Construction Management and Economics

ISSN: 0144-6193 (Print) 1466-433X (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rcme20

Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of

offsite modern methods of construction

Wei Pan, Alistair G. F. Gibb & Andrew R. J. Dainty

To cite this article: Wei Pan, Alistair G. F. Gibb & Andrew R. J. Dainty (2007) Perspectives
of UK housebuilders on the use of offsite modern methods of construction, Construction
Management and Economics, 25:2, 183-194, DOI: 10.1080/01446190600827058

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190600827058

Published online: 28 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13606

View related articles

Citing articles: 68 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcme20
Construction Management and Economics (February 2007) 25, 183–194

Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of offsite

modern methods of construction
WEI PAN*, ALISTAIR G. F. GIBB and ANDREW R. J. DAINTY
Civil and Building Engineering Department, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK

Received 20 December 2005; accepted 23 May 2006

Despite an increasing demand for housing and wider concerns over the need to improve performance, the
industry seems to be reluctant to adopt offsite technologies. Many studies have attempted to scrutinize the
barriers and seek ways forward, but the perspectives of housebuilders remain unclear. UK housebuilders’ views
on the use of offsite modern methods of construction (offsite MMC) have been investigated. This investigation
was carried out through a combination of personal interviews and a questionnaire survey of the top 100
housebuilders by unit completion. Results suggest that the traditional drivers of time, cost, quality and
productivity are still driving the industry in deciding whether to use offsite technologies. Nearly two-thirds of
the firms believed that there needs to be an increase in the take-up of such technologies. However, current
barriers relate to a perceived higher capital cost, complex interfacing, long lead-in time and delayed planning
process. Strategies recommended are centred on changing peoples’ perceptions, improving procurement,
providing better cost data, tackling planning and regulations, encouraging political levers and providing
practical guidance. The suggestions present a model for encouraging the take-up of offsite MMC in the future.

Keywords: Construction methods, housebuilding, offsite production, strategy

Introduction seeking alternative ways to deliver housing in produc-

tivity and quality.
Since the 1960s the number of UK housing comple- The Barker Review (2003) suggested that offsite
tions has been on a downward trend, but, at the same technologies could both improve the quality of con-
time, there has been a significant rise in the number of struction and address skills constraints in the industry.
households (ODPM, 2005a). The number of house- Modern methods of construction (MMC) is the term
holds is forecast to increase by 3.8 million between used by the UK government to describe a number of
1996 and 2021, equivalent to around 150,000 each innovations in housebuilding, most of which are offsite
year (DETR, 2000). Recent statistics even show that technologies, moving work from the construction site to
there will be 39,000 more new households formed in the factory (Gibb, 1999). Offsite technologies offer
the UK each year than was previously thought, up from potential for reductions in cost, time, defects, health
the estimate of 150,000, which was based on 1996 and safety risks and environmental impact and a
statistics (Barker, 2003; ODPM, 2005a). Given the consequent increase in predictability, whole life per-
demand for housing in the UK, concerns abound as to formance and profits (e.g. Sparksman et al., 1999;
the whether traditional methods are able to meet Gibb, 1999; Housing Forum, 2002; Parry et al., 2003;
housing demand and quality standards (Housing Venables et al., 2004; Buildoffsite, 2005). However,
Forum, 2002; Barker, 2003; ODPM, 2003). Barker both the nature and the scale of innovation in the UK
warned that the under-supply of housing is constrain- housebuilding industry are very conservative in com-
ing economic growth and prosperity. The housebuild- parison with other countries (Hooper, 1998).
ing industry is therefore facing great challenges in ‘Traditional’ UK housebuilding technologies comprise
brick/concrete block cavity wall methods. Most tradi-
tional low-rise, individual houses in the UK are built
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: w.pan@lboro.ac.uk using brick/concrete block walls with timber or precast
Construction Management and Economics
ISSN 0144-6193 print/ISSN 1466-433X online # 2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/01446190600827058
184 Pan et al.

