 1.12.3
Please state the sale value range (if applicable) for each type of unit: 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom (if applicable) Please state the rental value range (if applicable) for each type of unit (per week): 1 bedroom - current price 2 bedroom - current price 3 bedroom (if applicable)
From 131,000 176,000 N/A
To 160,000 200,000 N/A
From N/A 138 167
To p.w. p.w. p.w.
N/A
Section Two This section asks questions about the pre-construction (design) period and looks at the reasons for adopting Modular Construction. S2 2.1 Pre-Construction Period What form of procurement was adopted for this project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer) Traditional Design and Build Turnkey Management Contracting Construction Management Prime Cost X
2.2
What was the reasoning behind adopting this form of procurement? Wanted the scheme to be fully designed before committing to the project.
2.3
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.4
4 4 5 3 1 1 5
Found there was a demand for smaller, compact units that could be constructed within a tight timeframe, at high quality and without defects.
2.5
2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 2.6
4 5 5 4 3 3
Construction time was reduced because finishing trades were running in parallel with preparatory works on site. 2.7 The following factors have been identified as barriers to the adoption of off-site manufacture. Please rate the affect these have had on your organisation in choosing this form of construction to meet current housing demand, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No affect at all; 3 = Some affect; 5 = Significant affect Poor general image / public perception (due to previous problems) Perceived performance (shorter lifespan) Customer expectation (customers wanting traditional brick finish) Perceived value (property as an investment) Industry culture (reluctant to try new methods) Product awareness (lack of awareness from designers) 2 2 3 4 2 2
2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 2.7.6
2.8
Always try to set out to do something differently so not really concerned by barriers to adoption. 2.9 What was the initial budget cost of the project (i.e. the pretender estimate)? What was the initial budget construction time of the project (in weeks)? What is the approximate design life of the building (in years)? 8,850,000
2.10
70 weeks
2.11
60 years
2.12
N/A
2.13
No
10
Section Three This section asks questions about the on-site construction period. S3 3.1 Construction Period What was the actual construction time of the project (in weeks)? This is a difference from the initial budget construction time of: If the project was delayed, what were the reasons for this delay? There were some tolerance issues between the modules and on-site works which required site modifications of connections. Additional external works implemented from originally designed scheme 3.4 3.4.1 Could these delays have been prevented (Yes / No)? If yes, how? Possibly could have been prevented through better design calculations / modelling during the design stage 3.5 In your opinion, was the on-site construction period shorter or longer than if a traditional form of building had been used? Possibly 74 weeks
3.2
4 weeks
3.3
Shorter
3.5.1
Please explain your reasoning for this answer: Construction period was reduced because modules can be fitted quickly in the steel frame structure.
3.6
What was the actual cost of the project (i.e. the final account)? Includes cost of ground floor commercial areas
9,000,000
3.7 3.8
This is a difference from the initial budget cost of: What were the reasons for the change in cost from the initial budget? Additional cost due to modifications to steelwork connections on site
150,000
3.9
In your opinion, was the actual cost of the project cheaper or more expensive than if a traditional form of building had been More expensive used? Please explain your reasoning for this answer: Was not found to be cheaper than traditional, however building larger volumes may generate economies of scale.
3.9.1
11
Section Four Post-Construction Period 4.1 4.2 4.3 The cost per m2 (gross) has been calculated at: The cost per m2 (net) has been calculated at: The cost per unit has been calculated at: Client Satisfaction - Product (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the finished building, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the consultants, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the main contractor, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Defects (KPI) How would you rate the condition of the building with respect to defects at the time of handover, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally defective; 3 = Minor defects with major impact on the client; 5 = Some defects with some impact on the client; 8 = Some defects with no significant impact on the client; 10 = Defect-free If there were any defects, please detail what these were: N/A 4.7.2 4.7.3 Were these defects resolved efficiently (Yes / No)? If no, why not? N/A N/A 1,330.18 1,898.73 88,235
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
10
4.7.1
4.8
Predictability - Cost (KPI) Design Cost What was the estimated cost of design at Commit to Invest (i.e. when the project was originally sanctioned)? What was the final cost of design at Available for Use? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at:
450,000 450,000 0%
12
4.9 4.10
4.11
Construction Cost What was the estimated cost of construction at Commit to Construct (i.e. the tender sum)? What was the final cost of construction at Available for Use (i.e. the contractor's final account)? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at:
8,750,000
4.12
9,000,000 3%
4.13
4.14
Predictability - Time (KPI) Design Time What was the estimated duration of the design phase at Commit to Invest (i.e. when the project was originally sanctioned)? What was the actual duration of the design phases at Commit to Construct (i.e. when the construction actually commenced)? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at:
22 weeks
