Development of offsite construction

2.1 Introduction
Building changes over time. Many new approaches have been made to industrialise the production of housing system since industrialised revolution so that the benefits of economy and quality that flow from factory made products may be transmitted to buildings (Gann, 1996) to address the substantial imbalance between the demand for and supply of housing units (Tesfaye, 2007). Industrialisation in construction industry is a process of transforming changes and improvement in management (Abdullah et al, 2009). To date, however, Hashemi (2003) argued that not many efforts are successful after numerous attempts due to the inadequate design and specification. Past mistake should not be the stoppage of adopting industrialisation (Stephenson and Kirkham, 2005) but learn from the lesson and improve the performance of industrialised building in term of standard and quality. Gibbs (1999) identified that over recent years, industrialisation can be used in construction projects especially housing sector with a view to improve the value of money, quality and time. Industrialised housing is not new. By mirroring automotive sectors, the implementation of advanced factory production methods provides the opportunity of transferring expertise between industrial sectors (Gann, 1996). Stephen and Kirkham (2005) went on to state that innovations in technology and manufacturing capabilities have been applied to the offsite fabrication. Industrialisation of building techniques is commonly believed to be on similar characteristic with offsite fabrication (Abdullah et al, 2009). Notwithstanding the terms, the intention is to move some construction processes away from the construction site to a more manageable environment of the manufacturing floor (Abdullah et al, 2009). Above all, this research attempts to establish the development of offsite construction and understand how the potential benefits of prefabrication construction can lead to the increment of housing in the UK industry through comparison of traditional method and Modern Method of Construction (MMC). Market researches and reports have shown that many previous works have been taken to study this topic namely, perceptions, drivers, barriers in depth (Pan et al, 2007; Gann and Senker, 1993; Stephenson and Kirkham, 2005; Goodier and Gibb, 2007; Blismas and Wakefield, 2009) but there is no overall source of information covering the effectiveness of offsite construction in improving the current situation of housing shortage in the UK. This research is intended to fill up the gap as far as the data sources permit.

2.2 Historical Development 2.2.1 Development before the First World War
The birth of prefabrication comes in as early as the spring of AD43 when the Roman army invaded Britain in force (Davis, 2009). Davis (2009) indicated that the very first example is the prefabricated forts brought by the Romans. Before the nineteenth century, human beings already able to manufacture simple part off site which then carted to the site and re-erected in their final position (White, 1965). Prefabrication has been actively used and this can be seen from the first Iron Bridge in the UK in 1779 where the span was made off cast iron prefabricated at Colebrookdale (Philipson, 2001). Some other examples include the export of prefabricated and sectionalized buildings of timber to the colonies in the midst of nineteenth century (Vale, 1995). The UK construction industry experienced an accelerated development in these technologies in housing especially after the First and Second World War as there was accumulated demand for housing.

2.2.2 Period after First World War

The First World War had a dramatic effect on housing in Britain. In the situation where no houses were built and properly maintained during the four years of fighting, the post war year ended with a

general shortage in dwellings (White, 1965). Traditional method of construction could not satisfy the accumulated demand at the end of First World War where there was an inevitable scarcity in both raw materials and skilled workers (Vale, 2005; Philipson, 2001). Attempts had been made to industrialise the housing construction in the UK and it began with the standardisation of components and followed by prefabrication in the factories (Swenarton, 1981; Gann and Senker, 1993). The two most famous constructions in this era are Addison Housing Programme in 1919 (Vale, 2005; UOWE, 2008) and Homes Fit for Heroes in 1921 (Swernaton, 1981). But, these two developments had failed miserably due to the low quality of design, materials and poor building skills (POST, 2003; Harvey et al, 1997). At the same time, around 30,000 prefabricated houses were built in response to the new town building programme (Gann and Senker, 1993) had neglected the quality of houses. The major problems like cracking, leaking and corrosion were left unsolved due to political and economic instability.

2.2.3 Period after Second World War

The Second World War has rigorously increased the difficulties of post-war reconstruction and slum clearance (Vale, 2005). Burt Committee was formed to govern the reconstruction task bearing in mind the efficiency, economy and speed of erection (Philipson, 2001). This is an important influence in decisions to adopt prefabrication again after being ceased by 1928 (Philipson, 2001). Portal House (Vale, 2005) was the first programme introduced by the effort of applying engineering industry methods to housing in the same way as commercial organisation. To overcome the scarcity of materials problem, materials that were not previously associated with housing were used. The most notable examples are steel framed Arcon House clad in asbestos cement (Vale, 2005) and Uni-Seco which adapted timber framed asbestos cement clad panels (White, 1965). However, these developments did not achieve the anticipated quality and aesthetic view. This dissatisfaction has contributed to the perception of prefabrication (Philipson, 2001) as a result of suffering similar demise of First World War housing.