floors and timber truss roofs. Traditional medium-rise reasons of speed, even though cost savings were
apartment blocks tend to be considered with steel or in expected from using MMC and some reported that
situ concrete frames and in situ brick cladding. The projects would cost more than if traditionally built
industry has been shown to be slow to adopt innovative (ibid.). Furthermore, other research (BRE
building technologies (Ball, 1999; Barlow, 1999; Certification, 2005), has identified increasing concerns
Roskrow, 2004). Concerns with housing built by from the financial market and insurance industry over
MMC exist in a wide range of industry players the use of offsite technologies in housing.
(POST, 2003). A recent Buildoffsite survey (Goodier Several government-backed studies have explored
and Gibb, 2005) identifies that the proportion of the enablers and barriers of offsite innovation from a wider
UK offsite market, when compared with the total value range of stakeholders’ perspectives. The Housing
of the UK construction sector, is 2.1%. Forum (2001) examined the barriers to innovation
The limited take-up of offsite technologies has that clients, contractors, housebuilders and developers,
triggered many industry and research initiatives consultants and suppliers are confronting on a daily
attempting to scrutinize the barriers and seek ways basis in their organizations’ working relationships and
forward in housing supply. However, even though the on site. The study provided recommendations around
perspectives of housebuilders on the use of such aspects of culture, design and construction, and the
technologies have been studied, they remain unclear. regulatory environment and called for efforts from the
This paper aims to investigate the perspectives of whole supply chain. The Housing Forum (2002) took a
housebuilders on the use of offsite technologies. It more detailed look at the use of offsite technologies and
probes housebuilders’ views on the current and future presented the related implications to a wide range of
developments of offsite MMC, explores the driving stakeholders including housebuilders and developers,
forces and the inhibiting factors, and discusses their offsite fabricators, suppliers, surveyors, lenders,
recommendations for a wider take-up of offsite MMC insurers and purchasers. However, although these
in the future. initiatives have provided the industry context of offsite
applications, in-depth investigations of housebuilders
are still needed.
Venables et al. (2004), drawing on the results of
Industry perspectives on the use of offsite
interviews with 27 key players in both manufacturing
MMC and housing development, suggested that the uptake of
offsite manufacture is partly influenced by the percep-
Following the reports of Latham (1994) and Egan tions of developers with regard to its advantages and
(1998), many studies have attempted to investigate disadvantages, which are themselves influenced by their
industry perspectives on the use of offsite technologies. business models and processes, and partly by wider
Edge et al. (2002) found that house buyers are so market and regulatory factors. Ross (2000) surveyed
strongly influenced by negative perceptions of the post- around 200 social housing organizations and 100
war ‘prefab’ that they will resist any innovations in builders/developers and also suggested that various
house construction that affect what a ‘traditional’ house policy and market drivers were leading to an increase in
looks like. The human perception barrier, grounded in offsite manufacturing of dwellings. All these results are
the historical failure of offsite practices, also exists reflected in a recent cross-industry offsite market survey
among architects and other designers (Pan et al., 2004). (Goodier and Gibb, 2004) which states that the use of
This, coupled with technical difficulties (e.g. site offsite technologies brings benefits centred on shorter
specifics, logistics, interfacing problems), high costs onsite duration and increased quality, but real or
(where economies of scale are not possible) and the perceived additional cost compared to traditional
fragmented structure of the supply chain inhibits methods by clients and their advisers and long lead-in
designers’ acceptance of offsite technologies (ibid.). time act as the main barriers to use.
Within the social housing sector, Palmer et al. (2003) The preceding review of studies into the use of offsite
suggested that architects, contractors/producers, devel- technologies in housing has revealed a range of barriers
opers, maintenance and implementers had a significant to its take-up and various solutions. However, this
impact on the success of innovative modern manufac- extant body of work has not explored the perspectives
tured housing schemes due to their contribution to the of housebuilders per se. It is significant to contribute
development process and their role in the decision- knowledge on the part of housebuilders with regard to
making process. However, recent research suggests that the use of offsite MMC given that the large firms
there was no clear evidence of a relationship between account for the vast majority of housing developments
design quality and the use of MMC (Lusby-Taylor and hence, are key to the wider take-up of offsite MMC
et al., 2004). The majority of schemes used MMC for in the future. This research has explored how the
Offsite construction in housebuilding 185

benefits of such technologies could be harnessed to According to UK government statistics, the number of
bring about change and improvement in housing housing unit completions in 2001/02 (UK) was
supply. The present paper reports on a survey of the 175,000, out of which private housebuilders contrib-
top 100 housebuilders which explores the large firms’ uted 153,500 (or 87% of the total). Based on statistics
views and recommendations in this regard. provided by the Private Housebuilding Annual 2003
(Wellings, 2003), the top 100 housebuilders contrib-
uted 113,882 (65%) to the total amount by the
Methodology industry. Thus, on this basis, the companies agreeing
to take part in the research together accounted for more
The survey of the top 100 housebuilders in the UK by than 30% of the total housing unit completions in
volume (Wellings, 2003) was carried out through a 2004/5. All of the interviews were carried out with
combination of face-to-face and telephone interviews senior managers with responsibility for company policy
and a postal questionnaire survey. This approach decisions on whether to use offsite MMC within their
yielded an overall response rate of 36% (Table 1). developments.