4.15
26 weeks
4.16
20%
4.17
Construction Time What was the estimated duration of the construction phase at Commit to Construct (i.e. the contract period)? What was actual duration of the construction period at Available to Use? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at: Please state if the building is demountable (Yes / No)? If yes, are there any plans to to move the modules in the near future? If so, where to?
72 weeks
4.18
74 weeks 2% No N/A N/A
4.19 4.20 4.20.1
4.20.2
4.21.1
Would you consider adopting Modular Construction again in the future (Yes / No)? If yes, why? Better quality finished product and reduce construction period.
Yes
4.21.2
4.21.3
If no, why not? N/A
4.22
None at present N/A
4.22.1
13
4.23
What key lessons can be learnt from this project and implemented on future projects? Try to learn lessons from all projects. Currently using bathroom and kitchen pods on other projects as make the building process more efficient.
4.24
The scheme also contains commercial units at ground floor along with car parking. Moho is the UK's first private-sector multistorey housing development to be based on prefabricated volumetric modules.
14
APPENDIX THREE
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM HYDE HOUSING ASSOCIATION
Modular Construction Questionnaire This questionnaire forms part of the research for an MSc dissertation in Quantity Surveying at London South Bank University into the adoption and benefits of off site manufacture and specifically, modular construction in the residential sector. All the information supplied will be treated in strict confidence and will not be divulged to other parties other than for the purposes of completing the MSc dissertation for London South Bank University. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire, your input is greatly appreciated. The questionnaire is divided into four sections: 1) Key Facts, 2) Pre-Construction Period, 3) Construction Period and 4) Post-Construction Period. Please place your answers to the following questions in the white boxes below. You should not try to change the answers in the shaded boxes, as these will be generated automatically by the answers which you give to the other questions. Section One This section details general questions about the project. S1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Key Facts What is the project name? In which city is the project located? What is the Gross Internal Floor Area (m2)? What is the Net Internal Floor Area (m2)? The net to gross ratio is calculated at: How many storeys does the building have? How many units are there in the building? What is the breakdown of accommodation of these units (i.e. number of 1 beds, 2 beds etc)? What is the Net Internal Area of the individual units (m2)? 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom (if applicable) Please identify the market sector for the project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer) 555 465 84% 4 8 4x 1-bedroom, 4x 2-bedroom Barling Court London
1.9 1.9.1 1.9.2 1.9.3 1.10
Barling Court - Appendix 3
15
1.11 1.11.1 1.11.2 1.11.3 1.12 1.12.1 1.12.2 1.12.3
From N/A N/A N/A
To N/A N/A N/A
From N/A 110 150
To p.w. p.w. p.w.
N/A
2.2
What was the reasoning behind adopting this form of procurement? Traditional procurement was chosen as it is a new method of construction and therefore wanted all the design work to be done by the main architect in direct relation with the Polish manufacturers and structural engineer.
2.3
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7
Please rate the following factors in terms of their significance for choosing Modular Construction on this project, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No significance; 3 = Some significance; 5 = Extremely significant Aesthetics Design Time Construction Time Overall Cost Previous Experience Site Contraints Pioneering Development
3 3 5 5 2 4 5
16
2.4
By using modular construction, a shorter construction time and a reduced construction cost was expected. Also wanted to try new methods of construction and move away from traditional building. It was also hoped that modular construction could help towards tackiling the shortage of affordable homes for key workers in the south-east. 2.5 The following factors have been identified as benefits of offsite manufacture. Please rate these in terms of their significance for choosing Modular Construction on this project, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No significance; 3 = Some significance; 5 = Extremely significant Reduced construction period Better quality finished product Waste is minimised Better whole life costing Improved economies of scale Greater client choice Please add any further comments in relation to question 2.5:
2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 2.6
5 5 3 4 2 3
Wanted a shorter construction period and a better quality finished product than could be achieved through a traditionally constructed development. 2.7 The following factors have been identified as barriers to the adoption of off-site manufacture. Please rate the affect these have had on your organisation in choosing this form of construction to meet current housing demand, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No affect at all; 3 = Some affect; 5 = Significant affect Poor general image / public perception (due to previous problems) Perceived performance (shorter lifespan) Customer expectation (customers wanting traditional brick finish) Perceived value (property as an investment) Industry culture (reluctant to try new methods) Product awareness (lack of awareness from designers) 4 4 3 2 2 2
2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 2.7.6
2.8
Overcoming previous perception was an issue but designers have not shied away from honestly expressing the building's prefabricated nature. The lifespan and flexibility of the building has been important in choosing modular construction.
17
2.9
575,000
2.10
16 weeks
2.11
60 years
2.12
Good, exceeding sound insulation and energy efficiency standards
2.13
Yes
