Modular Construction in

Pakistan
LITERATURE REVIEW

Name | Course Title | Date

 LITERATURE REVIEW
In the past few decades, urban cities and towns around the world have seen an enormous
increase in population. This has generated a swift need for more infrastructure, resources,
and employment to cater to the growing public while maintaining safe and productive
construction projects (Costin et. al 2019). This need has been a subject of research for
many people around the world. The construction industry contributes majorly to the
infrastructure in terms of buildings, bridges, roads, dams, utilities, etc. (Costin et.al,
2018). Traditionally construction is done in field or cast-in-situ. Prefabricated or offsite
construction is a newer approach to field construction that offers great benefits
(Rezkenari et..al 2019; Qi et. al, 2018; Abanda et. al, 2019; Yin et. al, 2019). Former
Olympian, Pamela Bell who has revolutionized prefabricated construction in New
Zealand famously promoted it as a smarter and complicated Lego game, but one people
can construct with voluminous components (Stuff, 2020). More, technically the elements
involved in the project are manufactured or cast in an offsite facility, transported to the
site and then assembled as parts to form the structure. Much research has been done
advocating the benefits of prefabricated construction. Firstly, prefabricated construction
reduces the project duration by eliminating the lead times for material procurements,
assembly, casting, curing and shoring removal. Secondly, the quality attainted by
prefabricated construction is superior to cast-in-situ due to better quality control and
controlled environment. Thirdly, the use of prefabricated construction is sustainable as
there is a reduction in waste and recycling is possible. Finally, safety is improved on the
offsite facility due to lesser risks about moisture, environmental hazard, and dirt
(Hashemi, 2015). Prefabrication is one among the all other activities which run
simultaneously on the project site. Hence, coordination becomes pivotal as the task of
prefabrication includes planning, scheduling, designing, material procurement, casting,
transporting, safely installing and finishing. All these activities must be coordinated with
the other trades for achieving substantial completion.

PAGE 1
2.2 Modular Construction/Prefabrication
According to numerous studies conducted by the Construction Industry Institute, reduced
project duration, improved labor productivity, and improved efficiency of job-site
management are some of the benefits of implementing modular construction practices
preassembly, modularization, and offsite fabrication in industrial construction: A
framework for decision-making, 2022). A study on the perception of general contractors
of offsite construction also talks about the benefits of modular construction, which
include reduced overall project schedule, increased product quality, increased labor
productivity, increased onsite safety, reduced onsite disruption, and reduced negative
impacts on the environment (Lu & Liska, 2008). Further, modular construction provides
the ability to reduce the construction schedule substantially, by sidestepping the
unavoidable delays in conventional construction methods such as weather (Velamati,
2012).

Talking about the history of the prefabrication, which dates back to the roman empires
and then prevalent back in the 19th century. Prefabrication is also safer and more
environment-friendly compared to conventional construction. This technology suits
different types of construction projects (Steinhardt et al., 2019). An alternative modern
way of construction is prefabricated construction. Despite the potential benefits of the
prefabricated methods of construction (Hashemi, 2015), the adoption of the prefabricated
construction is rather slow around the world, except in a few countries such as Japan and
Sweden (Barlow et al., 2003). The main reasons for the lagged adoption of prefabrication
in the construction industry include insufficient R&D expenditures and the lack of
necessary government regulatory efforts to promote prefabricated construction
(Steinhardt et al., 2013; Cantu et. al, 2019; Qi et. al, 2019) Prefabrication—often
associated with the terms “offsite,” “assembly,” or just simply “fabrication”—can be
viewed as stuck in the trenches of nineteenth-century conventions of standardization and
twentieth-century modernism. Common construction means have not changed drastically
over the last 80 years. For architecture to come into fruition to be built it takes many

PAGE 2
years, requires heavy investment, and is fraught with confrontation, value engineering,
headaches, and inevitable heartache. This is not to say that new materials and methods of
production have not advanced other industries, on the contrary (Steinhardt et al., 2019).

