Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Cross-phase product configurator for modular buildings using kit-of-parts

Jianpeng Cao a, *, David F. Bucher a, Daniel M. Hall a, Jerker Lessing b
a
Institute of Construction and Infrastructure Management, ETH Zurich, Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, Zurich 8093, Switzerland
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One emerging strategy in industrialized construction is the use of mass customization to increase product effi­
Configurators ciency without sacrificing design flexibility. Effective implementation of mass customization can be done
Kit-of-parts through a product platform, i.e. a configurator. However, existing configurators often lack integration of
Mass customization
knowledge from the downstream supply chain such as manufacturing. This paper proposes a conceptual
Three-tier architecture
framework for a configurator unified through a manufacturing kit-of-parts. Kit-of-parts are pre-engineered and
pre-designed digital models representing fabrication-ready components. Using production rules and restraints,
accurate planning and design representations can be derived and utilized in the configurator. This research
develops a configurator prototype using three-tier architecture. The prototype supports a low-to-high level of
detail of kit-of-parts. It integrates product platforms and project development across multiple building phases
including site planning, floor plan layout, and 3D model generation. Finally, the implementation of a modular
building configurator illustrates the benefits of the proposed configurator-based workflow.

1. Introduction
There is an increasing global demand for new buildings. At the same
time, the construction industry faces challenges of increasing construc­
tion costs, decreasing labor supply, and long development cycles. In
response, entrepreneurs and innovators in the construction industry are
exploring the use of industrialized construction. For example, in the
United States, industrialized construction firms raised over $1 billion of
investment capital in 2018 [1,2]. Industrialized construction uses pro­
duction processes borrowed from the manufacturing industry [3].
Industrialized construction follows a design-manufacturing-assembly
approach to deliver new buildings comprised of prefabricated compo­
nents. These components can range from structural elements to volu­
metric modules. This modular approach can meet the requirements of
many building types, ranging from residential, multi-family dwellings,
educational, and high rise [4]. New industrialized construction firms
claim to offer more competitive pricing, expedited project schedules,
and increased product quality.
However, despite some success stories [1], there remains a steep
learning curve for designers and planners at the early stages of indus­
trialized construction projects. Scholars note that industrialized con­
struction requires earlier consideration and integration of fabrication
during the design and planning of the project [5–8]. Attempts to
“modularize” a completed design that was originally intended for insitu
fabrication can require changes and rework to designs when received by
fabricators [6,7], communication inefficiency between different domain
designers [5], and material waste during production [8]. Furthermore,
traditional architecture design has held stereotypical views of modular
and volumetric buildings as dull, repetitive and unreliable. New indus­
trialized construction firms have taken care to avoid the negative
aesthetic perception of “modular”, “box-like”, or “cookie-cutter” archi­
tecture. These perceptions can prevent stakeholders such as architects
from entering the market due to limitations to design flexibility.
In response, industrialized construction firms are turning to the
strategy of mass customization. Mass customization is a manufacturing
paradigm that enables design flexibility in a mass production environ­
ment [9]. Mass customization emerges from the need to provide
customized products at the same prices, quality, and time as mass-
produced products. Hence standardization is one of the prerequisites
of mass customization, and prefabrication would support mass cus­
tomization in the construction industry [10]. Effective implementation
of mass customization would enable design flexibility that aligns with
both customers’ preference and manufacturers’ capabilities.
One emerging technology to support mass customization in indus­
trialized construction is the development and use of product config­
urators [11]. Product configurators were first initiated in the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cao@ibi.baug.ethz.ch (J. Cao), bucher@ibi.baug.ethz.ch (D.F. Bucher), hall@ibi.baug.ethz.ch (D.M. Hall), jlessing@stanford.edu (J. Lessing).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103437
Received 3 February 2020; Received in revised form 8 September 2020; Accepted 21 September 2020
Available online 5 January 2021
0926-5805/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Cao et al.
manufacturing industry, and now are widely applied in many domains
such as electronics, automobile, and aerospace. A configurator eases the
creation of complex systems by assembling a set of components – often
referred to as a kit-of-parts - from a wide range of alternatives to meet
the end-users’ needs and requirements. In this sense, the users of the
configurators in the manufacturing industry are the customers. Config­
urators support customers in making rational decisions between various
design alternatives offered by the company [12]. In addition, config­
urators support the translation of customer specifications into product
documentation such as a Bill-of-Materials (BOM) [13].
Kit-of-parts in the construction industry are “a collection of discrete
building components that are pre-engineered and designed to be
assembled in a variety of ways to define a finished building [14]”. Since
the kit-of-parts are modeled digitally to represent the actual components
in production, it provides access to transfer rules and constraints, from
the manufacturing to earlier planning and design activities. Such an
approach can enable designers to generate and evaluate a variety of
building layouts while retaining confidence that the final design can be
effectively manufactured and assembled using industrialized processes.
However, the application of configurators in construction is limited
and immature. Although Building Information Model (BIM) can support
the collaborative process among different stakeholders - including
planners, architects, engineers and contractors, previous research on
BIM-based platforms mainly focus on the model coordination [15],
visualization [16] and simulation [17,18]. Few studies give attention to
the possibilities of developing a product platform based on BIM contents
[19]. Most of the projects are built from scratch in the BIM environment.
They do not benefit from a well-established kit-of-parts used and refined
by previous projects. Furthermore, automated approaches often termed
“generative design” typically focus on generation and optimization
during a single project phase (e.g. generate the site layout, generate the
floor plan layout). Unlike product configurators, those studies generally
miss opportunities to link across project phases. Typically, generative
design approaches do not embed downstream manufacturing con­
straints into the upstream design requirements [20]. They cannot span
from site layout to floor plan layout to 3D model generation to fabri­
cation operations.
To fill this gap, a BIM-based product platform (i.e. a configurator) is
needed to streamline the information flow between different stake­
holders and support the optimal decision making [21]. This paper pro­
poses a kit-of-part-based configurator that can support integrated
design-to-production workflows in the setting of industrialized con­
struction. To do this, we first review academic research and existing
commercial software applications to understand the current state-of-art
for configurators in construction. From this, we develop three strategic
typologies of configurators developed and implemented for industrial­
ized construction. We further identify the limitation of existing inte­
gration strategies. In this regard, we describe the conceptual framework
of configurators and how configuration process is implemented. Spe­
cifically, we explain the concept of kit-of-parts in details and how it
supports the design for manufacturing. Then, we adopt three-tier ar­
chitecture to develop a configurator prototype for module-based
industrialized buildings. The paper gives a detailed description of the
configurator implementation, followed by an illustrative example of a
modular construction project to provide a discussion of the config­
urator’s effectiveness. The paper concludes with limitations and sug­
gested directions for future research.
2. Literature review
2.1. Configurators for mass customization
In the late 1980s, due to increased demand for product variety, the
manufacturing industry transitioned from mass production to mass
customization [22]. Mass customization is a widely adopted business
strategy that identifies and fulfills customer needs without sacrificing
2
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
efficiency, effectiveness and low costs. Mass customization maintains
the main advantage of mass production, i.e. economies of scale. In
addition, mass customization is enriched and complemented by theories
of modularization, product family architecture, and reconfigurable
manufacturing systems [23]. To achieve mass customization, config­
urators are essential information and communication technology (ICT)
to provide product variety.