Table 1 Details of responding housebuilders

Housebuilders Unit completions Turnover (£m) Interview Questionnaire survey
A1 13480 2062 !
A2 6238 1184 !
A3 6044 773 ! !
A4 4164 827 ! !
A5 3812 560 ! !
A6 2691 461 ! !
A7 1901 224 ! !
A8 1854 456 ! !
A9 1387 203 !
A10* 1307 231 ! !
B1 1085 233 ! !
B2 1075 102 !
B3 877 145.6 !
B4 775 82.4 ! !
B5* 694 88.7 ! !
B6 621 82.7 ! !
B7 582 39.5 !
B8 504 101.6 !
B9 478 51.3 !
C1 445 46.5 !
C2 331 42.4 !
C3 257 24.7 !
C4 240 64.7 !
C5 204 23.2 !
C6 174 24.7 !
C7 173 17.6 !
C8 150 50.3 !
C9 150 18.8 !
C10 150 51.1 !
C11 149 24.9 !
C12 124 12.1 !
Total of respondent firms 52,116 + 8308.8 + 11 36
The industry as a whole 175,600
Percentage 30% +
Source: Wellings (2003).
Notes: (1) ‘A’ stands for housebuilders from the group of top 20; ‘B’ from top 21–40; and ‘C’ from top 41–100. (2) The housebuilders with * have
been acquired by others. (3) ‘+’ means that some respondent firms are anonymous and thus their details are not included in this table.
186 Pan et al.

An initial survey instrument was developed through a Housebuilders’ satisfaction with construction
comprehensive literature review of the studies which methods
had investigated the use of offsite MMC in the past
The housebuilders’ satisfaction with the use of both
(e.g. Venables et al., 2004; Goodier and Gibb, 2004;
offsite MMC and traditional construction methods is
Lusby-Taylor et al., 2004; Edge et al., 2002). The
provided in Figure 1. Results show that the house-
instrument comprised a mix of qualitative and quanti-
builders surveyed are generally satisfied with their own,
tative questions with a methodical use of Likert scales
in-house, traditional construction methods (82% satis-
(see Oppenheim, 1992) as well as other close-ended
fied/very satisfied). They are also fairly satisfied with
questions. Section 1 aimed to provide overall views of
the performance of the overall industry in traditional
housebuilders on offsite MMC applications. Section 2
building (59% satisfied/very satisfied). However, a
sought to identify the drivers and barriers and their
significant number of these top housebuilders are not
importance or significance. Section 3 diagnosed the top
satisfied with the performance of offsite MMC, both
100 housebuilders’ recommendations for the industry
within their own organizations (31%) and in the overall
to increase the take-up of off site MMC. The
industry (47%). There is also a large number of
instrument was refined through discussions with lead-
respondents that had a neutral view on this question
ing researchers and industrial contacts. The interviews
(41% and 44%). These somewhat disappointing figures
lasted between one and two hours and significantly add
are discussed later in this paper.
rich data to the questionnaire survey of the firms. The
data collected were analysed using a combination of
Microsoft Excel and QSR NVivo. The trend in the take-up of offsite MMC
applications
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the housebuilders indicated
Results that the industry needs to increase the take-up of offsite
MMC applications, 21% were not sure and only 15%
The findings of the survey are presented under head- believed that no increase was necessary. The larger
ings derived from the research instrument. While the housebuilders were generally more favourable to
sample size precludes the use of sophisticated statistical increasing the take-up. Kitchens and bathrooms were
techniques, it does enable a broad picture of house- seen as the best opportunity for growth in offsite
builders’ views on the current use of offsite MMC, and solutions (44%), with external walls (41%), timber
recommendations for an increased take-up of offsite frame structures (37%) and roofs (33%) also featuring
MMC in the future, to be discerned through descrip- strongly. However, the housebuilders did not generally
tive statistics. see great potential for complete modular buildings. The

Figure 1 Housebuilders’ satisfaction with the use of both offsite MMC and traditional construction methods
Offsite construction in housebuilding 187

Figure 2 Most important drivers for using offsite MMC in the industry

analysis of comments revealed that housebuilders (43%) (Figure 2). Reducing health and safety risks,
assessed the potential for offsite MMC applications sustainability issues, government promotion, comply-
against a wide range of factors including technical ing with building regulations, restricted site specifics
requirements, cost, time, site integration, customers’ were also highlighted, but less frequently (less than
choices, sales, mortgage issues and site-specific con- 15%).
siderations. Comparison of responses from the largest
and smaller firms showed that external walls and roofs
Barriers against the use of offsite MMC
are more prospected by the largest firms, while there is
no substantial difference of preferences over the other Respondents were asked to choose three most sig-
building elements. nificant barriers from a list derived from previous
research. Figure 3 shows the frequency of responses
expressed as a percentage of the sample. The significant
Drivers for using offsite MMC
barriers against the use of offsite MMC in the industry
Respondents were asked to choose three most were considered to be higher capital cost (68%),
important drivers from a list derived from previous difficult to achieve economies of scale (43%), complex
research. Figure 2 shows the frequency of responses interfacing between systems (29%), unable to freeze
expressed as a percentage of the sample. For the use the design early on (29%) and the nature of the UK
of offsite MMC in the industry the most impor- planning system (25%) (Figure 3). The risk-averse
tant drivers were considered to be in addressing culture, attitudinal barriers, fragmented industry struc-
traditional construction skills shortages (61%), ensur- ture, manufacturing capacity were suggested, but by a
ing time and cost certainty (54%), achieving high lower percentage of housebuilders (less than 15%). The
quality (50%) and then minimising onsite duration concerns of mortgage lenders and insurers with
188 Pan et al.