2.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Prefabrication

Prefabrication has been around for a lot of decades and the analysis of the projects has
highlighted certain benefits constructing offsite and assembling has over the conventional
construction. Various papers have highlighted the cost savings, increased safety, time
savings, increased job-site coordination and increase in overall quality. 17 The advantages
and disadvantages of prefabricated construction have been widely researched. However,
there are still limited studies that measure the benefits of prefabricated construction
compared to conventional construction methods (Blismas, Pasquire and Gibb 2006). As
stated by several studies, the major drivers to use prefabrication are time, cost and quality
(Pan et al. 2007). Prefabricated construction also explores the use of technologies and
information systems which enhance productivity, quality control, supply management,
data collection, and data integration. Kamali and Hewage also emphasize that using
prefabrication can lead to lower environmental impacts compared to conventional
construction. Overall, there are high expectations that the prefabrication process could
potentially reduce the environmental impacts caused by conventional construction. There
are opportunities to improve sustainability in all phases of prefabricated construction, but
mainly during the design and manufacturing processes (Fenner and Kibert 2017).

2.4 Factors Affecting Prefabrication

However, despite all the advantages and the increasing interest in offsite technologies and
innovative building processes from industry advisors and experts, the use of these
methods in the US remains behind other similar economies. As part of the business
development, several strategies were suggested to increase the use of modular
construction in the industry. Among them, the increase in research, marketing, and

PAGE 3
professional development workshops have become a priority in the last few years for
main organizations, such as the Modular Building Institute (MBI).

When building a project with new methods there are bound to be many snags and change
orders along the way. Learning from those snags and striving for continuous
improvement is the end goal; however, construction projects of a large scale differ so
much from one to the other that it is often hard to replicate a successful process that was
previously used (National Academy of Sciences, 2009). When a residential developer
builds thousands of tract homes with twenty different designs over five years, they are
unquestionably going to become proficient at building those twenty homes. When a
commercial developer builds one project that takes five years to complete, they will
develop proficiency with repetitive tasks throughout the course of that project. In each of
those cases, after five years the companies are moving on to other projects, and the
lessons learned on the previous projects do not always transfer over. This is sort of like
transferring college credit from one institution to another: you took the courses and
learned the content at one place, but you have to learn it again at a different place because
the syllabus is slightly different. The key is to take the time at frequent intervals
throughout and between projects to absorb what has been learned, understand how
effective your processes were, and implement a culture of study and improvement to
capitalize on what went well and change what did not, all in an effort to eliminate
processes and activities that do not add value (Butts, 2012). 23 There is a heightened
need for innovation and performance enhancement in construction because the industry is
one of the least efficient: One note of agreement is that there is significant room for
improvement. Studies focusing on construction efficiency, in contrast to productivity,
have documented 25 to 50 percent waste in coordinating labor and in managing, moving,
and installing materials (Tulacz and Armistead, 2007); losses of $15.6 billion per year
due to the lack of interoperability (NIST, 2004); and transactional costs of $4 billion to
$12 billion per year to resolve disputes and claims associated with construction projects
(FFC, 2007). (National Academy of Sciences, 2009, p. 2) Although buildings have
become more challenging to construct, the tools available to practitioners to design and
build them have not developed at the same rate. This has caused the productivity of the

PAGE 4
construction industry to lag far behind comparable industries, with some claiming that
construction productivity is worse now than it was 50 years ago (Gibb, 1999).

To achieve higher market shares, collaborative efforts among industry and academia are
still needed to bridge the current information gap. (Fenner et al., 2018).

2.5 Materials Used in Modular Construction

Modular buildings are constructed with a range of materials similar to conventional site-
built construction. The most common materials used for commercial and residential
modular construction are wood and steel (J. Mooring, personal communication, July 23,
2013). Wood modular construction is quite similar in form to stick-built construction,
except the process takes place in a factory. There are several innovations in a modular
building, however, that differentiate it from one that is stick-built. For instance, in a
modular home with a sloped roof, the roof—if steep enough to warrant—is often a
knockdown structure. This refers to a technique that hinges the roof so that it can ride flat
for transport and then tilt-up when the module is assembled on site. Wood modules are
often lifted by cranes without additional structure required for the lifting. This is
accomplished by lifting from the bottom of the module with wide straps that wrap the
entire building, which are then supported by a load spreader from the crane. This method
keeps the module undamaged, and has successfully been used for decades (J. Mooring,
personal communication, July 23, 2013). The limitation with wood modules is height.
Wood modular buildings cannot be more than three stories in height unless they have
substantial structural elements added to them, which makes them uneconomical. For this
reason, steel is often used when a more robust structure is required (Smith, 2010). Steel
modular structures are common in areas with specific seismic concerns. For this reason,
the west coast of the US and many Asian countries frequently use steel modular
components (Smith, 2010). Additionally, developers use steel modules to break through
the three-story height ceiling. The previously mentioned B2 project utilizes steel modules
to achieve over thirty stories (Atlantic Yards, 2013). Other commercial projects also use