Product configurators have various definitions from manufacturing
literature. Meyer and Lehnerd (1997) defined a configurator as “a
platform that contains a set of common components, modules, or parts
(e.g. the kit-of-parts) from which a stream of derivative products can be
efficiently developed and launched” [24]. Haug (2007) describes a
configurator as “an expert system that supports the user in the creation
of product specifications by restricting how different components and
properties may be combined” [25]. Bourke (2000) defines a configurator
as “a piece of software with logic capabilities to create, maintain, and
use electronic product models that allow the definition of all possible
product options and variation combinations, with a minimum of data
entries” [26]. Three main characteristics of configurators can be
generalized from the above definitions: reusability due to kit-of-parts,
intelligence driven by embedded expert knowledge, and high automa­
tion realized by off-the-shelf technologies, such as Application Pro­
gramming Interface (API). In this paper, a configurator is defined as a
decision support system that automates the combination of kit-of-parts
into efficient modules for production under predefined rules [27]
while enabling rapid generation of product variety to meet the desired
product features for the customer.
Configurators are able to support a various degree of mass custom­
ization. According to customer order specification decoupling points,
Hvam illustrates four product development processes that can map to
four levels of mass customization [28]. Similar classification schema is
given by C. Forza, who categorizes the mass customization based on
what scope of customers’ needs are incorporated into the product
development. “Engineer to order” process is adopted by companies
which design and produce complex products. At this level, only norms
and standards are embedded within the configurators. Customers’ needs
are considered from the design process onwards [29]. “Modify to order”
process is less complex. Products are designed based on predefined
generic product structures and set of rules. In this way, customers’ needs
are satisfied by a base design and certain variants what influence the
fabrication activities. “Configure to Order” process generates a product
via standard parts and modules. These usually can be reused from past
previous products. In this case, customer requirements are met by
assembling parts and modules. “Select variant” process is the most
restricted process. Customer needs are fulfilled by selecting products
from finished product catalogs and various delivery approaches.
Determined by product specification processes, configurators enable
different levels of freedom for the product design. With the delaying of
the customer order decoupling points (CODP), the design flexibility
becomes more limited.
Furthermore, there are three implementation paths offered by con­
figurators [30]. They are 1) selecting scalable modules and module in­
terfaces for Configure to Order products, 2) editing design parameters
for Modify to Order products, 3) define design and manufacturing rules
for Engineer to Order products. Wikberg et al. developed a configuration
platform for Select variant products [31]. The platform enables selecting
Table 1
Implementation paths available to configurator users under various CODP
scenarios.
CODP Implementation path
Engineer to Order Define design and manufacturing rules
Modify to Order Edit design parameters
Configure to Order Select scalable modules and module interfaces
Select Variant Select off-the-shelf products
J. Cao et al.
off-the-shelf products. Table 1 presents the relationship between
customer order decoupling points (CODP) of configurators and typical
implementation paths.
2.2. Configurators in construction projects
In the construction industry, buildings are one typical type of prod­
uct. Unlike products in the manufacturing industry, buildings combine
both product-level information and project-level information [32]. The
product-level information includes prefabricated modules’ design di­
mensions, engineering attributes, and factory production processes. The
project-level information is typically ad-hoc, including site planning,
site properties, site-built elements, and on-site activities. Thus, a con­
figurator suitable for the construction industry should support both
product-level and project-level information management. For example,
the firm Project Frog developed a configurator for timber panelized
structures, shown in Fig. 1. The Project Frog configurator is built upon a
library of panel products (i.e. product-level information) coupled with
rules from local building regulations (i.e. project-level information) [2].
2.3. Three typologies of construction configurators
To understand the current development and application of config­
urators in the construction industry, this paper begins with a review and
summary of configurator prototypes from scholars and applications in
industry. We first identify academic configurator prototypes through a
literature review. Because the term “configurator” is not widely adopted
in AEC literature, the literature search includes other key terms such as
platform and design system. The literature is then narrowed to only
include configurators for construction, with a specific focus on indus­
trialized construction (otherwise referred to as prefabrication, pre­
assembly, modularization, and/or off-site fabrication). Specific IT tools
developed in line with the definition of configurators given above are
included in the review.
The survey of commercial applications for configurators is done
using four steps. Firstly, we explore the industry executive summary on
technology and innovation [33] which lists top IT tools applied in the
construction industry. Secondly, as configurators are emerging tech­
nology, we conduct a survey on the AEC startups website,1 and set the
tag as “Generative” and “Design Automation” which are major features
of configurators. Thirdly, same as for the academic literature, we narrow
the list to include only configurators for construction, with a specific
focus on industrialized construction. Finally, we analyze the trial or
demo version of these existing commercial configurators. Table 2 lists
the studied commercial applications.
After identification of configurators for construction, an analysis is
conducted across five dimensions:
1) Who are the main users of the proposed configurator? (who?)
2) When are configurators used in a project? (when?)
3) How is configuration performed / what are the key activities? (how?)
4) What are the typical targeted products suitable for each typology?
(what targets?)
5) What are the expected outputs generated by configurators? (what
outputs?)
From this process, we identify three distinct typologies of existing
construction configurators (see Fig. 2). For a more detailed description
of data selection and analysis process underlying this review, please
refer to Cao and Hall (2019) [34].
Typology 1 represents configurators for project development support
the project planning phase. Examples of this type of configurators on the
market are SpaceMaker and Archistar. Typically, this stage involves
1
(https://www.aecstartups.com/#/).
3
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
stakeholders from real estate, architecture, site planning, and future
building owners (i.e. the customer). Engineers, contractors and fabri­
cators typically do not participate in this step of the process. The tar­
geted products could be a conceptual building model created by
architectural firms for early planning. The major objective of applying
the configurators is to generate diverse development plans, such as site
plans, building profiles, and floor plans. These development plans are
evaluated by decision-makers in order to make a final selection. Plan
representations only require graphic illustrations with low-level of
detail, such as simple geometries and wireframes. Compared with a
traditional design strategy, the reviewed literature claims two advan­
tages brought by type 1 configurators. First, real estate developers allow
customers to interactively design their desired houses by offering
available selections. For example, Veloso et al. developed a design
customization system, which navigates the customers through the pro­
cess of planning their desired apartment, selecting from available
apartment types and floor plans [35]. Second, intelligent algorithms can
identify more feasible or advantageous plans using embedded configu­
ration rules. For instance, the configurator, created by Bianconi et al.,
can guide architects to select the fittest configurations of single-family
houses considering multi-performance criteria, including cost, energy
consumption, and aesthetic expression [36].
Typology 2 represents configurators supporting the project design
phase. This is the most widely applied situation for configurator appli­
cations in the market. In this scenario, architects, engineers, and
sometimes fabricators are involved and collaborate on configurators.
The targeted products could be a detailed building model configured
with predefined modules, such as timber panels. The major difference
between typology 1 and 2 lays in the generated outputs. For typology 2
configurators, the low-level detail web plans are converted to BIM
models in authorized design applications. These BIM models represent
the starting point upon which designers and engineers could make
further development, such as engineering analysis. For example, the
Project Frog web-based configurator allows users to send the validated
design solutions to Autodesk Revit, and generate the 3D model via Dy­
namo scripting. However, the connection between the web environment
and desktop applications is poorly realized. Previous researchers
pointed out some relevant obstacles, such as data loss and corruption
[15] and cross-platform model visualization [37]. Except for technical
aspects [38], organizational requirements on platform development also
need further studies [39].