Figure 3 Most significant barriers against the use of offsite MMC in the industry

non-traditional buildings were also raised by a few more transparent competitive costing are required.
respondents. Many housebuilders indicated that the use of offsite
MMC appears more applicable for particular building
types and/or house elements. Guidance on the deci-
Recommendations for increasing the take-up of
sion-making process and practical applications should
offsite MMC in the industry
help increase the take-up of offsite MMC.
The respondents’ ideas for promoting the take-up of The responses revealed that the slow process of
offsite MMC in the industry were explored via open obtaining planning permission and changing building
questions from which a few recommendations were regulations are inhibiting the use of offsite MMC. It
derived. The responses indicated that there exists was claimed that many of the potential benefits from
significant prejudice against the take-up of offsite the use of offsite MMC were not realized due to the
MMC among housebuilders and in the wider context delayed planning process. Planning needs to be more
of housing supply. Smaller housebuilders were even flexible and changing building regulations must be
more reluctant than larger organizations. Peoples’ acknowledged. A significant number of respondents
perceptions should be challenged. suggested that the government should subsidize the use
Many housebuilders said that partnering has not of offsite MMC to make them cost effective.
been fully understood by the industry. Cooperation Strategies for implementing the recommendations
between housebuilders and manufacturers and suppli- were also provided by the responding firms. Both the
ers was weak in many cases. Improving procurement is recommendations and strategies are given in Table 2.
key to achieving long-term success. Perceived higher Improving skills and addressing concerns of the
capital cost was identified as the most significant barrier financial market and insurance industry were also
against the use of offsite MMC. Better cost data and raised but no detailed information was provided.
Offsite construction in housebuilding 189

Table 2 Housebuilders’ recommendations and implementation strategies

Recommendations Implementation strategies

Changing peoples’ perceptions N Test and demonstrate that offsite MMC can deliver as good or better
performance than traditional methods
N Provide a UK central site with practical offsite MMC examples
N Develop a consistent and objective approach to the use of offsite techniques
among institutes
Improving procurement N Form Strategic Partnering Alliances (SPA)
N Integrate manufacturers and suppliers in the project decision-making
process as early as possible
N Improve cooperation between all parties
Providing better cost data N Provide better cost data to facilitate more competitive costing
N Embrace the approach ‘value for money’ rather than ‘lowest first cost focus’
N Increase design standardization and address the issue of economies of scale
Tackling planning and building regulations N Make the planning system more flexible and market responsive
N Establish dialogues between housebuilders and local authorities
N Housebuilders should keep compliance with enhanced building regulations
N Designers should not sacrifice design flexibility when specifying the use of
offsite MMC
Encouraging political levers N It was suggested that the government award tax deductions for projects
involving the use of offsite MMC to permit the cost of the ‘learning
curve’ in housebuilding organizations to be recovered
N It was suggested that the supply of more traditional building choices should
be reasonably restricted to provide a more favourable context for the use
of offsite MMC
Providing guidance on the use of offsite MMC N Provide guidance on project decision-making process
N Provide guidance on the site integration of offsite MMC