PAGE 5
steel modules to capitalize on their strength, but without much attention to overall project
height. Bathroom pods are typically constructed from steel members because non-
flammable materials are commonly required in commercial occupancy classifications
(Ching & Winkel, 2007). As with conventional construction, the deciding factors for
choosing one material over another are driven by the parameters of the project; if these
dictate that steel is necessary, then it will be used (Jacobson, Silverstein, & Winslow,
2002). Ultimatly,same principles guiding modular construction apply to both wood and
steel: each can be used effectively and efficiently if a modular strategy is implemented
from the beginning of a project (Gibb, 1999). Concrete modules were used during the
1960s during many social housing experiments (Urban, 2012). The tallest modular
building in the US, the Hilton on the Riverwalk in San Antonio, was built from precast
concrete modules by the Zachary Construction Corporation in 1968 (Hilton, 1968).
Today, however, in the US, most concrete modular projects are limited to prisons and
industrial applications (Smith, 2010). Nonetheless, many Asian countries use concrete
modular construction to build multi-family residential buildings on a regular basis. The
Daewoo multi-room modular construction system is a precast concrete system, used
extensively in Korea, that utilizes an on-site factory to cast an entire floor at a time. These
precast modules are then set in place at the rate of one floor per day . The concrete
modules are fit-out in place with prefabricated, panelized wall components that have
integral Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing (MEP) equipment. Daewoo claims this
method is up to three times faster than conventional construction (Gibb, 1999).

Various factors affect prefabrication in direct or indirect ways.

But this research is focused on four main parameters. The four main parameters are listed
below:

• Safety

• Quality

• Cost

• Time

PAGE 6
SAFETY
The construction industry is one of the most dangerous industries in terms of safety. In
2012, the construction industry had the highest count of fatal work-related injuries (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a). construction sites are dynamic and complex. The
dynamic nature is attributed to the fact that humans (labors, superintendents, project
managers, foreman, etc), materials and machinery are continuously moving on a
construction site. The complex nature of the site is due to the space constraints on
construction projects due to urbanization in recent years. The balance between the above
two parameters would create an environment for all 21 elements to continue working
safely. Construction accidents included but were not limited to falls from roofs and other
structures, falls from scaffolds, electrocution, improperly operated power tools, and
working close to heavy equipment such as the loader, cranes, and forklifts. Key factors
that cause hazards include changing and unfamiliar work environment, exposure to
severe weather conditions, and using unskilled and temporary workers (Fard et al., 2015).
This research helped in identifying site waste as an important parameter and the effect of
site waste on the safety. Modular/prefabricated buildings differ from mobile buildings,
such as mobile homes. Mobile buildings usually contain integrated frames and axles for
transport, which also function as a structural floor support. In contrast, a modular
building is similar to on-site stick-built construction; and when it arrives at its final
location, it is hoisted off its conveying trailer and installed on its foundation (Becker et al.
2003). This research helps to understand the transportation element of prefabrication
which Modular/prefabricated building construction is usually claimed to have a safer
work environment compared to traditional on-site building construction due to the
following factors (McGraw Hill Construction, 2013; Modular Building Institute, 2014;
Vanguard Modular Building Systems, 2014):

• Stable work location, where workers are used to their tasks and are familiar with the
risks

• Avoiding work in tight spaces at the site

• Performing off-site or on-ground assembly instead of working from heights,

PAGE 7
• Not being exposed to harsh weather, • Easier ways to monitor unsafe activities,

• Fewer contractors and workers required on site.

According to a survey about safety management in the construction industry conducted

by McGraw Hill Construction (2013), 50% of the respondents believed that
prefabrication and modularization have better safety performance compared to traditional
construction. Only 4% of 22 the contractors using prefabricated or modularization
claimed that this method of construction has negative impacts on safety performance. The
respondents in the survey were asked to indicate three parameters impacting
modular/prefabricated safety. The highest percentage (78%) of the general contractors
responding to the survey considered ‘complex assembly done at ground level/offsite’ as
one of the attributes of prefabrication and modularization which increases safety
performance, while 59% of specialty contractors considered this parameter as an
impacting factor. 69% of specialty contractors and 69% of general contractors believed
that fewer workers’ onsite working on different aspects of building’ is also a factor in
improving modular/prefabricated construction. Number and rate of fatal occupational
injuries, by industry sector, 2012 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a). safety. 58% of
general contractors and 47% of specialty contractors indicated that ‘reduced need to work
from heights’ is another influencing factor on the safety performance of
modular/prefabricated construction. (Fard et al., 2015). QUALITY

The quality of construction is one of the matters of the greatest concern for people
working in the construction industry. Quality is one of the biggest benefits of
prefabricated construction as the members are manufactured under strict technical
supervision and in a controlled environment. When compared to the cast-in-situ, factory
equipment, machinery, and tools can offer added quality assurance. Also, safety is
improved due to assembly line manufacturing.