Typology 3 is less studied and achieved then the other two typol­
ogies. It represents configurators that support construction projects at
project production phase. In this context, the typical products can be
buildings planned, designed, produced and assembled by a vertically
integrated firm, such as the business model used by Katerra and BokLok
[2]. Related research work has been done in the design for
manufacturing and assembly (DfMA) domain. Engineers and fabricators
usually adopt DfMA principles in the early design stage before the
manufacturing process. For example, to achieve mass customization,
Said et al. presented a design optimization model to manage the trade-
off between geometry commonality and a variety of panels [40]. Yuan
et al. integrate manufacturing and assembly constraints in the design
phase by adopting a DfMA parametric design [5]. The outputs of the
configurators include 3D building information models, along with
related data and documentation such as G-codes for NC machines,
permit drawings, and bill of materials (BOMs) [41], among which
drawing generation received the highest attention. For example, Deng
et al. proposed a framework to generate fabrication drawings from 3D
façade models by SolidWorks APIs [42].
The three configurator typologies focus on planning, design and
production separately. This separation enables greater flexibility for the
first two typologies. However, users of the first two typologies are not
given evaluation on the manufacturability of their decisions. It remains
difficult to implement industrialized construction solutions using these
configurators.
J. Cao et al.
Fig. 1. Project Frog configurator for timber-panelized buildings.
Table 2
Commercial configurators.
Commercial configurators URL of websites Creation year
Hypar https://hypar.io/ 2019
PRISM https://www.prism-app.io/ 2019
SpaceMaker https://spacemaker.ai/ 2019
Archistar https://archistar.ai/ 2018
Testfit https://blog.testfit.io/ 2017
Project Frog http://myprojectfrog.com/ 2016
An increasing number of industrial configurators are trying to offer
an integrated approach that combines across typologies. For example,
the Hypar, Testfit and PRISM configurators integrate across the planning
and design process seamlessly. Project Frog configurator is able to pro­
vide design and fabrication deliverables together. With the application
of such integrated configurators, the reuse of process and technical so­
lutions and the formation of a stable supply chain could be facilitated
[43]. In comparison to configurators that fit within a single typology, an
integrated configurator enables a longitudinal continuity that enables
stakeholders to maintain a common environment to control the project
data. However, few studies explore the appropriate theoretical founda­
tion for supporting the integration of single-phase configurators.
2.4. Theoretical foundation for integrated configurators
The integration across phases requires knowledge transferred up­
stream from engineering, production and assembly processes to design
and planning processes. Previous research is to collect knowledge from
experienced professionals and encode it into rules. However, one of the
major shortcomings is that the rule sets are often too large and
complicated in terms of a number of parameters involved in the design
process [44]. To reduce the complexity caused by large volumes of pa­
rameters, modularity theory is used to define a set of components with
the specialized interface as base units. Jaganathan et al. proposed a
design-manufacturing integrated model with the core task of decom­
position. The concept of decomposition is to yield a set of building el­
ements matched with manufacturing requirements [45]. However, this
top-down approach requires mapping design features with
manufacturing parts, then checking against the requirements with extra
efforts. If any requirement is not satisfied, the decomposition operation
loops back, and related design needs to be revised.
Another approach makes use of abundant available manufacturing
parts and assemblies, developed based on modularization theory, to
assemble a product, namely bottom-up approach. Mortensen et al. used
4
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
Product Variant Master (PVM) to map product variants in product
families from customer, engineering and production point of view
[46,47]. Ramaji et al. proposed a Product Architecture Model (PAM) to
integrate the hierarchy and relationships among components of modular
buildings [48]. Two strategies share some similarities. First, the overall
product architecture uses a hierarchical determination for sub-
assemblies and parts. In addition, the components and related attri­
butes are categorized based on the level of details in PAM and model
views in PVM. Compared with PAM, PVM is more competitive in
capturing the product variations. However, PVM is not effective to
handle information transmission across multi-phases. This gap in the
knowledge is aimed to fill with a configurator framework based on kit-
of-parts and configuration rules described below. Kit-of-parts maintain a
single source of truth with different model views. The proposed frame­
work describe below can be used to configure a product from planning to
manufacturing without data loss.
3. A proposed conceptual framework for configurators
Conceptually, a construction configurator contains two pillars. They
are the kit-of-parts product structure and the configuration rule engine
(shown in Fig. 3). The kit-of-parts product structure are designed to
provide a) reusability for a series of building products [50]; b) flexibility
for a variety of design solutions (configurations); and c) integration with
processes metadata [6]. Typical kit-of-parts are linear components (e.g.
prefabricated beams), planar components (e.g. panels), and/or volu­
metric components (e.g. modules [14]).
Configuration rules specify how the kit-of-parts and their properties
can be defined to meet a given requirement from users. We propose four
types of configuration rules: composition, compatibility, dependency
and cardinality [51]. Composition rules define which kit-of-parts are
mandatory or optional in the product architecture. The product archi­
tecture can be built as a tree structure. A kit-of-parts can be either a root
node, an intermediate node or a leaf node. Once a non-leaf kit-of-parts is
selected, the direct child kit-of-parts can be automatically added to the
product. Compatibility rules define which kit-of-parts cannot exist
simultaneously in the product. If a kit-of-part with a compatibility rule is
selected, the system will exclude certain kit-of-parts from the option
lists. Dependency rules define which kit-of-parts must belong together in
a product. If a kit-of-part with a dependency rule is selected, the system
will add its mated parts to the product. Cardinality rules define the
required or limited number of kit-of-parts under certain circumstances.
The product structure can only represent the existence of a kit-of-parts.
A kit-of-part with a cardinality rule need to be assigned the quantity
occurring in the product and checked against its validity.
J. Cao et al. Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437

Fig. 2. Three typologies of configurators.

Fig. 3. The structure of product configuration model in the manufacturing industry (adapted from [49]).

5
J. Cao et al. Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437

During the process of configuration, the typical user inputs can Table 3
include the project information (e.g. location), market demand (e.g. the Planning parts and design parts of volumetric modules.
number of different types of suites), and technical requirements (e.g. Composition Metadata in Metadata in kit-of-
structural stability factors). The appropriate kit-of-parts are then conventional parts parts
selected by performing inference based on the configuration rules and Planning Volumetric Module shape, size Module shape, size
these user inputs. part modules and dimension and dimension
From a technical perspective, the configuration process is a Module combination Module combination
sequential decision-making process. Previous research has studied layout layout
Module weight
sequence order definition in order to solve specific configuration tasks Permissible size
[52]. Furthermore, there are various approaches to the design of the variations
sequential decision-making process. For example, the configuration Interior arrangement
process of a façade system follows the design development process, from Thermal performance
Accurate cost
the building structure, panels to support systems [53]. In the automotive
Design Load bearing Material properties Material properties
manufacturing industry, the configuration process is ordered from the part side walls
product type, the product family, the product models, and feature Non-load Part shape, size and Part shape, size and
families and variants [54]. The optimal sequential decision-making bearing walls dimension dimension
process to order the configuration process for buildings is an impor­ Floors Connection types Connection types
Ceilings Thermal performance Thermal performance
tant research topic but remains outside the scope of this study. Beams and posts Permissible opening
In this research, the sequential decision-making process is adapted variations
from the product development sector. For mass-customization, the Bracings Part connection details
product development sector often conducts a survey on product features Openings Fabrication deviations
MEP systems Accurate cost
and assigns product features sequentially [31]. This feature assignment
is done by kit-of-parts selection and their attributes selection. Upon
selecting a kit-of-parts or attributes, the configurator activates the MEP system variations, with the aim to incorporate them within
attached rules to validate the current product structure. If satisfied, the different design stages. We first explain the variations in detail, and then
sequence proceeds to the next state. The process consists of a sequence of illustrate how those variations could be mapped to the configuration
product states representing selected kit-of-parts and associated config­ process stated in Section 3.