Section Three This section asks questions about the on-site construction period. S3 3.1 Construction Period What was the actual construction time of the project (in weeks)? This is a difference from the initial budget construction time of: If the project was delayed, what were the reasons for this delay? Slight delay due to groundworks and external works (service sleeves were misplaced and had to be drilled out and repositioned), all modules bolted together within one week. 3.4 3.4.1 Could these delays have been prevented (Yes / No)? If yes, how? Improved co-ordination with, and care taken by, subcontractor responsible for positioning of service sleeves. 3.5 In your opinion, was the on-site construction period shorter or longer than if a traditional form of building had been used? Yes 17 weeks
3.2
1 weeks
3.3
Shorter
3.5.1
Please explain your reasoning for this answer: The project took 14 months shorter to build than traditional construction would have due to prefabrication of units. However, design time is not included in this calculation.
18
3.6
What was the actual cost of the project (i.e. the final account)? This is a difference from the initial budget cost of: What were the reasons for the change in cost from the initial budget? Design work changed from initial plans. More design of service cores was required. Higher risk borne by contractor due to unknown technology.
700,000 125,000
3.7 3.8
3.9
In your opinion, was the actual cost of the project cheaper or more expensive than if a traditional form of building had been used? Please explain your reasoning for this answer: The project was at least 12% lower than tradtional build and 210,000 cheaper than a standard prefabricated solution.
Cheaper
3.9.1
Section Four Post-Construction Period 4.1 4.2 4.3 The cost per m2 (gross) has been calculated at: The cost per m2 (net) has been calculated at: The cost per unit has been calculated at: Client Satisfaction - Product (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the finished building, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the consultants, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the main contractor, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied 1,261.26 1,506.96 87,500
4.4
4.5
4.6
19
4.7
Defects (KPI) How would you rate the condition of the building with respect to defects at the time of handover, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally defective; 3 = Minor defects with major impact on the client; 5 = Some defects with some impact on the client; 8 = Some defects with no significant impact on the client; 10 = Defect-free If there were any defects, please detail what these were: No major defects to report. A recent re-visit by the Architect suggests "the building looks the way it did on completion".
4.7.1
4.7.2 4.7.3
Were these defects resolved efficiently (Yes / No)? If no, why not? N/A
N/A
4.8
Predictability - Cost (KPI) Design Cost What was the estimated cost of design at Commit to Invest (i.e. when the project was originally sanctioned)? What was the final cost of design at Available for Use? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at: Construction Cost What was the estimated cost of construction at Commit to Construct (i.e. the tender sum)? What was the final cost of construction at Available for Use (i.e. the contractor's final account)? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at:
40,000 55,000 38%
4.9 4.10
4.11
655,000
4.12
700,000 7%
4.13
4.14
20 weeks
4.15
26 weeks
4.16
30%
20
4.17
16 weeks
4.18
17 weeks 8% Yes No N/A
4.19 4.20 4.20.1
4.20.2
4.21.1
Would you consider adopting Modular Construction again in the future (Yes / No)? If yes, why? Cheaper, faster construction time and better quality finished product.
Yes
4.21.2
4.21.3
If no, why not? N/A
4.22
How many projects using Modular Construction are in the pipeline? What is the estimated value of these pipeline projects? What key lessons can be learnt from this project and implemented on future projects? There was a higher expectation for a better quality with modular construction. It is best to use those that manufacturered the product to erect it as they have a greater understanding of how it goes together, or alternatively use the same contractor for each project.
3 5,000,000
4.22.1 4.23
4.24
Hyde intends to construct over 100 units per year in addition to other modern methods of construction we employ (such as panellised).
21
Modular Construction Questionnaire This questionnaire forms part of the research for an MSc dissertation in Quantity Surveying at London South Bank University into the adoption and benefits of off site manufacture and specifically, modular construction in the residential sector. All the information supplied will be treated in strict confidence and will not be divulged to other parties other than for the purposes of completing the MSc dissertation for London South Bank University. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire, your input is greatly appreciated. The questionnaire is divided into four sections: 1) Key Facts, 2) Pre-Construction Period, 3) Construction Period and 4) Post-Construction Period. Please place your answers to the following questions in the white boxes below. You should not try to change the answers in the shaded boxes, as these will be generated automatically by the answers which you give to the other questions. Section One This section details general questions about the project. S1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Key Facts What is the project name? In which city is the project located? What is the Gross Internal Floor Area (m2)? What is the Net Internal Floor Area (m2)? The net to gross ratio is calculated at: How many storeys does the building have? How many units are there in the building? Corbet House London 1,150 1,045 91% 3 18
What is the breakdown of accommodation of these units (i.e. 9x 1-bedroom & 9x 2-bedroom number of 1 beds, 2 beds etc)? What is the Net Internal Area of the individual units (m2)? 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom (if applicable) Please identify the market sector for the project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer)