As per the preliminary survey 72% of the participants, the impact of offsite construction
on project quality is very high (Karan,2020). This makes it evident that quality is a good
motivator for opting for offsite construction. The construction industry like any other

PAGE 8
production industry is faced with challenges that affect the performance and output of the
endeavor. Identifying potential critical factors that affect the quality performance of small
scale contractors before the commencement of projects will ensure client satisfaction
after the project. Identifying the potential critical factors will however not eliminate the
problem of quality but to a large extent, help the project team to avoid such negative
factors and strictly adhere to project specifications to reduce errors which will call for re-
work by both consultants and contractors. Quality Performance (QP) is a management
tool that is aimed at giving the necessary information to identify quality improvement
opportunities for better performance and productivity (Abdul, 2011).

The quality of production and quality of design are the two most vital parameters which
are taken into consideration in the construction industry. As soon as the quality of
production improves, the structure becomes more standardized, while a highly
customized design inevitably reflects a lack of efficiency in production. Prefabrication
technology can prominently increase the precision of the products and allow superior
control over each aspect of quality. In addition to increased precision the prefab
components less divergence and variance. Prefabrication limits the risk of errors and
eliminates the unknowns in a highly multivariable construction (Patil, 2020).

COST
The single most important factor in the development of a project is the project budget.
The fact that money could serve as a common denominator to reduce all components like
manpower, equipment, materials and time. The cost of prefabrication is one of the
reasons for owners opting out of prefabrication and using traditional construction. Cost is
a very dependent variable, as the cost of prefabrication varies from project to project. The
cost of manufacturing is the same, as the cost of materials varies less but the driver is the
transportation cost is a deciding factor. Thus, the project cost increases or decreases
depending on the level of prefabrication, schedule, material availability, equipment
available and location of the project concerning the offsite manufacturing facility.
Prefabrication technology is known to be cost coherent to a greater extent as compared to
other methods of construction. The cost inculcated in the construction industry consists of

PAGE 9
three aspects on which prefabrication has a significant impact effect: material, labor and
time. The initial approach to reduce cost is to diminish the amount of material
implemented in a construction project. In a construction project, materials are ordered
abundantly to ensure a sufficient quantity for the task to be completed and to get a
discount as the material is ordered in a large quantity. As prefabrication technology may
save considerably concerning managing materials, factory-produced components may
initially be extortionate. In the case of small projects, due to the less number of
components, it is economically inimical. Miscellaneous expenditure that may be incurred
with prefabrication technology includes transportation and erection expenses. As per the
preliminary survey, 72% of the respondents said that the impact of prefabrication on the
project budget is very high to high (Darekar,2020). Reviewing the literature for potential
factors that affect quality performance, Jha and Iyer (2005) identified among other
factors; lack of management commitment to continual quality improvement; lack of
quality training of staff; management leadership; and efficient teamwork among
stakeholders. It was further stated that material and equipment costs rarely affect the cost
performance in construction projects (Emmanuel et al. 2020).

TIME
In project management, the schedule is listing of project milestones, activities and
deliverables usually with an intended start date and end date. The main reason for the
owner and contractors to choose offsite construction is the time savings. Prefabrication is
a manufacturing process, pre-planning can be done in terms of deliveries and
installations. Prefabrication is one of all the activities and hence all the other activities to
follow the project schedule are equally important. For instance, the wall panels can be
installed until the slab is poured and set. This is dependent on the metal deck laid and
secured. Hence, planning along with strong execution makes a good project schedule. As
per the preliminary survey, 67% of respondents suggest that there is a high impact on the
project schedule and 27% suggest there is a low impact (Karan,2020).