uration rules. At each state, a constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) is
solved. The process will terminate when all product features are deter­
mined. This enables a series of diverse configurations. Such configura­ 4.1. Size variations
tion replaces the traditional point-by-point based design with a set-
based design [55]. It can allow the project team to maximize flexi­ The size of a module refers to its height, width and length. In
bility and efficiency. traditional design workflow, the size of the module is determined by the
architects to fit spatial requirements. However, this ideology might
4. Development of kit-of-parts library generate too many diverse sizes of modules, which cause a heavy burden
on production efficiency. Kit-of-parts used in industrialized construction
From the product composition perspective, the kit-of-parts can be is reusable for multiple projects with similar site conditions. However,
composed of individual parts or a pre-designated assembly consisting of the fixed-size might lead to the limited application of the multifunc­
other components [56]. Considering kit-of-parts contain the entire life- tional module. For example, a patient room module has different size
cycle product information, a simplified representation of kit-of-parts is requirement compared to a residential room module. In this sense, it is
required during the planning and design stages, namely planning kit-of- worthy to inform kit-of-part designers that the permissible size varia­
parts and design kit-of-parts. Both can be derived from their tions based on rules generalized from downstream activities. Typical
manufacturing counterparts and maintain consistency with each other. rule sets dominating the size of modules include building system
In other words, if a manufacturing part is updated, the related planning selected and transport restrictions. For example, standard dimensions of
part and design part will change correspondingly. Planning kit-of-part is a timber module are in the range of 3 m in width and 8 m in length and
an unstructured and generic expression of kit-of-parts, such as a simple 3.2 m high, although maximum dimensions are 6 m in width, 20 m in
2D or 3D geometry, used in the typology 1 configurator. Typical plan­ length and 3.7 m in height [58].
ning kit-of-parts include room modules which could be configured with
variations relevant to customers’ requirements, such as different floor
plans, the shape of roofs and vertical building layouts. Design kit-of-part 4.2. Opening variations
is a building information model suitable for architectural and engi­
neering analysis in the typology 2 configurator. Typical design kit-of- An opening in a module refers to a door, a window or an open side.
parts could be architectural elements, structural elements and MEP el­ The variations of the opening size enable great flexibility for architects
ements. Design kit-of-parts contain variants corresponding to architects’ to fit specific requirements. For example, a room which requires open­
and engineers’ requirements, such as different insulating material, sec­ ness and connectivity to other space could be built via open-ended
tions of beams and piping sizes. modules. By contrast, facility rooms or bathrooms, in most cases, are
Most importantly, planning or design parts should not only be seen as more closed with four-sided modules, with windows and doors in their
a low level-of-detail (LOD) view of their manufacturing counterparts. ends. The size of the opening has a large effect on the building perfor­
They are well-defined representation which incorporates useful mance, such as daylighting, especially for the modules at the periphery
manufacturing and engineering information during the early design of buildings. Due to those requirements, a set of rules from manufac­
stage, such as permissible size variations. The information is then turers should be provided on the permissible opening variations. Typical
leveraged in the configuration process to offer users more accurate in­ rule sets govern the opening size are generated from the structural en­
sights on available product features. This enables a faster and easier way gineering rules. A module with a large opening requirement could be
to work with clients and provide accurate cost estimates [57]. Table 3 sustained by corner post and edge beam supporting systems. For mod­
takes a volumetric module as an example. We select three types of in­ ules longer than 7.5 m, a deeper edge beam supported by intermediate
formation including module sizes variations, opening variations and posts is usually required [59].

6
J. Cao et al.
4.3. MEP system variations
The thermal and ventilation performance depend on the MEP sys­
tems. The variations of MEP systems are driven by the functionality of
the room decided in the planning phase. For example, a conference room
module holding more people than a standard office room requires a
higher volume of air circulation. This leads to a larger size of the ducting
system, which needs a larger pre-cut opening on the panels or a larger
area for service risers. This information is important for manufacturers
who are able to provide modules installed with MEP systems. In the
conventional design‑lead-production approach, manufactures have to
wait until the completion of the design, leading to longer project dura­
tion and slow responsiveness to the design iterations. To overcome these
limitations, manufacturers could offer a set of rules for clients to
consider permissible MEP system variations. Existing rules manage the
variations by arranging the duct layout, position and dimensions.
Depending on the size of ducts, ducts could be placed inside the panel, in
a separated service riser, or embed into the skirting cover inside the
module.
This section gives an example of how a room module can be
configured with regard to opening variations. During the antecedent
configuration step, the size of the module is defined in terms of heights,
widths and lengths. The module ceiling, wall and floor use the default
configuration with known design parameters (e.g. reflectance). At this
phase, the size of the window is configured to analyze daylighting usage.
The configured variables include the width and height of the window on
one of the end walls (shown in Fig. 4). Typical user inputs include the
room functionality (e.g. study room). Then based on the empirical
knowledge, the depth of the daylight zone is calculated. Upon the
window type is selected, the daylight feasibility factor can be rapidly
estimated for potential energy savings. The result will further be
included in the energy consumption. Although this research only lists
three variables for ease of illustration, the proposed concept is exten­
sible. A number of product features can be extracted from abundant kit-
of-parts and propagated from the planning stage to the manufacturing
stage.
5. Implementation
5.1. Project description
For a better understanding of the proposed configurator, a multi-
story modular residential project from a European construction com­
pany is used as an illustrative example. The project consists of pre­
fabricated, highly standardized volumetric modules that are combined
Fig. 4. An example of configuration on opening variations.
7
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
in various configurations to create apartment buildings. The project
modular architecture is shown in Fig. 5. Each module is fully designed
for certain functionalities. For example, the living room module would
be installed with MEP systems included. The transfer module is installed
with elevators and staircases. While the product concept is standardized,
the individual configuration can vary from the building profile on the
selected site, the layout of the apartment on the floor plan, the material
type of façade, the roof types and the staircase types. The project-specific
configuration is supported by a library of 3D models in Autodesk Revit,
2D engineering drawings in AutoCAD, and technical documents that
define all relevant design regulations.
5.2. System architecture
The development process starts with the design of platform archi­
tecture. Similar to other web-based applications, the configurator in this
paper can be developed based on a three-tier architecture. Examples of
tier-based systems attempt to enable an organization to use data across a
broad set of applications, such as workflow management, model man­
agement, and model visualization and storage [16,60]. The proposed
configurator includes a Presentation tier, Application tier and Data tier.
This is also called the frontend, backend and database, respectively. The
presentation tier consists of a graphical user interface (GUI), which re­
ceives input and displays the different model views and data to the users.
Through API requests, the presentation tier calls the application tier to
carry out specific data provided by the core functionalities of config­
urators. Then, the application tier accesses the data tier, which stores the
raw files and more fine-grained data, such as key-value pairs [61] in the
configurators. This separation between data and applications enables
much more flexibility for development teams to upgrade, add or replace
components in each tier, instead of rewriting the entire platform [62].
Additionally, with a common data-tier across a broad set of applications,
data are easily accessible and shared for multiple users collaborating on
the same project. Fig. 6 shows the logical architecture of the proposed
configurator.
Based on the previous description of the framework for a web-based
product configuration platform, a more detailed implementation of a
prototype is discussed in the following section. Since the platform ar­
chitecture is divided into three parts, it is necessary to implement them
with suitable technical solutions. In addition, the system should function
with minimal system requirements. It can be assumed that users use
modern browsers (>IE11) and mostly work with Windows 7+ or similar
operating systems.
J. Cao et al.
Fig. 5. Modular architectural of multi-story residential projects.
Fig. 6. Three-tier architecture of proposed configurator.
5.2.1. Presentation tier
For the technical implementation of the frontend or presentation
tier, there are countless web frameworks. Each framework has its ad­
vantages and disadvantages. However, the framework should support
the Model-view-view-model (MVVM) pattern and web components.