1.9 1.9.1 1.9.2 1.9.3 1.10
Corbet House - Appendix 3
22
1.11 1.11.1 1.11.2 1.11.3 1.12 1.12.1 1.12.2 1.12.3
From N/A N/A N/A
To N/A N/A N/A
From N/A 110 150
To p.w. p.w. p.w.
N/A
2.2
What was the reasoning behind adopting this form of procurement? Previous experience suggested that this was a suitable form of procurement as the design needs to be fully completed before manufacture starts.
2.3
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.4
3 3 5 5 5 5 2
A shorter construction time and a reduced construction period was expected by using modular construction. Previous experience suggested modular construction is a viable option when compared to traditional building methods.
23
2.5
2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 2.6
5 5 2 4 3 3
Wanted a shorter construction period and a better quality finished product than traditional construction would offer. 2.7 The following factors have been identified as barriers to the adoption of off-site manufacture. Please rate the affect these have had on your organisation in choosing this form of construction to meet current housing demand, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No affect at all; 3 = Some affect; 5 = Significant affect Poor general image / public perception (due to previous problems) Perceived performance (shorter lifespan) Customer expectation (customers wanting traditional brick finish) Perceived value (property as an investment) Industry culture (reluctant to try new methods) Product awareness (lack of awareness from designers) 2 3 2 2 1 1
2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 2.7.6
2.8
The effect of the above items was dramatically reduced due to the success of the earlier Barling Court scheme. Also perceived performance of the building was reduced due to 60 year life span and flexibility of modules provided by manufacturer. 2.9 What was the initial budget cost of the project (i.e. the pretender estimate)? What was the initial budget construction time of the project (in weeks)? What is the approximate design life of the building (in years)? 1,375,000
2.10
24 weeks
2.11
60 years
24
2.12
Good, exceeding sound insulation and energy efficiency standards
2.13
Yes
Section Three This section asks questions about the on-site construction period. S3 3.1 Construction Period What was the actual construction time of the project (in weeks)? This is a difference from the initial budget construction time of: If the project was delayed, what were the reasons for this delay? Completed ahead of budget programme due to better coordination with manufacturers / installers because of previous successful project. 3.4 3.4.1 Could these delays have been prevented (Yes / No)? If yes, how? N/A 3.5 In your opinion, was the on-site construction period shorter or longer than if a traditional form of building had been used? N/A 22 weeks
3.2
-2 weeks
3.3
Shorter
3.5.1
Please explain your reasoning for this answer: Due to the pre-fabrication of the modules they can be quickly installed on site. Six modules were assembled on site in just three days.
3.6
What was the actual cost of the project (i.e. the final account)? This is a difference from the initial budget cost of: What were the reasons for the change in cost from the initial budget? Higher risk being borne by contractor of relatively unknown method of construction.
1,450,000 75,000
3.7 3.8
25
3.9
In your opinion, was the actual cost of the project cheaper or more expensive than if a traditional form of building had been used? Please explain your reasoning for this answer: The project equates to 10% cheaper than traditionally constructed housing.
Cheaper
3.9.1
Section Four Post-Construction Period 4.1 4.2 4.3 The cost per m2 (gross) has been calculated at: The cost per m2 (net) has been calculated at: The cost per unit has been calculated at: Client Satisfaction - Product (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the finished building, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the consultants, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the main contractor, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Defects (KPI) How would you rate the condition of the building with respect to defects at the time of handover, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally defective; 3 = Minor defects with major impact on the client; 5 = Some defects with some impact on the client; 8 = Some defects with no significant impact on the client; 10 = Defect-free If there were any defects, please detail what these were: No major defects to report. The building is performing well and as expected. 4.7.2 Were these defects resolved efficiently (Yes / No)? N/A 1,260.87 1,387.36 80,556
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.7.1
26
4.7.3
If no, why not? N/A
4.8
80,000 90,000 13%
4.9 4.10
4.11
1,410,000
4.12
1,450,000 3%
4.13
4.14
26 weeks
4.15
30 weeks
4.16
17%
4.17
22 weeks
4.18
22 weeks 0% Yes Yes Not decision made yet, but site has a shortterm lease of 5 years
4.19 4.20 4.20.1
4.20.2
27
4.21.1
Would you consider adopting Modular Construction again in the future (Yes / No)? If yes, why? Cheaper, faster construction time and better quality finished product.
Yes
4.21.2
4.21.3
If no, why not? N/A
4.22
How many projects using Modular Construction are in the pipeline? What is the estimated value of these pipeline projects? What key lessons can be learnt from this project and implemented on future projects? It is hoped to reduce design times by templating designs but this may be difficult due to site requirements. A better idea should be provided within a couple of years of implenting the idea.
3 7,500,000
4.22.1 4.23
4.24
Hyde is planning to provide around 150 BUMA homes in Britain over the next five years. We are also hoping to supply a further 150 for other housebuilders and Housing Associations.
28
APPENDIX FOUR
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM THE PEABODY TRUST