The savings in time, as well as cost, come with the practice to concurrently construct in
the factory while work is being completed on site. In the case of conventional traditional

PAGE 10
onsite construction processes, subcontractors have to wait until the predecessor contractor
has completed its work, in a factory, teams may collaborate by allowing portions to be
constructed by more than one trade. Time savings may also come by way of employing
simultaneous production techniques. Decisions regarding prefabrication are pre-planned
so that schedule savings may be perceived from the beginning of construction activity
(Patil, 2020). The main reason for selecting offsite construction is the time savings in
comparison to traditional construction. The offsite members have to be stored at the site
and these members are voluminous. This is a major issue in congested construction sites
and cities, were are limited spaces and maintenance of traffic a big problem. Especially in
sites that are located in or close to residential and institutional zones. The storage of such
members also requires special care in terms of logistics and safety.

2.6 Barriers to the adoption of Off-site construction

Despite all the aforementioned benefits and drivers, OSC's adoption has encountered
barriers that constrain its adoption on construction projects. Many researchers have
looked into the barriers that prevail a wider use of OSC. In their research, Yang, Pan and
Pan (2017) found 13 barriers that constrain OSC adoption organized under four major
categories. In the Australian market, Blismas and Wakefield (2008) identified 22 barriers.
Those were separated into seven categories. In New Zealand, Mohsin (2011), based on
the research carried by Blismas and Wakefield, found similar barriers from the Australian
market. The exception was the health and safety category not mentioned as a barrier to
OSC uptake in New Zealand in Mohsin’s study. Moreover, in her study, Carnemolla
(2019) compiled the barriers perceived in eight different studies, including information
from eight different nations, those being developed and developing countries, giving a
broader look into the barriers that constrain OSC adoption.

In response to the Economic Analysis of Productivity in the Irish Construction Sector

(KPMG FAC and TU Dublin 2020) report, the CSG and CIF, with the remit to address
and improve productivity in the construction sector, established a working group to
investigate the Modern Methods of Construction existing in Ireland and to explore the

PAGE 11
previous, current and future adoption, implementation and best practices of
OSC/modularisation. Recently, the CIF Modern Methods of Construction Working
Group (2020) released their entails qualitative research that identified the barriers that
constrain OSC adoption in Ireland. In order to develop a questionnaire survey to reach
the aim of this thesis, barriers identified by the CIF were separated into seven categories.
The separation of the barriers followed Mohsin's (2011) categorisation as deemed
pertinent since the barriers found in Ireland fit within Mohsin’s defined categories.

Looking at the perceived barriers encountered on all of these researches, it is possible to

verify similarities and reoccurrences of barriers that hinder OSC adoption in different
areas of the globe. This reoccurrence demonstrates that the barriers are not related to the
geographic area of application of OSC. In fact, it can be concluded that these barriers are
profoundly related to the construction industry culture and its fragmented nature. In
addition, these researches presented above were taken in different time frames. The
similarity of barriers identified in older studies, such as Blismas and Wakefield (2008),
and newer ones, like Yang, Pan and Pan (2017) and Construction Industry Federation
(2020), shows that these barriers have persisted in the past ten years despite the
development of new technologies and management strategies available in the market.
This can confirm the construction industry resistance to innovation and technology
adoption as reported by Bock (2015).

2.6.1 BARRIERS RELATED TO PROCESS AND PROGRAMME

The adoption OSC requires the integration of all the processes in the project, from the
design phase to the completion of the works. As Innella, Arashpour and Bai (2019)
mentioned, the integration of the supply chain and the creation of material and
information flow in OSC is essential to achieve and make the most of OSC benefits in a
project. As reported in various researches, the design and planning phase of an OSC
project takes longer than traditional construction. From the start of the production of
components or modules, the design needs to be fully finished and detailed to avoid the
fabrication of unfruitful items. The CIF also found this as a barrier that hinders OSC
uptake in specific countries. The management of interfaces during design is the reason for

PAGE 12
this longer planning time, according to Mohsin (2011). Moreover, this author highlights
that OSC requires extensive coordination of all stakeholders. Furthermore, the
fragmentation of project and industry have been pointed out by Jin et al. (2018) as a
barrier to broader adoption of OSC. This fragmentation generates many problems that
become barriers to the adoption of new approaches in the construction industry.
However, the use of ICTs in every sector facilitates communication and coordination of
stakeholders, which should address this fragmentation. Although there is extensive use of
ICTs in the modern world, the same barrier of lack of coordination and integration from
research done in 2008 were identified in the 2020 CIF research in Ireland. CIF also points
out that late involvement of contractors, inappropriate design process, poor integration of
on-site and off-site processed, a high price to pay if changes after production has started,
and the possibility of knock-on-effect downstream if errors in production are not
discovered early are restrains for the adoption of OSC.