Therefore, Angular is chosen as the web framework. The Framework
Angular is developed based on Typescript. Through modern software
architecture approaches and necessary flexibility, Angular enables a
component-based structure which is suitable for a process-separated
platform. By separating view and logic or functionality, the applica­
tion can be divided in such a way that it can be maintained, tested and
expanded. This allows developer paradigms such as single-responsibility
and separation-of-concerns to be adhered to.
5.2.2. Application tier
Considering the application tier, or the backend, there are again
8
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
different possibilities of technical implementation. Due to the good
scalability and the similarity to Angular, Nest.js is utilized for the
backend. Unlike Express, which is one of the most popular frameworks
for backend development, Nest.js makes it possible to take a modular
approach with a given architecture. This allows database access and
business logic to be separated from the processing of API requests.
5.2.3. Data tier
The database or data tier is the central structure of the platform. It is
of the utmost importance that data can be stored correctly and in a
proper representation in order to guarantee consistency and correctness.
Data are a representation of a planned or existing system. In order to
model or represent a system, it is necessary to depict it as a duality of
form and function. The form is the content of the system so what it
consists of, and the function represents what the system does or what
happens over time. Therefore, the database is set up in such a way that
J. Cao et al.
objects are stored separately and linked by relationships. This was made
feasible by the use of MongoDB, a document-oriented NoSQL database
connected to the backend.
The entire structure is based on the so-called REST architecture
which stands as an acronym for Representational State Transfer and is a
set of design criteria and not the physical structure. In REST-based ar­
chitecture, everything is a resource, on which it is possible to perform an
operation. The data can be stored in a database on the backend-side, for
example, a user data that has a unique identifier (UID). The main data in
the configurator can be categorized into three types: (1) 3D models from
authorized BIM applications; (2) add-ons for design automation; (3)
other non-structured data (e.g. drawings, regulations, log). These re­
sources are accessed via a common interface based on HTTP standard
methods. Since the platform has to be able to handle data exchange and
its modification, it is useful to implement the entire system architecture
on the basis of REST. Through the use of the REST API interface, HTTP
requests from the frontend can be defined on the backend to execute
specific functionalities.
5.3. Function design
The application tier processes all main functionalities of config­
urators. Each function should be programmed as a reusable and modular
component. Here, a component is a software “unit”, which could be a
block of reusable code or an independent application. This supports the
customized combination of multi-functionalities required by different
customers. This research mainly paid attention to the design-related
tasks, starting from site layout, floor plan generation, to 3D modeling.
More application services from third parties, such as data analysis, could
be added to the configurators.
5.3.1. Site layout
The site layout component is responsible for the project planning
stage (see Fig. 7) The main functions can be divided into geographical
data collection and building profile generation. Based on the selected
site location, geographical data, such as terrain, is accessible from off-
Fig. 7. Site layout interface
9
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
the-shelf GIS service [63,64]. Geographical data are useful for plan­
ners to find the appropriate location and set the site boundary. Building
profiles include building shape, height, stories, and orientation. It is
determined by the site-level configuration engine. Site-level configura­
tion starts with the customized sketched site boundary and user-defined
floor area ratio. Then the building total floor area is calculated. In the
prototype, the available customization for building shapes includes
rectangular, “L-shape”, “U-shape”, and “T-shape”. An undefined shape
can also be sketched by the user. After a certain shape is selected, the
height and stories can be defined with user inputs. Buildings are
generated and interactively placed on the canvas in the form of web
geometries. Related configuration constraints, including height limita­
tion, allowable distance to the site boundary, and minimal distance
between adjacent buildings, are embedded in the system and checked
automatically. The metadata, including the site data and building
properties are stored in the database.
5.3.2. Floor planning
The floor planning is done by specifying the number of different type
of suites and placing them on each floor (see Fig. 8). The suites are
different in size, which can be one person’s use, two-occupant use, and
three-occupant use. The inputs can be predefined building shape and the
number of different types of suites required by clients. On the floor view,
the grid system is automatically generated and can be dynamically
adjusted. The system is efficient for placing elements in a layout. For
example, volumetric elements (e.g. suites) can be put between two rows
and two columns grid lines. Floor level configuration determines the
selection and placement of planning parts. On this phase, available parts
consist of suites and transfer modules which are low level of details
(LOD) web geometries. After a certain part is placed into the grid system,
its relative locations are retrieved. Related rules, such as excavation
requirements, horizontal stability, are checked in terms of the quantity
and location of units. For example, a cardinality rule is encoded to
checking the horizontal stability of the structure. According to the
company’s design guide, a two-story modular project is developed for
wind loads in terrain type 1, which requires at least five modules in
J. Cao et al.
Fig. 8. Floor planning interface with apartment assemblies (e.g. ROK 1).
width per floor.
5.3.3. Model generation
The model generation component converts the web geometries of a
building into building information models (see Fig. 9(a)–(b)). At this
point, the configuration of the individual suite is initiated by designers.
For example, the suite in the project could have several variations,
including module combinations, façade types, wall types, balcony types,
window and door types. Related rules are used to check the valid
combination of modules according to the company’s sales strategy. For
example, if a user is configuring a two-occupant suite, the encoded
compatibility rule will infer the available living modules and matched
sleeping modules with regard to the size limitations. After all variations
have been specified, a completed and validated BIM or CAD can be
generated out of the configurator, instead of refining through a sequence
of design and engineering activities. To do this, the site data, building
properties and floor plan data are read from the database and set as the
inputs on this stage. Based on the identifiers of used planning parts, the
corresponding high LOD models are pulled from the product database.
Finally, the retrieved models are imported into a new project file and are
placed with reference to the location inputs. The last step of imple­
mentation is scripted as a reusable add-on package provided on the web
environment.
5.3.4. Data analysis
The proposed three-tier configurator can be scaled up with exten­
sions from third parties, such as Amazon Web Service (AWS). This
research illustrates how a potential valuable service such as data anal­
ysis can be added to the application tier. Users’ feedback is critical for
increased standardization in design, manufacturing and integrating the
supply chain of kit-of-parts [65]. After a configuration is finalized, the
users’ entry data are saved as a log file. The main function of the data
analysis tool is to process the log data and find the users’ behavior
patterns. This enables the configurator to be more responsive and pro­
actively to provide design suggestions to a particular user group. The
typical log data might include the modules selected from different
10
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
catalogs, the various rules violated, and the estimated final cost. For
example, a recommender model trained on a batch of used modules
could guide users on the module selection by offering a ranked list of
objects within each category [66]. Such use of the tool can help sales
teams recommend preferred products based on certain regional or cul­
tural contexts and/or help users without sufficient product expertise to
solve a possible selection dilemma.
6. Discussion
The proposed configurator launches a new project development
process using a kit-of-parts library that incorporates the knowledge of
manufacturing. Traditional project development using a parametric
design process begins first with geometric representation and then de­
tails second the part design including manufacturing constraints. By
comparison, the kit-of-parts represent fabrication-ready building prod­
ucts. From these products, augmented design models with a detailed kit-
of-parts can be derived. Then, manufacturable variations of products can
be Modified to Order by designers to fit their design intent.
The above work emphasizes the opportunity for a manufacturing-led
industrialization of the supply chain. Past scholarship has suggested the
need to develop prefabricated construction building information models
containing the production details [6]. Similar research on Design for
Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) also highlights the importance of
considering the knowledge of manufacturing in the design stage. Past
research emphasizes the importance of a close collaboration between
designers and manufacturers, such as a DFMA design team [5]. How­
ever, these approaches have been slow to develop. It is difficult for de­
signers to initiate the models because they do not have sufficient
knowledge on production. More importantly, some design issues can
only be discovered late in the production process, putting pressure on
the supply chain to deliver. It also requires extra reorganization efforts
and expert resources from the design company.