Most of the responding firms argued that the imple- Furthermore, because most of the respondents had
mentation of the strategies requires commitments from actually made very little use of offsite techniques
the whole supply chain covering housebuilders, themselves, their answers may be biased by external
designers, manufacturers and suppliers, institutions influences and perspectives. There is also evidence of a
and the government. critical lack of knowledge on the use and benefits of
offsite MMC. This may also support the view that
construction companies are typically risk averse and do
Discussion not include many innovators or early-adopters (Moore,
2002; Rogers, 2003), preferring to allow others to take
Survey results revealed that housebuilders are substan- the risk of developing new products before they adopt
tially more satisfied with the application of traditional them for themselves.
construction methods than of offsite MMC. These Other than housebuilders, the end market has shown
figures illustrate the inertia within major housebuilders little interest in how housing is built. Research found
against the uptake of offsite MMC. Also, housebuilders that location and price are the two main determinants
appear to be much less satisfied with current offsite of which house to buy. Size and appearance are
MMC performance in their own industry than other important, but design-based issues, such as layout,
sectors, for example building services as shown by a and technological considerations, such as maintenance,
recent BSRIA study (Parry et al., 2003) with around construction, insulation, etc. are of more marginal
72% satisfaction. Some may argue that housebuilders importance (Edge et al., 2002). Within the context of
are hard to please, but this finding does not necessarily the current critical shortage of housing supply, it can be
suggest housebuilders do not believe that there are argued that the measurement of attitudes should focus
considerable potential benefits from using offsite on the large housebuilders who account for the vast
MMC. Instead, the current low level of satisfaction majority of housing completions and thus are determi-
with offsite MMC application may be largely attribu- nant in increasing the take-up of offsite technologies.
table to the low level of application of such technologies Regarding the trend in the take-up of offsite MMC,
(Pan et al., 2006) with builders, not surprisingly, being this paper has shown that nearly two-thirds of the
supportive of their preferred work methods. housebuilders believe that the industry needs to
190 Pan et al.

increase the take-up of such technologies, which technologies. Factors such as health and safety,
reflects the findings of some recent studies. Hooper sustainability and clients’ influences appear to be of
and Nicol (2000) also identified that many large more marginal importance. For the barriers, Goodier
housebuilders believed that significant technological and Gibb (2004) similarly concluded that the belief
change would impact upon the industry in the future. that offsite is more expensive when compared with
Goodier and Gibb (2004) found that nearly three- traditional construction is clearly the main barrier to its
quarters of the suppliers surveyed thought that the increased use. The longer lead-in time was also
take-up of offsite techniques by industry was increasing identified as a significant barrier, particularly from a
in their sector. Parry et al. (2003) predicted a growth in contractor’s perspective. This mirrors the findings in
the offsite fabrication market of 9.7% per annum (by Venables et al. (2004) which suggested long lead-in
value) up to 2010. AMA (2002) indicated that the time as the most significant disadvantage, followed by
market value of prefabricated buildings at manufac- matching tolerances to onsite work, public and industry
turers’ selling price will grow at an average rate 8% per perception and cost.
year between 2001 and 2006. From 2004, the Housing Housebuilders’ recommendations identified in this
Corporation started to require a quarter of new houses paper for increasing the take-up of offsite MMC in the
it funds to be built using MMC, equivalent to industry generally corroborate the suggestions existing
approximately 5,000 homes per year, or 3% of new in the literature. The suggestion of changing peoples’
UK housing (POST, 2003). Despite some inconsis- perceptions reflects the work of Ross (2000) and the
tency in the actual figures, all these sources show a Housing Forum (2002), which suggested that commit-
promising prospect of using offsite MMC in the ment was required from the whole supply chain. The
housebuilding sector. This should all be viewed in the current Barker Recommendation 33 study (Barker 33
context of the UK industry body, Buildoffsite’s aspira- Cross Industry Group, 2006) also asserts that gathering
tional 10-fold growth in offsite across all construction together all the stakeholders is vital to realize the
sectors by 2020 (Buildoffsite, 2005). However, it is successful introduction of a process like MMC.
interesting to note, according to the responses, that the Discussions with the housebuilders suggested a wide
increase potential largely exists within the areas of range of stakeholders who have interest and influence
kitchens and bathrooms, external walls, timber frame on the use of offsite MMC either directly or indirectly.
structures and roofs. Some highly documented offsite These stakeholders identified were clustered using a
techniques such as complete modular building were not value tree method into four groups at the generic level
identified for growth. which were further broken down into industry and
The results on drivers and barriers support a number organizational levels (Figure 4). The model maps out,
of recent studies. Time and quality drivers identified in from housebuilders’ points of view, the internal and
this paper have also been highlighted in the studies of external stakeholders, targeting the end market, within
Gibb and Isack (2003), Goodier and Gibb (2004), the statutory and regulatory framework. The many
Venables et al. (2004) and Parry et al. (2003). In terms stakeholders must be fully recognized and engaged for
of the driver of ensuring cost certainty, Lusby-Taylor the benefits of offsite MMC to be realized.
et al. (2004) believed that costs should be less volatile Stakeholder analysis (Newcombe, 2003) and stake-
than in traditional construction although it is unlikely at holder mapping (Johnson et al., 2005) have been
present that costs will be reduced by the use of MMC. regarded as important means to identify stakeholders’
However, they also suggested that cost uncertainty on interests and influences in project delivery. The same
volumetric and closed panel systems is inhibiting approach could be applied to practices involving offsite
designers from exploring the full potential of these production. Considering the requirement of early
systems. The driver of addressing skills shortages has integration of manufacturers and suppliers and long
been recognized (ODPM, 2003; Barker, 2003). lead-in time for the use of offsite MMC, an ideal
However, a skilled workforce is still needed for offsite stakeholder model should also include timescale.
technologies and better, broader training and career However, establishing which stakeholders should be
encouragement must be taken on board (Goodier and involved at each stage of the process would require
Gibb, 2004; Venables et al., 2004; Clarke, 2002; further research.
Palmer et al., 2003). These arguments explain that The suggestion of improving procurement has also
the issue of skills shortages, particularly factory-based been proposed by Venables et al. (2004) and Goodier
skills, was also indicated as a significant barrier by a and Gibb (2004). Effective ways of bringing specialist
number of housebuilders. Taken together, the findings knowledge holders into the design process at an earlier
of all of these studies suggest that the traditional drivers stage should be established (ibid.; Palmer et al., 2003).
of time, cost, quality and productivity are still However, the strong reliance on subcontracting in UK
encouraging the industry to make more use offsite construction projects (Clarke and Herrmann, 2004;
Offsite construction in housebuilding 191