2.6.2 BARRIERS RELATED TO COST, VALUE AND

PRODUCTIVITY
Although certainty of project cost is seen as an advantage for OSC adoption, cost has
been reported in many studies as a barrier that constrains OSC to be adopted more
widely. Projects constructed using OSC are seen as more expensive than traditional
building. This was reported by Blismas and Wakefield (2008) and Mohsin (2011) and
was also identified in the CIF report. In their studies, Hong et al. (2018) found that
prefabricated concrete buildings were more expensive than traditional building, which
has also been reported by Blismas, Pasquire and Gibb (2006). They add that construction
industry is more focussed on initial construction cost rather than its value. OSC’s initial
cost is higher than traditional building as to start fabricating the components, an upfront
payment would be expected. This was also reported by Pan, Gibb and Dainty (2005) that
found in their research that higher capital cost was the most significant barrier that
impedes the use of OSC in the industry. Goodier and Gibb (2007), Blismas and
Wakefield (2009), Mao et al. (2016) and, Ajayi, Alaka and Dauda (2019) report that
higher cost incurred in OSC approach is related to high initial costs needed for factory set
up and the need of hiring staff all year around. However, there is no basis for direct

PAGE 13
comparison of traditional and off-site construction as each approach involves different
trades. Therefore, the realisation of value over cost is needed in the industry. CIF has also
reported that other barriers that constrain OSC adoption are the increased overall cost due
to machinery on-site and the cost of transportation of modules and components that can
be too high.

2.6.3 BARRIERS RELATED TO REGULATIONS

The Construction Industry Federation (2020) reports that a key issue for OSC uptake in
Ireland is conformity to ensure compliance with current Irish Building Regulations and
various other regulations and standards that apply in this jurisdiction. In their report, CIF
exposes a non-exhaustive list of around 25 regulatory requirements’ documents that
should be understood and complied with in construction projects. In his presentation
Browne (2020), when talking about B(C)AR and regulations he points out that there is a
necessity to expand the Code of Practice to deal with OSC inspection. He defends that the
liability attaching to inspection and certification at present is not clear. Moreover, in the
RICS report, Davies (2018) exposes the need for regulators to skill up and get better
familiarised with OSC and other modern methods of construction. He defends that it is
crucial that regulations keep pace with emerging technology so these can be adopted
more widely. Performance requirements of buildings and works are set out in the second
schedule to the building regulations. These are written in broad terms and do not refer to
specific construction methods. According to English (2019) in his response in the Seanad
debates, when questioned that regulations are not adequate for OSC, he responded that
certain materials and methods standards and specifications are included in the technical
guidance documents that accompany the building regulations. However, the use of
construction methods that are not specified on these documents is not excluded provided
they attend relevant Irish building requirements and regulations. If codes and standards
are not clear and available, it generates reluctance in the adoption of these non-traditional
ways of construction. Customers have to feel confident with the product to take on
projects using OSC. Regulations and standard compliance promotes encouragement and
protect all involved in the construction process. Therefore, the need for appropriate, clear
building regulations for all OSC types.

PAGE 14
Another factor responsible for the reluctance to adopt OSC and has impeded this
approach to be embraced is the unsuccessful past experiences (Nadim and Goulding,
2010; Rahimian and Goulding, 2019). According to Mohsin (2011), the conservative
approach adopted by industry’s stakeholders was the barrier under this category that most
constrains OSC use. Also, due to the unfamiliarity of OSC approach by financial
institutions the difficulty of obtaining finance was recognised as a barrier. Moreover,
Abanda, Tah and Cheung (2017) state that conservativism of the construction industry
creates a resistance to change in the professionals, which restrain the attempt to innovate
in this industry. Goulding et al. (2012) present that an aversion to taking risks in the
construction industry culture constrains its adoption. Gibb and Isack (2003) defend that
the client’s preferences are the most crucial consideration when deciding what
construction method to use. However, if professionals are not opened to suggest or
present the benefits of OSC, clients most likely will not have information and confidence
in adopting this method. It is important that the market and clients understand the
evolution of technology and materials from the past to the present so the bad stigma that
OSC carries can be left behind, and the resistance to the adoption of this approach can be
deconstructed. Incentives from the Government and industry professionals can be a way
to create a new image for this approach and embrace new technologies changing the
industry culture; however, there is a lack of such incentive in significant developing
countries (CIF, 2020). Moreover, it was identified other barriers that constrain OSC
adoption by the CIF. There is inter-manufacture rivality in the industry and market
protection from existing suppliers that impede new entrants and limits production of
OSC. Also, modern materials are not being used to produce components and modules.