In comparison, the configurator and kit-of-parts approach presented
in this paper requires more efforts from manufacturers to develop
products (kit-of-parts) and tools (configurators) to help integrate the
J. Cao et al.
Fig. 9. (a). an apartment configuration via volumetric modules (e.g. K4); (b) Model generation interface
design-to-production supply chain. Using the proposed approach, when
a derivative building product is created by configurators, the design
team can be confident that deliverables are within the production ca­
pacity. The cost can be controlled without much deviation caused by
redesign. While manufacturers must invest in developing a kit-of-parts
library, they also can gain the rewards by streamlining the supply
chain in advance. In addition, the reuse of the library in future projects
will lead to continuous improvement of project quality and return of
11
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
investment made initially inside a single project [30]. As a result, the
application of kit-of-parts library can augment the role of manufacturers
in the industrialized construction.
The three-tier architecture used in this configurator prototype can
help advance scholarship on product configurators in AEC. Past schol­
arship has proposed using native BIM tools as generic configurators [53]
where product configuration in BIM is implemented by assigning values
to customizable parameters [67]. By contrast, the tier-based
J. Cao et al.
architecture decouples the application and data distribution. This
feature guarantees that the data source of kit-of-parts is mastered or
edited in only one place – the data tier. The application tier can then
access the data tier to implement core functionalities of the configurator,
including site layout, floor planning, and model generation. As a result,
the presentation tier displays the different model views to the users. The
tier-based architecture allows the creation of web-based design tools
with a user-friendly interface; design configuration can occur outside of
proprietary BIM software such as Autodesk Revit. Then, the application
is able to manage the kit-of-parts modeled in BIM tools, and use them for
additional services, such as Bill-of-Material (BOM) analysis. Such shift
can enable configuration lifecycle management built on BIM and extend
the application of BIM across all lifecycle phases of a product.
From the practice point-of-view, the benefits of the illustrated
example can be categorized into three main factors: time, cost, and
quality [68]. Simpson summarized the methods to quantify the benefits
and drawbacks of platform-based product development, such as the
reduction in development time [69]. However, future research is needed
to test if such benefits apply to construction and how they should be
quantitatively measured. The illustrated example also provides a start­
ing point to understand how an integrated configurator enables more
benefits than standalone configurators [70], but more research is
required. In addition, it is important to qualify that the successful
application of the integrated configurator does not only rely on the
maturity of IT systems. It also depends on the maturity of the organi­
zation, such as the cross-organizational collaboration [70] and supply
chain ties. Because the application of configurators in the construction
industry is still in the early stages, we do not consider yet the influence of
the maturity of the organization to the configuration application.
7. Conclusions
Industrialized construction is gaining more share in the construction
market. More stakeholders adopt this approach by delivering their
products from design to manufacturing and assembly. Configurators are
important IT systems that support mass customization and provide a
common environment to integrate data, functions and processes during
the project life cycle. The benefits of applying configurators in con­
struction projects have been illustrated in previous research [71,72] but
have limited by an integrated approach supporting project design-to-
production. To enable further benefits of configurators and enable
adoption by greater segments of the industry, this research proposes a
kit-of-part based configurator for industrialized construction.
This paper attempts to make several contributions to the literature.
First, it generalizes three typologies of configurators by clarifying when,
how and for whom the configurators are developed for. This can assist in
guiding the selection of configurators for different stakeholders. Second,
the conceptual framework for developing a configurator is pointed out
and the configuration process is explained. The framework can be used
for industrialized construction companies looking to automize their
configuration process for an existing product platform that needs to be
configured manually. It is also useful for non-industrialized construction
company looking to develop a configurator and kit of parts as a starting
point for industrialization. Following a set-based design approach, kit-
of-parts can be easily configured to diverse design solutions in config­
urators. Third, the paper proposes a kit-of-part based configurator built
upon a three-tier architecture and web technologies. Considering that
previous studies on collaborative platform mainly focus on the model
coordination, visualization and simulation, the configurator in this
research first handles design-related tasks, starting from site layout,
floor planning to 3D modeling, as a continuous and seamless process on
a light-weighted, easy-sharing web environment. Fourth, the proposed
configurator is prototyped via a multi-story modular apartment project
that demonstrates a seamless workflow among multi-stakeholders. This
example illuminates several promised improvements on the project
planning to manufacturing processes.
12
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
The research has certain limitations as follows:
1) To use such a configurator, the research assumes that a company has
built a library of reusable modules for project development. This is
the main difference between the traditional CAD systems, which start
modeling activity from scratch, with the proposed configurator,
which consumes the existing kit-of-parts to configure new derivative
products.
2) In the illustrative project, the engineering rules and constraints are
assumed to be collected from an industrialized construction com­
pany’s architectural design guidelines, which does not typically
include complex design analysis, such as seismic analysis.
3) The configurator prototype does not include the entire project pro­
duction phase. Relevant functionalities – such as automated drawing
generation and bill-of-materials calculations – need to be extended.
4) The tier-based architecture of the configurator faces a problem of
poor scalability. The structure of the application is decided and fixed
during the initial stage of development [73]. Hence, it is time-
consuming and error-prone to extend new features and functional­
ities to the application. Additionally, due to the inter-module
dependence, the entire system is not robust and may collapse due
to a single error occurred in an individual module.
Future research should investigate additional questions such as:
1) How can planning kit-of-parts and design kit-of-part be derived
automatically from manufacturing counterparts, and at the same
time maintain consistency with each other? Considering those kit-of-
parts might be edited in different applications, a flexible data
structure needs to be built and set as a common environment.
2) How can a kit-of-parts be built based on historical project data?
Previous studies suggested that the modularization strategies can be
used to group components for offsite fabrication to ensure the ease of
assembly and flexibility of building maintenance [74]. Yet, few re­
searchers consider the reusability of building components as a
module driver to develop kit-of-parts.
3) How can the design space of modular buildings be enlarged? Existing
configurators are targeted at solving the selection of kit-of-parts and
the assignment of adaptive parameter values [75]. Few research
studies explore the configuration regarding the flexible spatial
arrangement of components to achieve design variations.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] T. Pullen, D.M. Hall, J. Lessing, White Paper: A Preliminary Overview of Emerging
Trends for Industrialized Construction in the United States, 2019, pp. 1–24,
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000331901.
[2] D.M. Hall, J.K. Whyte, J. Lessing, Mirror-breaking strategies to enable digital
manufacturing in Silicon Valley construction firms: a comparative case study,
Constr. Manag. Econ. 0 (2019) 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/
01446193.2019.1656814.
[3] D.M. Gann, Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences
between industrialized housing and car production in Japan, Constr. Manag. Econ.
14 (1996) 437–450, https://doi.org/10.1080/014461996373304.
[4] J.M. Schoenborn, A Case Study Approach to Identifying the Constraints and
Barriers to Design Innovation for Modular Construction, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, 2012, pp. 19–32. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10
919/32397 (Accessed date: 4 March 2020).
[5] Z. Yuan, C. Sun, Y. Wang, Design for manufacture and assembly-oriented
parametric design of prefabricated buildings, Autom. Constr. 88 (2018) 13–22,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.021.
[6] M. Hamid, O. Tolba, A. El Antably, BIM semantics for digital fabrication: a
knowledge-based approach, Autom. Constr. 91 (2018) 62–82, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2018.02.031.