Modular Construction Questionnaire This questionnaire forms part of the research for an MSc dissertation in Quantity Surveying at London South Bank University into the adoption and benefits of off site manufacture and specifically, modular construction in the residential sector. All the information supplied will be treated in strict confidence and will not be divulged to other parties other than for the purposes of completing the MSc dissertation for London South Bank University. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire, your input is greatly appreciated. The questionnaire is divided into four sections: 1) Key Facts, 2) Pre-Construction Period, 3) Construction Period and 4) Post-Construction Period. Please place your answers to the following questions in the white boxes below. You should not try to change the answers in the shaded boxes, as these will be generated automatically by the answers which you give to the other questions. Section One This section details general questions about the project. S1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Key Facts What is the project name? In which city is the project located? What is the Gross Internal Floor Area (m2)? What is the Net Internal Floor Area (m2)? The net to gross ratio is calculated at: How many storeys does the building have? How many units are there in the building? What is the breakdown of accommodation of these units (i.e. number of 1 beds, 2 beds etc)? What is the Net Internal Area of the individual units (m2)? 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom (if applicable) Please identify the market sector for the project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer) Murray Grove London 2,150 1,894 88% 5 30 16x 1 bed, 14x 2 bed
1.9 1.9.1 1.9.2 1.9.3 1.10
Murray Grove - Appendix 4
29
1.11 1.11.1 1.11.2 1.11.3 1.12 1.12.1 1.12.2 1.12.3
From
To
From 277
To p.w. p.w. p.w.
Section Two This section asks questions about the pre-construction (design) period and looks at the reasons for adopting Modular Construction. S2 2.1 Pre-Construction Period What form of procurement was adopted for this project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer) Traditional Negotaited Design and Build Turnkey Management Contracting Construction Management Prime Cost
2.2
What was the reasoning behind adopting this form of procurement? Frustration at traditional building construction methods. Concerns over build quality, time and confidence in the end product. Wanted a bespoke architectural design that would lift the scheme above the run-of-the-mill standard for MC
2.3
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.4
2 2 5 3 1 2 5
Construction time is halved to 6 months or less compared to traditional construction, improved workmanship to factory standards
30
2.5
2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 2.6
5 5 3 4 2 2
Better quality product achieved through off site manaufacture via better control. 2.7 The following factors have been identified as barriers to the adoption of off-site manufacture. Please rate the affect these have had on your organisation in choosing this form of construction to meet current housing demand, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No affect at all; 3 = Some affect; 5 = Significant affect Poor general image / public perception (due to previous problems) Perceived performance (shorter lifespan) Customer expectation (customers wanting traditional brick finish) Perceived value (property as an investment) Industry culture (reluctant to try new methods) Product awareness (lack of awareness from designers) 5 2 5 3 4 2
2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 2.7.6
2.8
Development was built to a higher specification than for normal social housing to ensure renting would be an attractive option. 2.9 What was the initial budget cost of the project (i.e. the pretender estimate)? What was the initial budget construction time of the project (in weeks)? What is the approximate design life of the building (in years)? 1,984,750
2.10
27 weeks
2.11
50 years
2.12
N/A
2.13
N/A
31
Section Three This section asks questions about the on-site construction period. S3 3.1 Construction Period What was the actual construction time of the project (in weeks)? This is a difference from the initial budget construction time of: If the project was delayed, what were the reasons for this delay? 12 week delay due to the traditionally constructed external steel and cladding works because of delayed start due to steelwork problems. 3.4 3.4.1 Could these delays have been prevented (Yes / No)? If yes, how? Through reduced traditional external and cladding works and better management of steelwork procurement. 3.5 In your opinion, was the on-site construction period shorter or longer than if a traditional form of building had been used? Yes 44 weeks
3.2
17 weeks
3.3
Shorter
3.5.1
Please explain your reasoning for this answer: On site construction reduced by factory production of units construction time halved when compared with traditional construction
3.6
What was the actual cost of the project (i.e. the final account)? This is a difference from the initial budget cost of: What were the reasons for the change in cost from the initial budget? Additional cost due to the fact that it is a pioneering project, and Peabody wanted to demonstrate good design through innovation.
2,335,000 350,250
3.7 3.8
3.9
In your opinion, was the actual cost of the project cheaper or more expensive than if a traditional form of building had been More expensive used?
32
3.9.1
Please explain your reasoning for this answer: The prototype scheme is 20% higher than conventional building costs, but should be largely recouped in the extra six months' rental revenue earned by halving construction time
Section Four Post-Construction Period 4.1 4.2 4.3 The cost per m2 (gross) has been calculated at: The cost per m2 (net) has been calculated at: The cost per unit has been calculated at: Client Satisfaction - Product (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the finished building, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the consultants, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the main contractor, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Defects (KPI) How would you rate the condition of the building with respect to defects at the time of handover, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally defective; 3 = Minor defects with major impact on the client; 5 = Some defects with some impact on the client; 8 = Some defects with no significant impact on the client; 10 = Defect-free 1,086.05 1,232.58 77,833