2.6.5 BARRIERS RELATED TO LOGISTICS & SITE OPERATION

When using OSC, logistics is a fundamental factor for the success of this approach. It
involves transportation, delivery storage of modules and components. The large size of
these products sometimes makes the transportation and handling of these modules
complicated. That directly impacts site operations as handling heavy and large products
increase risk on site. Moreover, roads regulations often dictate the maximum size and
weight of the products interfering directly in the production process and design, which

PAGE 15
might be limited to attend these regulations and seek to optimise transportation costs.
Blismas and Wakefield (2008) point out that low tolerance of OSC components,
especially when dealing with on-site interfaces, impedes this approach's winder adoption.
Site-specific constraints may limit access to the site interfering with installations and
receiving OSC products. Handling this on-site needs machinery such as cranes which
requires space that is limited by the site characteristics. Also, skilled professionals to deal
with these bulky, heavy loads and to manage on-site interface are needed.

2.6.6 BARRIERS RELATED TO SUPPLY CHAIN AND

PROCUREMENT
Encountered in other researches supply chain for OSC is considered more critical than in
traditional building. A more rigorous control is needed and that requires more integration
(Rahimian and Goulding, 2019). Blismas and Wakefield (2009) pointed out that the
manufacturers' capacity to supply OSC product is limited and imported products are
prone to not meet quality and standards. The limited capacity of manufacturers was
pointed out in the CIF report as a barrier for the wider adoption of this approach in
Ireland. Also, as the manufacturing processes are highly dependent on their supply chain
and as these are limited, it involves high risks. As mentioned, the industry is resistant to
taking risks, which interferes with the decision to use OSC in projects (Larsson and
Simonsson, 2012). Other factors that interfere in the development of a reliable supply
chain of OSC are the fluctuations in demand, instability of investments and constructions
cycle (Davies, 2018). The size of projects influences the use of OSC solutions as it has
been found that OSC is not fitful for small projects. Moreover, procurement methods
presently used were designed to attend traditional building. Therefore, they do not attend
all the specificities necessary for OSC, which involves different payment terms and
contractual terms, creating uncertainty on clients and suppliers, which constrain the use
of OSC in projects.

2.6.7 BARRIERS RELATED TO SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE

Skilled-labour shortage is one of the drivers of OSC. However, this is also seen as a
restrain that impedes a wider adoption of OSC. This construction approach requires

PAGE 16
specific skills from designers, engineers, on-site labour, project managers, etc. The lack
of knowledge by professionals surrounding this approach leads to a limited workforce
that can develop and handle projects using OSC. The current education system and
training still focus on traditional building methods. If the industry is not familiar with this
construction method, it will not be adopted as the benefits of using it will not be realized.
Development of knowledge surrounding OSC is necessary so that it will be a better
understanding of it will lead to stakeholder confidence to embrace the benefits offered by
this solution and adopt it on projects.

2.6 Summary of Literature Review

Previous research suggests that modular methods are effective in providing cost and
schedule benefits to a construction project. Studies have also proven that prefabrication
can help in making a project sustainable, by reducing the construction waste, dust, and
noise, as well as reducing the overall adverse effects of construction on the environment
and the surroundings. The research on prefabrication in the developing countries industry
is limited. However, (Choi et al., 2017) studied the opportunities and challenges of
implementing modular methods in a dense urban environment with survey participants
from the Hong Kong construction industry. Therefore, this study focuses on evaluating
the opportunities and challenges of implementing modular methods in a developing
country in Pakistan, with survey participants from Pakistan’s stakeholders.

References
1. Cantu, H., Canal, C., and Costin, A. (2019). Modular Construction: Assessing the
Challenges Faced with the Adoption of an Innovative Approach to Improve U.S.
Residential Construction. CIB World Building Congress, Hong Kong, June 17-21.
2. Costin, A., and Eastman, C. (2019). Need for interoperability to enable seamless
information exchanges in smart and sustainable urban systems. Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, 33(3), 04019008.