J. Cao et al.
[7] Justin K.W. Yeoh, Runxing Jiao, Ontology-based framework for checking the
constructability of concrete volumetric construction submodules from BIM, in:
Computing in Civil Engineering 2019: Visualization, Information Modeling, and
Simulation, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2019, pp. 279–285,
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482421.036.
[8] P. Manu, L. Mahdjoubi, A.-Q. Gbadamosi, L.O. Oyedele, C. Aigbavboa, O.
O. Akinade, A.-M. Mahamadu, Offsite construction: developing a BIM-based
optimizer for assembly, J. Clean. Prod. 215 (2019) 1180–1190, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.113.
[9] S. Barman, A.E. Canizares, A survey of mass customization in practice, Int. J. Supp.
Chain Manag. 4 (2015) 65–72. URL: https://ojs.excelingtech.co.uk/index.ph
p/IJSCM/article/view/1027/625 (Accessed date: 4 March 2020).
[10] F. Bianconi, M. Filippucci, A. Buffi, Automated design and modeling for mass-
customized housing. A web-based design space catalog for timber structures,
Autom. Constr. 103 (2019) 13–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.002.
[11] V.S. Veenstra, J.I.M. Halman, J.T. Voordijk, A methodology for developing product
platforms in the specific setting of the housebuilding industry, Res. Eng. Des. 17
(2006) 157–173, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-006-0022-6.
[12] C. Forza, F. Salvador, Managing for variety in the order acquisition and fulfilment
process: the contribution of product configuration systems, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 76
(2002) 87–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(01)00157-8.
[13] C. Forza, F. Salvador, Product configuration and inter-firm co-ordination: an
innovative solution from a small manufacturing enterprise, Comput. Ind. 49 (2002)
37–46, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(02)00057-X.
[14] A.S. Howe, I. Ishii, T. Yoshida, Kit-of-parts: a review of object-oriented construction
techniques, in: International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in
Construction, 1999, pp. 165–171, https://doi.org/10.22260/isarc1999/0025.
[15] H. Lai, X. Deng, T.Y.P. Chang, BIM-based platform for collaborative building design
and project management, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 33 (2019), https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000830, 05019001-1–05019001-15.
[16] H.M. Chen, K.C. Chang, T.H. Lin, A cloud-based system framework for performing
online viewing, storage, and analysis on big data of massive BIMs, Autom. Constr.
71 (2016) 34–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.03.002.
[17] Z. Ma, Z. Liu, Ontology- and freeware-based platform for rapid development of BIM
applications with reasoning support, Autom. Constr. 90 (2018) 1–8, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.02.004.
[18] J.C.P. Cheng, M. Das, A bim-based web service framework for green building
energy simulation and code checking, J. Inform. Technol. Constr. 19 (2014)
150–168. URL: https://www.itcon.org/2014/8 (Accessed date: 6 March 2020).
[19] P. Piroozfar, E.R.P. Farr, L. Hvam, D. Robinson, S. Shafiee, Configuration platform
for customisation of design, manufacturing and assembly processes of building
façade systems: a building information modelling perspective, Autom. Constr. 106
(2019) 102914, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102914.
[20] L. Malmgren, P. Jensen, T. Olofsson, Product modeling of configurable building
systems – a case study, Electron. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 15 (2010) 354–368. URL:
https://www.itcon.org/2010/27 (Accessed date: 8 March 2020).
[21] M. Oh, J. Lee, S.W. Hong, Y. Jeong, Integrated system for BIM-based collaborative
design, Autom. Constr. 58 (2015) 196–206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2015.07.015.
[22] B.J. Pine, Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, 1993. ISBN: 0-87584-372-7.
[23] S.J. Hu, Evolving paradigms of manufacturing: from mass production to mass
customization and personalization, in: Forty Sixth CIRP Conference on
Manufacturing Systems, Elsevier B.V, 2013, pp. 3–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2013.05.002.
[24] A.P. Meyer, H. Marc, Lehnerd, The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and
Cost Leadership, Free Press, New York, 1997 (ISBN: 0-684-82580-5).
[25] A. Haug, Representation of Industrial Knowledge – as a Basis for Developing and
Maintaining Product Configurators, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark,
2007 (ISBN: 978-87-91035-67-8).
[26] R. Bourke, Product Configurators: Key Enabler for Mass Customization – An
Overview, Midrange Enterprise, URL: http://www.pdmic.com/articles/midrang
e/Aug2000.html, 2000 (Accessed date: 15 July 2004).
[27] T. Soininen, J. Tiihonen, T. Männistö, R. Sulonen, Towards a general ontology of
configuration, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and
Manufacturing 12 (1998) 357–372, https://doi.org/10.1017/
s0890060498124083.
[28] L. Hvam, Niels Henrik Mortensen, J. Riis, Product Customization, Springer Science
& Business Media, 2008 (ISBN: 978-3-540-71448-4).
[29] C. Forza, F. Salvador, Product Information Management for Mass Customization
Connecting Customer, Front-Office and Back-Office for Fast and Efficient
Customization, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2006 (ISBN: 978-0-230-00682-
9).
[30] M. Tetik, A. Peltokorpi, O. Seppänen, J. Holmström, Direct digital construction:
technology-based operations management practice for continuous improvement of
construction industry performance, Autom. Constr. 107 (2019) 102910, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102910.
[31] F. Wikberg, T. Olofsson, A. Ekholm, Design configuration with architectural
objects: linking customer requirements with system capabilities in industrialized
house-building platforms, Constr. Manag. Econ. 32 (2014) 196–207, https://doi.
org/10.1080/01446193.2013.864780.
[32] I.J. Ramaji, A.M. Memari, Product architecture model for multistory modular
buildings, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 142 (2016), 04016047, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001159.
[33] Building Design+Construction, BD+C Giants 300 Technology + Innovation Study,
URL: https://www.bdcnetwork.com/sites/bdc/files/BDC%202019%20Giants%20
13
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
Tech%20%26%20Innovation%20Survey_Final%20%281%29.pdf, 2019 (Accessed
date: 4 March 2020).
[34] J. Cao, D. Hall, An overview of configurations for industralized construction:
typologies, customer requirements, and technical approaches, in: Proceedings of
the 2019 European Conference for Computing in Construction 1, 2019,
pp. 295–303, https://doi.org/10.35490/ec3.2019.145.
[35] P. Veloso, G. Celani, R. Scheeren, From the generation of layouts to the production
of construction documents: an application in the customization of apartment plans,
Autom. Constr. 96 (2018) 224–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2018.09.013.
[36] F. Bianconi, M. Filippucci, A. Buffi, Automated design and modeling for mass-
customized housing. A web-based design space catalog for timber structures,
Autom. Constr. 103 (2019) 13–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.03.002.
[37] X. Zhou, J. Wang, M. Guo, Z. Gao, Cross-platform online visualization system for
open BIM based on WebGL, Multimed. Tools Appl. (2018) 28575–28590, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-5820-0.
[38] V. Singh, N. Gu, X. Wang, A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-
disciplinary collaboration platform, Autom. Constr. 20 (2011) 134–144, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.011.
[39] E. Alreshidi, M. Mourshed, Y. Rezgui, Cloud-based BIM governance platform
requirements and specifications: software engineering approach using BPMN and
UML, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 30 (2016), 04015063, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CP.1943-5487.0000539.
[40] H.M. Said, T. Chalasani, S. Logan, Exterior prefabricated panelized walls platform
optimization, Autom. Constr. 76 (2017) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2017.01.002.
[41] P. Jensen, T. Olofsson, H. Johnsson, Configuration through the parameterization of
building components, Autom. Constr. 23 (2012) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2011.11.016.