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
33
4.7.1
If there were any defects, please detail what these were: Initial snagging minimal compared to similar traditionally built schemes. Was carried out from the completion of external works to the agreed handover date with Peabody. Subsequent problems / defects: 1. Faulty lift - the 'magic' eye that sensed people entering and leaving the lift was inadquate. 2. Failure of light bulbs in the stairwell. 3. Bare concrete floors and stair treads stained by lift oil. 4. Poor weathering - stainless steel panels enclosing stair tower caked with dirt, painted steel balustrading is rusting. 5. Poor noise and vibration transmittal vertically between flats. 6. Immersion heaters frequently breaking down
4.7.2 4.7.3
Were these defects resolved efficiently (Yes / No)? If no, why not? N/A
Yes
4.8
500,000 556,000 11%
4.9 4.10
4.11
2,181,300
4.12
2,335,000 7%
4.13
4.14
10 weeks
4.15
7 weeks
4.16
-30%
34
4.17
27 weeks
4.18
4.19 4.20 4.20.1
4.20.2
4.21.1
Would you consider adopting Modular Construction again in the future (Yes / No)? If yes, why? Higher quality construction, reduced construction period.
Yes
4.21.2
4.21.3
If no, why not? N/A
4.22
How many projects using Modular Construction are in the pipeline? What is the estimated value of these pipeline projects? What key lessons can be learnt from this project and implemented on future projects? 1. Construction process could have been improved by maximising prefabrication. 2. External cladding, gallery structure and balconies were built by more tradtional means which caused some delays. 3. Contractual relationships would have nenfited from clarification at an ealier stage. 4. More design time was needed early on and less time needed later in the project. 5. A new form of contractual relationship would be needed to take account of the module manufacturer's key role. 6. Agree partner responsibilities early in the process. 7. Prefabrication should be a process for achieving the desired result, not as a productr in its own right. 8. Snagging was significantly reduced at completion compared to traditional build. 9. Tenants were overally very satisfied, finding it attractive, modern and well equiped. 10. Improvements required in sound and vibration insulation between the flats. 11. D&B procurement resulted in poorly specified components, such as the lift and immersion heaters. 12. Better choice of material for balustrading required.
1 6,000,000
4.22.1 4.23
35
4.24
1. Peabody have recouped differentials in cost over the longterm through incremental savings on more recent off-site manufacturered developments.
36
Modular Construction Questionnaire This questionnaire forms part of the research for an MSc dissertation in Quantity Surveying at London South Bank University into the adoption and benefits of off site manufacture and specifically, modular construction in the residential sector. All the information supplied will be treated in strict confidence and will not be divulged to other parties other than for the purposes of completing the MSc dissertation for London South Bank University. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire, your input is greatly appreciated. The questionnaire is divided into four sections: 1) Key Facts, 2) Pre-Construction Period, 3) Construction Period and 4) Post-Construction Period. Please place your answers to the following questions in the white boxes below. You should not try to change the answers in the shaded boxes, as these will be generated automatically by the answers which you give to the other questions. Section One This section details general questions about the project. S1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Key Facts What is the project name? In which city is the project located? What is the Gross Internal Floor Area (m2)? What is the Net Internal Floor Area (m2)? The net to gross ratio is calculated at: How many storeys does the building have? How many units are there in the building? What is the breakdown of accommodation of these units (i.e. number of 1 beds, 2 beds etc)? What is the Net Internal Area of the individual units (m2)? 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom (if applicable) Please identify the market sector for the project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer) Barons Place London, SE1 510 393 77% 3 6 3x1p1beds, 3x4p2beds
1.9 1.9.1 1.9.2 1.9.3 1.10
52m2 57m2 n/a Private Sale Social Sale Key worker Sale Private Rent Social Rent Key worker Rent
Barons Place - Appendix 4
37
1.11 1.11.1 1.11.2 1.11.3 1.12 1.12.1 1.12.2 1.12.3
From
To
From 82.62 125.08 n/a
To p.w. p.w. p.w.
Section Two This section asks questions about the pre-construction (design) period and looks at the reasons for adopting Modular Construction. S2 2.1 Pre-Construction Period What form of procurement was adopted for this project? (place an 'X' in the box next to your answer) Traditional Design and Build Turnkey Management Contracting Construction Management Prime Cost
2.2
What was the reasoning behind adopting this form of procurement? Cost certainty, control of design and build by contractor required due to prefabrication works
2.3
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.4
1 1 5 5 3 1 5
Pioneering development, objective to demonstrate modular approach for small units for keyworkers of high quality and with low construction period.
38
2.5
2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5 2.5.6 2.5.7 2.6
5 5 3 1 1 1