Figure 4 Model of housebuilding stakeholders from the perspective of housebuilders

Dainty et al., 2001) creates problems for using (2004) and Venables et al. (2004). Moreover, this
innovative building techniques (Ball, 1996). survey also suggests that more transparent, comparative
Housebuilders’ comments reflect the observation in costing methods should be applied to housing to be
Hong-Minh et al. (2001) that current housing supply built by offsite MMC. The use of elemental cost
chains are fragmented and underpinned by poor analysis by considering the building elements in
communication, adversarial relationships and a lack of isolation is unlikely to deliver a balanced cost compar-
trust and commitment. Partnering has been promoted ison but rather cause neglect of many other benefits in
to address the fragmented supply chain. However, the the construction process (Gibb, 2001). It has also been
perceptions of housebuilders, coupled with the high argued that, given the fact that many manufacturers
demand for housing, limited supply and the lack of and suppliers seek the maximum price that the market
product competition are inhibiting the progress will sustain, the tender prices quoted may not reflect
towards partnering and greater customer focus (Naim the actual costs. This hinders sensible comparisons
and Barlow, 2003). Relationships are still characterized with conventional construction (ibid.). Furthermore,
by a cost-driven agenda (Wood and Ellis, 2005). A supposed economies of scale from the factory produc-
‘leagile’ approach (combining ‘lean’ and ‘agile’ produc- tion are actually rarely realized since the manufacturers
tion; see Naim and Barlow, 2003) to housebuilding have to wait on orders via the general contractors
has been proposed to achieve both the minimization (Groak, 1992). The findings on cost associated with the
of resources requirements through the elimination of literature show that there is considerable scope for work
waste in the supply chain and the maximization of on providing better cost data using balanced transpar-
customer service at an acceptable cost. Hong-Minh ent comparative costing methods.
et al. (2001) suggested housebuilding companies should The recommendations targeting the government and
change the ‘mindset’, to become process-orientated government agencies on planning, support the current
and to improve communication and learning. It is clear movements towards a more flexible and market-
from all this work that improving procurement is key to responsive planning system (DETR, 2000; ODPM,
the long-term success of the industry. 2003; Barker, 2004; ODPM, 2005b). However,
As to the cost of offsite MMC, housebuilders research in the 2005 Housing Market Intelligence
believed that this was a major cause in preventing the report (see Housebuilder, 2005) reveals that the
industry from a greater take-up of such technologies. government’s movements have not led to an improve-
The same suggestion was made by Goodier and Gibb ment in the planning process. Planning authorities are
192 Pan et al.

