A year after Mark Farmer called for more offsite manufacture to solve some of the industry’s problems, here’s what CM’s reader panel makes of progress.
Joshua Waterman, senior project manager, Turner & Townsend
Clients are considering using offsite manufacturing more, introducing DfMA strategies, a change in attitude primarily being driven by cost saving opportunities being presented as value engineering opportunities. Particularly, bathroom pods are seen as an opportunity to cut disruption to other construction works and reduce wet trades on site.
The standard of the units is reducing the onsite snagging process. Manufactured service risers are seen as an opportunity to accelerate service installations on site.
To drive offsite manufacturing further, the supply chain needs to widen, particularly in regards to service risers, which is a very narrow market. Clients are put off because of the lack of competitive tendering opportunities and a fear of being driven down the route of a particular product or supplier.
Second, architects and design teams need to come to the table up front with the opportunities DfMA can offer, again this will help to widen the supply chain further.
Mark Coates, head of sales, Construct Project Management
The change needs to take place with clients, as they are able to drive changes down the supply chain. We are working with companies such as Urban Splash, and their primary goals are: greater product flexibility and customer choice in the housing market; higher quality products; and more efficient programme.
All of these goals should be achievable through offsite manufacturing when volume kicks in, which will make project delivery cheaper and more cost-effective than traditional construction. But these goals cannot be achieved through a site build that is open to the elements.
Dr Kenneth Sungho Park, senior lecturer in construction management, Massey University, New Zealand
There has been an increase in use of precast panels and slabs for low-rise construction, but generally in New Zealand, people still perceive offsite manufacturing negatively, seeing it as cheap and temporary. The productivity of both construction generally and the offsite manufacturing sector specifically is low.
There are four key issues inhibiting offsite manufacturing’s uptake: broad misconceptions; clients; innovation adoption; and awareness. We need to challenge misconceptions and use technical training to encourage more uptake.
Brian Impey, director, Acorn Multi Academy Trust
I do not perceive that there has been any recent increase in offsite manufacturing. Construction is a very conservative industry, and contractors are not known to be great innovators.
Outside housebuilding, I do not see them getting into the business of manufacturing construction solutions; they will wait for their supply chain to take that initiative. The pace of change will continue to be barely perceptible until someone works out how to disrupt the market properly.
Peter Egan, director, EGStructures
Over the last 12 months, increases in offsite manufacturing seems to be limited to the self build market and restricted city sites. A lesson needs to be learnt in mass home building from our post-war predecessors.
Today’s houses are plagued with quality issues, a need for speedy builds, and suffer from low skilled tradesmen. I would love to see an improvement in trade skills and offsite manufacturing is the key to addressing these issues.
Christine Gausden, senior lecturer, Faculty of Architecture, Computing & Humanities, University of Greenwich
The increased use of offsite manufacturing is visibly apparent in London – however, there is a danger it is perceived as the “saviour” of the construction industry, as is the case with BIM. Around 80% of existing buildings will still need to be in active use in 2050 and beyond, so we need to address the asset lifecycle.
John Adams, director, BIM Strategy
We are seeing a shift towards offsite manufacturing on projects, as well as significant interest in the training needed to support the delivery. I don’t believe the Farmer report instigated this, but it was certainly a forceful statement which focussed those in the upper echelons of our industry to consider the benefits of offsite manufacturing.
The way we procure buildings is a major stumbling block to adoption of offsite manufacturing as those with expertise aren’t involved early enough to identify suitable projects. Early contractor involvement, integrated project insurance, and greater focus on quality at tender stage will encourager greater uptake.
Also, I think the change in the terminology we are starting to see, like calling offsite manufacturing ‘precision engineering’ suggests an evolution in quality which will build a lot of trust. I grew up in a Wimpey “no-fines” house in Merseyside, and one of the external walls nearly fell off. So when looking at offsite techniques as an architect, I want to be convinced I’m getting a more precise product, not just an equal one built elsewhere.
Comments
Comments are closed.
I feel that the phrase offsite manufacturing is being misunderstood and this is having a detriment to the industry. As a Quantity Surveyor it is always an option on the table at the design and tendering stages, there are plenty of examples now of buildings, pods or alternative construction methods that will provide a long-lasting and better quality product than traditional forms of building. Housebuilding is seeing a huge increase in the development of housing solutions with offsite manufacture providing efficient and cost-effective products. The green, energy efficient standards such as PassivHaus are easier to incorporate into a factory built product which drives the running costs down. These methods are now being transferred to the likes of school extensions, offices etc. Offsite provides a real alternative to traditional builds and as technology moves on, so does the quality of the product. I have said it before and I will say it every time, it just needs to be considered along with traditional methods when assessing a project, the benefits will be obvious for all to see.
A couple of things:
1 – is there sufficient time during a tender programme to consider and agree with a Client that a modular approach is an acceptable approach to a conventional build?
2 – given the “Procurement Rules” which most large scale tenders operate through, is there the opportunity to even discuss the alternative approach with a Client Team – especially when the Client may be quite naive and not understand how his project may benefit from modularisation? If the Client Team is led by an Architect who is not in favour of a modular approach, even though it may have distinct benefits over a conventional approach, how is the message to be conveyed?