Better quality environment for construction workers therefore higher quality product 2.7 The following factors have been identified as barriers to the adoption of off-site manufacture. Please rate the affect these have had on your organisation in choosing this form of construction to meet current housing demand, using a scale of 1 to 5, where: 1 = No affect at all; 3 = Some affect; 5 = Significant affect Poor general image / public perception (due to previous problems) Perceived performance (shorter lifespan) Customer expectation (customers wanting traditional brick finish) Perceived value (property as an investment) Industry culture (reluctant to try new methods) Product awareness (lack of awareness from designers) 5 3 5 3 5 1
2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 2.7.6
2.8
2.9
660,000
2.10
26 weeks
2.11
60 years
2.12
N/A
2.13
N/A
39
Section Three This section asks questions about the on-site construction period. S3 3.1 Construction Period What was the actual construction time of the project (in weeks)? This is a difference from the initial budget construction time of: If the project was delayed, what were the reasons for this delay? Time delay in discharging planning conditions, additional works required due to showcase scheme 3.4 3.4.1 Could these delays have been prevented (Yes / No)? If yes, how? If longer lead in time given and showcase items identified at earlier stage 3.5 In your opinion, was the on-site construction period shorter or longer than if a traditional form of building had been used? Yes 30 weeks
3.2
4 weeks
3.3
Shorter
3.5.1
Please explain your reasoning for this answer: On site construction reduced by factory production of units
3.6
What was the actual cost of the project (i.e. the final account)? This is a difference from the initial budget cost of: What were the reasons for the change in cost from the initial budget? Increase in cost - at start on site was 750,000. Also further increases due to showcase scheme requirements
835,182 175,182
3.7 3.8
3.9
In your opinion, was the actual cost of the project cheaper or more expensive than if a traditional form of building had been More expensive used? Please explain your reasoning for this answer: Due to prototype nature of development and desire to have high quality of finish, also two flats used as showflats with higher spec internal finishes.
3.9.1
Section Four
Barons Place - Appendix 4 40
Post-Construction Period 4.1 4.2 4.3 The cost per m2 (gross) has been calculated at: The cost per m2 (net) has been calculated at: The cost per unit has been calculated at: Client Satisfaction - Product (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the finished building, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the consultants, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Client Satisfaction - Service (KPI) As a client, how satisfied were you with the level of service given by the main contractor, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally dissatisfied; 5 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; 10 = Totally satisfied Defects (KPI) How would you rate the condition of the building with respect to defects at the time of handover, using a scale of 1 to 10, where: 1 = Totally defective; 3 = Minor defects with major impact on the client; 5 = Some defects with some impact on the client; 8 = Some defects with no significant impact on the client; 10 = Defect-free If there were any defects, please detail what these were: Minor issues only, very few defects 4.7.2 4.7.3 Were these defects resolved efficiently (Yes / No)? If no, why not? Yes 1,637.61 2,125.15 139,197
4.4
4.5
10
4.6
10
4.7
4.7.1
4.8
Predictability - Cost (KPI) Design Cost What was the estimated cost of design at Commit to Invest (i.e. when the project was originally sanctioned)? What was the final cost of design at Available for Use? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at: 835,182 #REF!
41
4.9 4.10
4.11
Construction Cost What was the estimated cost of construction at Commit to Construct (i.e. the tender sum)? What was the final cost of construction at Available for Use (i.e. the contractor's final account)? The Performance Percentage has been calculated at:
750,000
4.12
835,182 11%
4.13
4.14
not available
4.15
not available
4.16
#VALUE!
4.17
26 weeks
4.18
4.19 4.20 4.20.1
4.20.2
4.21.1
Would you consider adopting Modular Construction again in the future (Yes / No)? If yes, why? If viability is suitable, results in higher quality and quicker construction time.
Yes
4.21.2
4.21.3
If no, why not? N/A
4.22
None N/A
4.22.1
42
4.23
What key lessons can be learnt from this project and implemented on future projects? 1. Early involvement of the contractor for MMC schemes well before planning permission is sought is vital. This also provides more accurate cost forecasting; 2. Planning issues are of great importance for MMC schemes with short construction times, particularly clearance of planning conditions. It is vital to make use of senior contracts within planning departments, and try to avoid need for planning amendments; 3. All changes to the design need to be agreed well in advance of start on site to avoid delays and cost escalation, particularly on MMC schemes with short on site periods; 4. Importance of involving Residents Services at an early stage to avoid changes to design when on site; 5. Note no benefit gained from pre-fixing cladding as modules are watertight; 6. Good team working is required where funding conditions require evidence of spend before releasing tranche payments, to ensure drawdowns hit deadlines. It was useful to have an administrator to monitor process and keep accurate files 7. Early integration of marketing team from start of construction was vital to ensure smooth marketing process, particularly with short on site period and therefore shorter marketing period; 8. Recommendation to minimise number of changeovers of scheme within Development team at Peabody; 9. Project team working proved very effective for this scheme; 10. Use of separate front door and bedroom / bathroom facilities has been useful for Key Worker accommodation let to shift workers.
4.24
43
APPENDIX FIVE
VARIABLES AFFECTING BCIS ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION TIME
APPENDIX SIX
VARIABLES AFFECTING BCIS AVERAGE PRICES