now far quicker to process applications. This demands influences appear to be of more marginal importance.
that developers resubmit projects that have been Nearly two-thirds of the housebuilders believed that
rejected for planning permission rather than enter there needs to be an increase in the take-up of offsite
negotiations. This approach is shortening decision technologies in the housing sector. However, current
times on which authorities are targeted but there is barriers to the offsite utilization relate to a perceived
little evidence to suggest that it is reducing the time higher capital cost, the difficulty in achieving econo-
taken to get applications through the planning process mies of scale, complex interfacing between systems, the
(ibid.). The strategy of local authority gearing is also inability to freeze the design early on and the nature of
seen in Barlow et al. (2002) which suggested reforming the UK planning system. Strategies recommended for
planning practices within local authorities. encouraging the utilization of offsite technologies
The survey reveals a critical shortage of knowledge on centred on changing peoples’ perceptions, improving
the decision-making process and site integration of procurement, providing better cost data, tackling
offsite MMC in the housebuilding sector. Most of the planning and regulations, encouraging political levers
studies reviewed lack justified statistical analysis and and providing guidance on the decision-making process
exploration of the management and decision-making and site integration of offsite MMC.
processes associated with the use of offsite construction. The findings of this study have emphasized the
This finding supports the argument by Roy et al. (2005) importance of engaging all the industry players in
that there is a lack of standards, and of mechanisms for delivering housing supply in both quantity and quality.
process review or sharing knowledge and good practice This paper has provided to the construction community
which result in significant process variability on site. a framework of strategies for encouraging the take-up of
Nevertheless, a few toolkits exist which use offsite offsite technologies in the housing sector. All the
technologies within the context of general construction. strategies are interrelated and require commitments from
However, further work is needed to transfer this knowl- government and the industry but changing peoples’
edge for use in housebuilding. There are also various perceptions is fundamental. The paper is limited to
toolkits, systems and patents developed by firms and investigating housebuilders’ perspectives using the ques-
tionnaire survey and personal interviews. This left the
individuals relating to the use of innovative building
wider organizational context of the companies less
technologies but are not publicly accessible due to
explored. The practices of housebuilders in their
business reasons. A thorough review of these toolkits,
ethnographical context are addressed in a parallel paper.
patents and systems should help disseminate industry’s
Future research will explore the implementation of the
knowledge of the use of offsite technologies.
strategies provided. Particular attention will be paid to
All the suggestions provided by the housebuilders
investigating the decision-making process on the use of
can be seen as being mutually supportive. Together,
offsite technologies and transferring knowledge to house-
they present a framework of strategies for the industry
building from the general construction.
to increase the take-up of offsite MMC. Improving
procurement, providing better cost and providing
guidance should function as the means, tackling
planning and encouraging political levers being the References
guarantee, and changing peoples’ perceptions serves as
AMA (2002) The UK Prefabricated Buildings Market Report
a premise for implementing all the strategies.
2002, AMA Research, Cheltenham.
Ball, M. (1996) Housing and Construction: A Troubled
Relationship?, The Policy Press, Bristol.
Conclusions and future research Ball, M. (1999) Chasing a snail: innovation and house-
building firm’s strategies. Housing Studies, 14(1), 9–22.
There is a case for the use of offsite technologies in Barker 33 Cross Industry Group (2006) Modern Methods of
addressing the current housing under-supply and Construction (MMC) for the Provision of Housing: Barker 33
improving performance. Against the backdrop of Review: Recommendations, Barker 33 Cross Industry Group,
limited take-up in offsite technologies however, this London.
paper has reviewed housebuilders’ perspectives of the Barker, K. (2003) Review of Housing Supply: Securing our
Future Housing Needs, Interim Report: Analysis, HMSO,
industry’s use of offsite MMC through a survey of the
London.
top 100 firms. The study has suggested that the Barker, K. (2004) Review of Housing Supply: Final Report—
traditional drivers of time, cost, quality and productiv- Recommendations, HMSO, London.
ity are still strong influencers for the industry in Barlow, J. (1999) From craft production to mass customisa-
deciding whether to use offsite technologies. Factors tion: innovation requirements for the UK housebuilding
such as health and safety, sustainability and clients’ industry. Housing Studies, 14(1), 23–42.
Offsite construction in housebuilding 193