PAGE 17
3. Costin, A., Wehle, A., and Adibfar, A. (2019). Leading Indicators—A Conceptual
IoT-Based Framework to Produce Active Leading Indicators for Construction
Safety. Safety, 5(4), 86.
4. Costin, A., Adibfar, A., Hu, H., and Chen, S. S. (2018). Building Information
Modeling (BIM) for transportation infrastructure–Literature review, applications,
challenges, and recommendations. Automation in Construction, 94, 257-281.
5. Chauhan, K., Peltokorpi, A., Lavikka, R. & Seppänen, O. (2019). Deciding
Between Prefabrication and On-Site Construction: A Choosing-by-Advantage
Approach In: Proc. 27th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC). Dublin, Ireland, 3-5 Jul 2019. pp 749-758.
6. Darekar, K., 2020. Internship Report and Data Collection at HUB projects in
Gainesville.
7. Qi, B., Chen K., and Costin, A. M. (2018). RFID and BIM-enabled prefabricated
component management system in prefabricated housing production.
Construction Research Congress, New Orleans, 591-601.
8. Qi, B., Razkenari, M., and Costin, A. (2019). Challenges of Implementing
Emerging Technologies in Residential Modular Construction. CIB World
Building Congress, Hong Kong, June 17-21.
9. Razkenari, M., Qi, B., Fenner, A., Hakim, H., Costin, A., and Kibert C.J. (2019).
Industrialized construction: emerging methods and technologies. Computing in
Civil Engineering, 2019: Data, Sensing, and Analytics, ASCE, Atlanta, 352-359.
10. Steinhardt, D., Manley, K., Bildsten, L. and Widen, K. (2019). The structure of
emergent prefabricated housing industries: a comparative case study of Australia
and Sweden. Construction Management and Economics, pp.1-19.
11. Smith, R. (2011). Prefab architecture. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. W M
Wong, R., J L Hao, J. and M L Ho, C. (2020). Prefabricated Building
Construction Systems Adopted in Hong Kong.
12. Yin, X., Liu, H., Chen, Y., and Al-Hussein, M. (2019). Building information
modelling for offsite construction: Review and future directions. Automation in
Construction, 101, 72-91.

PAGE 18
13. Velamati, S. (2012). Feasibility, benefits and challenges of modular construction
in high rise development in the United States: a developer's perspective (Doctoral
dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
14. Lu, N., & Liska, R. W. (2008). Designers' and general contractors' perceptions of
offsite construction techniques in the United State construction
industry. International journal of construction education and research, 4(3), 177-
188.
15. Emmanuel, A., Aigbavboa, C. and Dlamini, E. (2020). Factors Affecting Quality
of Construction Projects in Swaziland. 9th International Conference on
Construction in the 21st century: Dubai, UAE.
16. Fard, M., Terouhid, S., Kibert, C. and Hakim, H. (2015). Safety concerns related
to modular/prefabricated building construction. International Journal of Injury
Control and Safety Promotion, 24(1), pp.10-23.
17. Fenner, A., Razkenari, M., Shojaei, A., Hakim, H. and Kibert, C. (2018).
Outcomes of the Stateof-the-art Symposium: status, challenges and future
directions of offsite construction. Modular and Offsite Construction (MOC)
Summit Proceedings. 52
18. Jha, K.N. & Iyer, K.C. (2005). Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from
Indian construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, Vol.
23, No. 4, pp.283-295.
19. McGraw Hill Construction. (2013). Safety management in the construction
industry: Identifying risks and reducing accidents to improve site productivity and
project ROI.
20. Bedford, MA: McGraw Hill Construction. New Scientist. 2020. Science: The Day
the Sweet Track Was Built. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 March 2020].
21. News, A., 2020. Built-In 10 Days China's Virus Hospital Takes 1St Patients.
[online] ABC News. Available at: [Accessed 9 March 2020].
22. Patil, J. (2020). Prefabrication Technology -A Promising Alternative in the
Construction Industry. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
8(8):220 - 224, 8(8):220 - 224.

PAGE 19
23. Wang, M., Wang, C. C., Sepasgozar, S., & Zlatanova, S. (2020). A systematic
review of digital technology adoption in off-site construction: Current status and
future direction towards industry 4.0. Buildings, 10(11), 204.
24.
25. Choi, J. O., Chen, X. Bin, & Kim, T. W. (2017). Opportunities and challenges of
modular methods in dense urban environment. International Journal of
Construction Management, 0(0), 1 13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1382093

PAGE 20