2007 Clayton

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2007 Clayton

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

OFF SITE MANUFACTURE AND MODULAR CONSTRUCTION THE FUTURE OF HOUSE BUILDING?

submitted by William Clayton

for the MSc in Quantity Surveying

at London South Bank University

Faculty of Engineering, Science and Built Environment

Department of Property, Surveying and Construction

Ben Kennedy Marketing Project Manager, Urban Splash

Gordon Callaway Group Policy Manager, Hyde Housing Association

Susan May Principal Development Manager, The Peabody Trust.

Keith Tweedy Senior Lecturer, London South Bank University

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Contents

List of Tables and Figures

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Contents

Applications for Future Use Chapter Appraisal

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Contents

Page 5.8 Chapter Appraisal 62

Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Contents

William Clayton (No. 2402164) List of Tables and Figures

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Comparison of Construction Cost and Programme for the Moho development

Variables affecting the BCIS Estimated Construction Time

Variables affecting the BCIS Mean Construction Cost

Figures Figure 1 Off-site Manufacture and its related techniques 21

Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2

Hyde Housing Associations Corbet House Development

Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5

Figure 6.2.1 Figure 6.2.2 Figure 6.2.3 Figure 6.2.4

William Clayton (No. 2402164) List of Tables and Figures

Figure 6.3.1 Figure 6.3.2 Figure 6.3.3

Figure 6.3.4 Figure 6.3.5

Figure 6.4.1 Figure 6.4.2 Figure 6.4.3

Figure 6.4.5 Figure 6.4.6

Figure 6.5.1 Figure 6.5.2 Figure 6.5.3

William Clayton (No. 2402164) List of Tables and Figures

Figure 6.6.1 Figure 6.6.2

Figure 6.6.4 Figure 6.6.5

Figure 7.2.1 Figure 7.2.2

Comparison of Construction Programme for all projects

Comparison of Construction Costs for all projects

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Abstract

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 1 Introduction

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 1 Introduction

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 1 Introduction

The study has four key objectives, namely:

What specific techniques of off-site manufacture do the organisations use?

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 1 Introduction

Is off-site manufacture the future of house building?

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 1 Introduction

Assess questionnaire responses

Conduct questionnaire research

Devise research methodology

Conduct interview research

Assess interview transcripts

Analyse all data and formulate case studies

Conclusions and recommendations

Collate summary of key findings

Conduct benchmarking and KPIs

THE FUTURE IS MODULAR ?

William Clayton (No. 2402164) Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Off-site manufacture A History in Construction

Chapter 4 Successful Projects Using Off-site Manufacture

Chapter 5 Research Design and Methodology

Chapter 6 Data Analysis and Results Detailed Analysis