[42] M. Deng, V.J.L. Gan, Y. Tan, A. Joneja, J.C.P. Cheng, Automatic generation of
fabrication drawings for façade mullions and transoms through BIM models, Adv.
Eng. Inform. 42 (2019) 100964, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2019.100964.
[43] G. Jansson, H. Johnsson, D. Engström, Platform use in systems building, Constr.
Manag. Econ. 32 (2014) 70–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.793376.
[44] D. Benros, J.P. Duarte, An integrated system for providing mass customized
housing, Autom. Constr. 18 (2009) 310–320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2008.09.006.
[45] S. Jaganathan, L.J. Nesan, R. Ibrahim, A.H. Mohammad, Integrated design
approach for improving architectural forms in industrialized building systems,
Front. Architect. Res. 2 (2013) 377–386, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foar.2013.07.003.
[46] A. Kudsk, M.O. Grønvold, M.H. Olsen, L. Hvam, C. Thuesen, Stepwise
modularization in the construction industry using a bottom-up approach, Open
Construct. Build. Technol. J. 7 (2013) 99–107, https://doi.org/10.2174/
1874836801307010099.
[47] N.H. Mortensen, L. Hvam, A. Haug, Modelling product families for product
configuration systems with product variant master, in: The 19th European
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2010, pp. 1–6. URL: https://backend.orbit.
dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/4903251/EvalofPVMver9.pdf (Accessed date: 8
March 2020).
[48] I.J. Ramaji, A.M. Memari, J.I. Messner, Product-oriented information delivery
framework for multistory modular building projects, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 31
(2017), 04017001, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000649.
[49] Dong Yang, Ming Dong, Rui Miao, Development of a product configuration system
with an ontology-based approach, Computer-Aided Design Journal (2008)
863–878, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2008.05.004.
[50] A. Brière-Côté, L. Rivest, A. Desrochers, Adaptive generic product structure
modelling for design reuse in engineer-to-order products, Comput. Ind. 61 (2010)
53–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2009.07.005.
[51] D. Yang, M. Dong, Applying constraint satisfaction approach to solve product
configuration problems with cardinality-based configuration rules, J. Intell. Manuf.
24 (2013) 99–111, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-011-0544-2.
[52] D. Sabin, R. Weigel, Product configuration frameworks - a survey, IEEE Intellig.
Syst. Appl. 13 (1998) 42–49, https://doi.org/10.1109/5254.708432.
[53] P. Piroozfar, E.R.P. Farr, L. Hvam, D. Robinson, S. Shafiee, Configuration platform
for customisation of design, manufacturing and assembly processes of building
façade systems: a building information modelling perspective, Autom. Constr. 106
(2019) 102914, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102914.
[54] A. Tidstam, J. Malmqvist, Information Modelling for Automotive Configuration,
Proceedings of NordDesign 2010, the 8th international NordDesign Conference,
2010, pp. 275–288. URL: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/lo
cal_129032.pdf (Accessed date: 8 March 2020).
[55] R. Rempling, A. Mathern, D. Tarazona Ramos, S. Luis Fernández, Automatic
structural design by a set-based parametric design method, Autom. Constr. 108
(2019) 102936, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102936.
[56] N. Zhao, C. Kam, J.T.Y. Lo, J.I. Kim, M. Fischer, Construction parts in building
projects: definition and case study, J. Manag. Eng. 34 (2018), 04018014, https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000616.
[57] A. Kudsk, Modularization in the construction industry using a top-down approach,
Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 7 (2013) 88–98, https://doi.org/10.2174/
1874836801307010088.
[58] G. Staib, A. Dörrhöfer, M. Rosenthal, Components and Systems Modular
Construction – Design, Structure, New Technologies, De Gruyter, Basel, 2013
(ISBN: 978-3-7643-8656-6).
[59] M. Lawson, R. Ogden, C. Goodier, Design in Modular Construction, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, 2014 (ISBN: 978-0-415-55450-3).
J. Cao et al.
[60] S. Zhang, F. Pan, C. Wang, Y. Sun, H. Wang, BIM-based collaboration platform for
the management of EPC projects in hydropower engineering, J. Constr. Eng.
Manag. 143 (2017) 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001403.
[61] T. Kraska, B. Trushkowsky, The new database architectures, IEEE Internet Comput.
17 (2013) 72–75, https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2013.56.
[62] J.M. Gallaugher, S.C. Ramanathan, Choosing a client/server architecture: a
comparison of two-and three-tier systems, Inf. Syst. Manag. 13 (1996) 7–13,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10580539608906981.
[63] F. Ouyang, X. Du, Application of spatial data analysis in architectural planning, IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 234 (2019), 012035, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/234/1/012035.
[64] J. Li, N. Li, K. Afsari, J. Peng, Z. Wu, H. Cui, Integration of building information
modeling and web service application programming interface for assessing
building surroundings in early design stages, Build. Environ. 153 (2019) 91–100,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.024.
[65] H. Lidelöw, G. Jansson, E. Viklund, Design breakdown in industrialized
construction: supporting lean manufacturing, in: Modular and Offsite Construction
Summit Proceedings, 2015, pp. 1–8. URL: https://journalofindustrializedconstr
uction.com/index.php/mocs/article/view/158/155 (Accessed date: 8 March
2020).
[66] S. Chaudhuri, E. Kalogerakis, L. Guibas, V. Koltun, Probabilistic reasoning for
assembly-based 3D modeling, ACM Trans. Graph. 30 (2011) 1–10, https://doi.org/
10.1145/2010324.1964930.
[67] S. Khalili-Araghi, B. Kolarevic, Variability and validity: flexibility of a dimensional
customization system, Autom. Constr. 109 (2020) 102970, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102970.
14
Automation in Construction 123 (2021) 103437
[68] M.M. Ahmad, N. Dhafr, Establishing and improving manufacturing performance
measures, Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 18 (2002) 171–176, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0736-5845(02)00007-8.
[69] T.W. Simpson, Product platform design and customization: status and promise,
artificial intelligence for engineering design, Anal. Manuf. 18 (2004) 3–20, https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0890060404040028.
[70] A. Myrodia, T. Randrup, L. Hvam, Configuration lifecycle management – an
assessment of the benefits based on maturity, in: Proceedings of the 20th
Configuration Workshop, 2018, pp. 1–6. URL: https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/
portalfiles/portal/158820792/Configuration_Lifecycle_Management_An_assessme
nt_of_the_benefits_based_on_maturity_preprint.pdf (Accessed date: 4 March 2020).
[71] P. Smiding, E. Gerth, R. Jensen, Developing product configurators in the AEC
industry, in: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Construction and
Real Estate Management, 2016, pp. 342–350, https://doi.org/10.1061/
9780784480274.017.
[72] G. Jansson, E. Viklund, T. Olofsson, Artistic and engineering design of platform-
based production systems: a study of Swedish architectural practice, Buildings 8
(2018) 34, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8020034.
[73] B. Christudas, Practical Microservices Architectural Patterns: Event-Based Java
Microservices with Spring Boot and Spring Cloud, Apress, Berkeley, CA, 2019
(ISBN: 978-1-4842-4500-2).
[74] A. Peltokorpi, H. Olivieri, A.D. Granja, O. Seppänen, Categorizing modularization
strategies to achieve various objectives of building investments, Constr. Manag.
Econ. 36 (2018) 32–48, https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1353119.
[75] P. Jensen, H. Lidelöw, T. Olofsson, Product configuration in construction, Int. J.
Mass Custom. 5 (2015) 73–92, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMASSC.2015.069601.