2.2.4 Period of Revolution in Building

Both the First and Second World War had changed the numbers and types of housing available in Britain (Vale, 2005). Industrialisation housing has eventually reached its climax level during the 1960s (Finnimore, 1989) when the current housing stock condition could not accommodate the rising population. With the industrialisation and modernisation of construction development, CLASP (White, 1965), Nenk System (Chilton, 2000) and Jespersen 12M (Bendixson, 1965) were introduced. According to Bendixson (1965), the objective of CLASP is to provide off-site production of small and light-weight elements consisting of steel frame structures with timber carcassing for builders whilst the Nenk System developed by the former Ministry of Public Building and Works was designed in accordance with prefabricated steel pyramidal modules with the dimension of 1.22m x 1.22m in plan and 1.05m or 0.61m deep respectively (Corus, 2007). It could span 12.2m (40 feet) with normal floor load and 26.8m (88 feet) with normal roof load (Chilton, 2000). Lastly, Jesperson 12M which acquired Danish technique are the most ambitious among all allows for high flexibility in architectural planning and appearance as the components were based on dimensional module rather than a standard size (Bendixson, 1965). However, prefabrication entered a decline in the next few decades especially after the infamous Ronan Point gas explosion in 1968 (Hashemi, 2003; Cook, 1968). The tower block was completely collapsed due to an explosion in one floor, was when the vulnerability of prefabrication was revealed (Ross, 2002). In addition, the poor workmanship has severely shaken public confidence in the safety of high rise homes. It is not until 1998, Sir John Egan's report of Rethinking of Construction, produced by Construction Task Force, highlighted the deficiencies in the industry and pointed out strategies for improving scarcities of housing industry facing by increase the use of prefabrication. In order to address the shortfall of housing, once again the uptake of prefabrication is encouraged in the UK construction industry.

2.3 Overview of the UK Housing Market

2.3.1 Housing Demand

Information on the stock of dwellings in the housing market is essential to give an accurate measure of current housing supply as it provides a baseline for judging whether the market is over flooded or undersupply with dwellings (URL 1). The housing built is not keeping pace with growing population and resulted in housing to be on a downward trend. Table 1.0 below shows the estimated four regions of the UK population was 61.4 million in mid 2008 (Office National Statistic, 2009). It is further projected to increase by 4.3 million by 2018 which equivalent to an average annual rate of growth of 0.7 percent (Office National Statistic, 2009). The failure of UK housing system to provide adequate housing for households has become a common perception to the public (Howes, 2002). Nevertheless, Government report (EHCS, 2007; Housing and Planning Statistics, 2009) stated that, there were around 22.2 million houses in 2007 where majority of 83 percent is houses and the remainder of stock comprised flats (EHCS, 2007; CLG, 2009). With the increasing population, Holmans (1995) suggested that an additional of 240,000 houses is to be constructed each year to accommodate the newly arising housing demand and need each year for the UK from 2001 to 2011. Holmans' (1995) estimation of building approximately 240,000 houses a year is significantly higher than the 207,470 dwellings completed in 2007/2008 as shown in Table 2.0 below (CLG, 2009). It suggested a shortfall of 32,530 dwellings per annum in the UK. There is evidence that housing construction in the UK is inadequate to meet social needs. In short, the housing stock in the Britain is severely undersupply. This may well lead to the growing of prefabrication in the construction industry. Net additional dwellings to the stock, by region, 2000-01 to 2007-08 Number of dwellings Yorkshire Financial North North East West East of and the Year East West Midlands Midlands England Humber All Dwellings 2000-01 2890 10720 10800 14830 13790 17780 2001-02 3100 10280 10200 15170 11210 17930 2002-03 3950 14860 10900 15920 11900 20330 2003-04 3840 18590 13700 14740 10690 21080 2004-05 5580 18150 12470 17360 15880 22280 2005-06 5540 20570 16130 20090 18670 24610 2006-07 7170 22750 19160 22070 16300 24900 2007-08 7510 26050 20270 20620 15790 26730