Barlow, J., Bartlett, K., Whitehead, C. and Hooper, A.J. Housing Forum (2001) Enemies of Promise, Housing Forum,
(2002) Land for Housing: Current Practice and Future London.
Options, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York. Housing Forum (2002) Homing in on Excellence:
BRE Certification (2005) Standard for Innovative Methods of A Commentary on the Use of Offsite Fabrication Methods
Dwelling Construction LPS 2020:2005, Issue: Version 3, BRE for the UK Housebuilding Industry, Housing Forum,
Certification, Watford. London.
Buildoffsite (2005) Buildoffsite: Promoting Construction Offsite, Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2005)
available at www.buildoffsite.com (accessed 20 December Exploring Corporate Strategy, 7th edn, Pearson Education
2005). Ltd, Harlow.
Clarke, L. (2002) Standardisation and Skills: A Transnational Latham, M. (1994) Constructing the Team. Final report of the
Study of Skills, Education and Training for Prefabrication in Government/Industry Review of Procurement and Contractual
Housing, University of Westminster Business School, London. Arrangements in the UK Construction Industry, HMSO, London.
Clarke, L. and Herrmann, G. (2004) Cost vs. production: Lusby-Taylor, P., Morrison, S., Ainger, C. and Ogden, R.
disparities in social housing construction in Britain and (2004) Design and Modern Methods of Construction,
Germany. Construction Management and Economics, 22(5), Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
521–32. (CABE), London.
Dainty, A.R.J., Briscoe, G.H. and Millett, S.J. (2001) Moore, G.A. (2002) Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling
Subcontractor perspectives on supply chain alliances. High-tech Products to Mainstream Customers, Revised edn,
Construction Management and Economics, 19(8), 841–8. HarperCollins Publishers, New York.
DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Naim, M. and Barlow, J. (2003) An innovative supply chain
Regions) (2000) Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for strategy for customised housing. Construction Management
All—The Housing Green Paper, DETR, London. and Economics, 21(6), 593–602.
Edge, M., Craig, A., Laing, R., Abbott, L., Hargreaves, A., Newcombe, R. (2003) From client to project stakeholders: a
Scott, J. and Scott, S. (2002) Overcoming Client and Market stakeholder mapping approach. Construction Management
Resistance to Prefabrication and Standardisation in Housing, and Economics, 21(8), 841–8.
Research report of DTI/EPSRC Link programme, Meeting ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2003)
Clients’ Needs through Standardisation (MCNS 04/09), Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, ODPM,
Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. London.
Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction: The Report of the ODPM (2005a) Sustainable Communities: Homes for All,
Construction Task Force, DETR, London. ODPM, London.
Gibb, A.G.F. (1999) Offsite Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre- ODPM (2005b) Planning for Housing Provision: Consultation
assembly and Modularisation, Whittles Publishing, Caithness. Paper, ODPM, London.
Gibb, A.G.F. (2001) Standardisation and pre-assembly— Oppenheim, A.N. (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing
distinguishing myth from reality using case study research. and Attitude Measurement, Continuum, London.
Construction Management and Economics, 19(3), 307–15. Palmer, S., Jones, K., Coffey, M. and Blundell, C. (2003)
Gibb, A.G.F. and Isack, F. (2003) Re-engineering through Innovation in Construction: Maintenance and the Egan
pre-assembly: client expectations and drivers. Building Agenda, The Palmer Partnership, Dartford.
Research & Information, 31(2), 146–60. Pan, W., Dainty, A.R.J. and Gibb, A.G.F. (2004)
Goodier, C. and Gibb, A. (2004) Barriers and Opportunities for Encouraging appropriate use of offsite production (OSP):
Offsite Production, prOSPa, Loughborough University, perspectives of designers, in Wu, X. et al. (eds) Sus-
Loughborough. tainability and Innovation in Construction and Real Estate,
Goodier, C. and Gibb, A. (2005) The Value of the UK Market The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong,
for Offsite, Buildoffsite, London, available at www.buildoff- pp. 125–36.
site.com (accessed 20 December 2005). Pan, W., Gibb, A.F.G. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2006) The
Groak, S. (1992) The Idea of Building: Thought and Action in utilisation of offsite modern methods of construction by
the Design and Production of Buildings, E & FN Spon, leading housebuilders. Building Research and Information,
London. (forthcoming).
Hong-Minh, S.M., Barker, R. and Naim, M.M. (2001) Parry, T., Howlett, C. and Samuelsson-Brown, G. (2003) Off
Identifying supply chain solutions in the UK house building Site Fabrication: UK Attitudes and Potential, BSRIA, Report
sector. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply 17356/1, Bracknell.
Management, 7, 49–59. POST (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology)
Hooper, A.J. (1998) Standardisation, innovation and the (2003) Modern Methods of Housing Building, Postnote
housebuilding industry, in Harlow, P. (ed.) Construction Number 209, POST, London.
Papers, 95, CIOB, Ascot, pp. 3–8. Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn, The
Hooper, A.J. and Nicol, C. (2000) Design practice and Free Press, New York.
volume production in speculative housebuilding. Roskrow, B. (2004) Design and deliver. Housebuilder,
Construction Management and Economics, 18(3), 295–310. September, 18–20.
Housebuilder (2005) ODPM planning targets lead to ‘reject Ross, K. (2000) DETR Construction Directorate Project Report:
and resubmit’ cycle. Housebuilders, September, p. 3. Advanced offsite production of steel/timber building systems:
194 Pan et al.

Report on Market Survey, Project Report Number 80-680 Venables, T., Barlow, J. and Gann, D. (2004) Manufacturing
(unpublished), BRE, Gaston, Watford. Excellence: UK Capacity in Offsite Manufacturing, Housing
Roy, R., Low, M. and Waller, J. (2005) Documentation, Forum, London.
standardisation and improvement of the construction Wellings, F. (2003) Private Housebuilding Annual 2003,
process in house building. Construction Management and Builder Group, London.
Economics, 23(1), 57–67. Wood, G.D. and Ellis, R.C.T. (2005) Main contractor
Sparksman, G., Groak, S., Gibb, A. and Neale, R. (1999) experiences of partnering relationships on UK construc-
Standardisation and Pre-assembly: Adding Value to tion projects. Construction Management and Economics,
Construction Projects, CIRIA, London. 23(3), 317–25.