London

South South England East West

15710 15700 17660 21790 22890 24860 26940 27570

25680 25090 26140 27980 32050 33280 34560 35410

19790 21830 22020 22370 22830 22860 25160 27520

132000 130520 143660 154770 169480 186600 199000 207470

Table 2.0 Dwelling stock: Net additional dwellings to the stock, by region, 2000-01 to 2007-08 Source: House and Planning Statistics 2009 (CLG)

2.3.2 Housing Supply

Generally, there are two types of construction method in the UK construction industry which is traditional and Modern Method of Construction (MMC). Majority of houses in the country are dominated by traditional housing (Willis and Tipple, 1991; POST 2003) and this encompassed most of the existing stock and to the extent of 85% of the new build (Building Talk, 2005). Houses constructed using traditional brick and block masonry method are time consuming and less precise although they are more flexible in layout and dimensions (Gann and Senker, 1993; Lovell and Smith, 2009). Other issues like construction time, overall cost, shortage of traditional skills, and quality of traditional built houses are still being questioned and research has been undertaken to assess them (Gann and Senker, 1993; POST, 2003). The Government has set out those future housing programmes which procure using public fund to be constructed using MMC forms of construction due to the lack of supply of housing as illustrated in Table 2.0 (Gann and Senker, 1993; Ross et al, 2006).

MMC is not new to the industry. However, the term Modern Method of Construction' does not have a universally agreed definition. The Cross-Industry Group defines MMC as follow: Modern Methods of Construction are about better products and processes. They aim to improve business efficiency, quality, customer satisfaction, environmental performance, sustainability and the predictability of delivery timescales. Modern Methods of Construction are, therefore, more broadly based than a particular focus on product. They engage people to seek improvement, through better processes, in the delivery and performance of construction. (Barker, 2006) Many of the approaches considered as MMC involve prefabrication and offsite manufacture (Riley and Cotgrave, 2008). Prefabrication mirrored techniques from manufacturing sector which involve manufacture building parts with wiring and plumbing properly integrated in a specially designed factory. The end products are then transported to the site and assembled quickly by skilled workers (Lovell and Smith, 2009). Out of the total housing stock, approximately 22,500 equivalents to 15% of the new build are prefabricated (Building Talk, 2005).

2.3.3 Classification of MMC

There are various types of prefabricated building components in the construction industry. Continuous debates have been kept on going regarding the ways in which MMC should be categorised. The most commonly adopted classification is developed by Housing Corporation (Ross et al, 2006; Riley and Cotgrave, 2008). Generally, forms of MMC for house construction include volumetric construction, panelised system and hybrid construction.

2.3.3.1 Volumetric Construction

Volumetric construction is sometimes known as modular construction. All volumetric modules are three-dimensional factory production, fully fitted out as shown in Figure 1.0 before being transported and assembled on site (Ross, 2005; Ross et al, 2006; Lawson and Ogden, 2008; Riley and Cotgrave, 2008). Materials such as timber frame, light gauge steel frame, concrete and components are used to create the modules. The use of this technology is suitable for constructions where there are a large number of identical units such as student accommodations, hotels and so on (Ross et al, 2006; Riley and Cotgrave, 2008). Economies of scale occur when producing repetitive modules at a mass production. Typically, a house is made up of four modular units with a roof whilst flat would normally consist of three units (Ross, 2005; Ross et al, 2006; Riley and Cotgrave, 2008). The most commonly used volumetric unit nowadays in the construction industry is the provision of bathroom and kitchen pod'.

2.3.3.2 Panelised Systems

Panelised systems consist of prefabricated walls, floor and roof panels in the form of flat preengineered panel units produced in the factory and later being transported and assembled into a three-dimensional structure on site (Ross, 2005; Ross et al, 2006; English Partnership, 2008). According to Riley and Cotgrave (2008), the panels can be of a variety of materials such as timber, steel, concrete, composite materials and so on where timber and lightweight steel are the most popular form of panels. Literally, it can be categorised into two types, namely open and closed panel systems. Open panel system (Figure 2.0) refers to a framing system which consist only the skeletal structure and installation of insulations, services and internal finishes only take part when panels are transported to site (Ross, 2005; Ross et al, 2006). Alternatively, closed panel systems (Figure 3.0) are more complex as it is fully assembled and enclosed in the factory. These panels require more prefabrication work as compare with open panel system (English Partnership, 2008; Riley and Cotgrave, 2008). A full discussion of the classification of MMC is outside the scope of this research, but has been published elsewhere (Ross, 2005; Ross et al, 2006; English Partnership, 2008; Burwood and Jess, 2005; Gibb and Isack, 2003; Gibb, 2001; Pan et al, 2008; Stephenson and Kirkham, 2005)

2.3.3.3 Hybrid Construction

Hybrid construction is a combination of volumetric and panelised system. It is also known as semivolumetric as it combined the two approaches in a same building (Figure 4.0) (Ross, 2005). Normally, volumetric units - pod' are used at high serviced area such as kitchen and bathroom while the rest of the dwellings are completed with panelised system. However, Ross has pointed out in both his guidance book that extra care needs to be given in catering the difference of thermal and moisture movements because different manufacture products are being used. Hybrid construction has the advantage of combining the best elements of volumetric and panelised construction together hence adding value to the dwellings (Ross et al, 2006).

2.4 International Use of MMC

Other than in the UK, prefabrication is commonplace and used extensively in occupancy dwellings in Japan, Scandinavia and Germany (POST, 2003). Japan relies heavily on prefabrication to meet housing needs than other European countries. In clear contrast to the reluctance of UK house builders for the adoption of prefabrication, Japan on the other hand is painting a very different story with significant position and influential dominating Japanese housing market as shown in Figure 5.0 (Johnson, 2007). Japan construction market is dominated by five major house builders - Misawa, Sekisui Heim, Sekisui Kawa, National and Daiwa (Gann and Senker, 1993). Figure 5.0 clearly showed the huge difference of evolution of Japan and UK housing market since 1945. The success of Japanese in selling prefabricated housing means pre-manufacture products do not necessarily offer inferior products. Having established that the demand and supply of housing largely affecting the housing stock in the market, the next section analyses several case studies to ascertain the implications of the difference between prefabrication and traditional method followed by the benefits and barriers of prefabrication.

2.5 Detailed Case Studies

The three constraints being time, cost and quality are the three main pressures which may give rise to the need to reconsider housing technologies (Gann and Senker, 1993). The housing industry therefore comes to realisation the need to construct low cost housing associate with high quality other than achieving the higher environmental standard.

2.5.1 Volumetric Construction - Murray Grove, Hackney 2.5.1.1 Project Information

Murray Grove development (Figure 6) which is situated in Hackney, North London was designed by Cartwright-Pickard architects for Peabody Trust was the first multi-storey, prefabricated, modular residential construction in the UK. Yorkon and Kajima work closely together as module manufacturer and main contractor respectively (Bgenholm et al, 2001; Partington, 1999; Azobuild, 2003). The development was a five-storeys building designed in two blocks connected by cylindrical stair tower on a tight corner brownfield site with total gross external floor area of 2,150m. The scheme comprised of 30 apartments made up of 16 one-bedroom apartments assembled from two modules and 14 two-bedroom apartments assembled from three modules. Each flat also has a private balcony facing a communal garden (Figure 7). This development has proved successful in achieving saving in time, high and reliable quality, and architecturally interesting building.

2.5.1.2 Time (Construction Phase)

As illustrated in Figure 9.0, the assembling of prefabricated volumetric modules onsite (Figure 8.0) was done in two phases where each phase would consume only five working days. The offsite manufacture process had accelerated the construction work onsite which cannot possibly achieved by traditional construction. The contraction duration which exclude modules manufacture period was 27 weeks and the actual completion time was 44 weeks from site possession to handover. As a comparison, Peabody Trust had a similar sized project (Dalston Lane) in the same area at the same time as Murray Grove that was constructed using traditional method; this scheme was completed in 62 weeks. The use of prefabrication and modular construction has shown an early completion of 18 weeks. In other words, prefabrication has the potential to reduce construction time significantly. In addition, less snagging time is needed for prefabricated units as they are subjected to tight quality control in factory during manufacturing stage (NAO, 2006).

2.5.1.3 Costs
The actual construction cost was 2,335,000 averaging out to a cost of 77,800 per unit. Peabody Trust reported that the total final cost of Dalston Lane development was 2,645,800 and that corresponding construction cost was 1,829,300 with a cost per unit equating to 76,200 (Bgenholm et al, 2001; Partington, 1999). Peabody Trust claimed that the faster construction time when compared to traditional developments has enabled them to recoup rental income at an earlier stage. This additional rental income corresponds to approximately the price of an additional unit, when the rent is set to between 136 and 189 per week.

2.5.1.4 Quality
The quality of the apartments was ascertained when majority of the interviewed tenants were pleased and satisfied. The tight quality control in the factory is likely to lead to fewer defects than traditionally built housing. Snagging has in return being reduced to a minimum.

2.5.2 Hybrid Construction - CASPAR II, Leeds 2.5.2.1 Project Information

CASPAR (City Centre Apartments for Single People at Affordable Rents) is a 45 flats scheme by Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) in Leeds which aimed at middle-income, young and single people in producing affordable housing for inner city (Powell, 2000). The five-storey CASPAR II which is designed by appointed Architects Levitt Bernstein is a unique building combining the use of prefabricated modules and timber framing (Bgenholm et al, 2001). The scheme is applying modular construction techniques familiar from the hotel industry. The modules manufacturer and main contractor were Volumetric and Kajima respectively. Figure 10 shows that the flats are arranged in a single curved block, a crescent, in accordance with compact site with modular units facing motorways whilst panelled part facing courtyard overlooked by balconies. Each flat is quite generous in size though only has a gross internal floor area of 50m and the total gross external floor area is 2,455m.

2.5.2.2 Time (Construction Phase)

The construction has overall taken 40 weeks from site possession to practical completion. This was an overrun of 17 weeks on the original contract period of 23 weeks due to unforeseen difficult ground conditions (Bgenholm et al, 2001). However, the arrival and installations of modules and flat-pack panels on site is running parallel and finished according to the set timetable of three weeks although experienced minor delays due to adverse weather. JRF claimed that a scheme of comparable size built with traditional methods would take around 14 months, approximately 56 weeks without delays.

To cut long story short, the innovative construction has shorter construction time comparable to traditional construction.

2.5.2.3 Costs
The final cost of the development as reported by JRF was 69,900 per apartment compared to an average of 57,300 for traditionally built social housing. It was 12,600 higher than traditionally built social housing owing to the use of external designers for innovative design. The build cost per apartment has slightly exceeded the set target cost by JRF. MMC can be cost-competitive but CASPAR II had proved that hybrid construction is more expensive than other techniques. However, this additional cost is expected to be recouped through early rental income due to the approximately 16 weeks shorter programme compared to brick and block constructed scheme.

2.5.2.4 Quality
By all account, the 45 decently built flats serves its tenants well. Similar to Murray Grove, building quality is ensured especially in the completely fitted offsite modular units. Factory production stands higher chance to minimise premature failures compare to onsite construction.

2.5.3 Summary of Case Studies

Both case studies have shown it is possible to provide high quality dwellings on a relatively short timescale and to a competitive price. With advantages like increased quality, faster and safer construction and low labour requirement, offsite manufacturing techniques appear to be attractive although volumetric and hybrid construction are slightly more expensive than traditionally built housing. The benefits and barriers of prefabrication will be further discussed in the following section.

2.6 Potential Benefits toward Prefabrication

As discussed in previous section, prefabrication has the potential to overcome many of the problems faced by the building industry today and in the aftermath of Egan, the demand for prefabrication has increased. Nowadays, much has been written on the benefits of prefabrication in the UK construction industry and below are some derived from the case studies.

2.6.1 Rate of Delivery

Theoretically, prefabrication is recognised to be a method of construction which offer a speedy housing delivery by transferring some critical site casting activities to factory, with consequent reduction in site disruption (Burwood and Jess, 2005; Blismas and Wakefield, 2009; Blimas et al, 2006; Pan et al, 2008). Gibb and Isack (2003); Goodier and Gibb (2007) conducted a survey in which showed that decreased construction time on site is the main reason driving contractor whether to take up prefabrication. The survey reported due to high housing demand, offsite manufacturing has a recognition advantage of shorter on site building period than traditional method of construction. According to Gann (1996), assembly of traditional carpenter-built houses takes around 120 days on site, conventional 50% prefabricated panel houses around 90 days, and modular unit houses as little as 40 days on site, including preparation of foundations, interior furnishings and inspection'. In addition, shorter construction time is an extra benefit for both client and contractor seeing that time has related reduction in costs such as site costs, labour costs and so on. On top of that, early completion also has significant impacts on end users such as lessen the inconvenience and costs of living in temporary accommodation during the construction period (Johnson, 2007). As off-site technologies have become more commonplace nowadays, this can be one of the significant factors behind in choosing method of construction.

2.6.2 Quality
Quality is the second most cited issue for client in using prefabrication. Barker (2003) recommended that off-site technologies could deliver better product quality in controlled environment. Prefabrication has created an opportunity to enhance site-based construction which always suffers from low productivity and poor quality besides achieving Egan's productivity target (Building, 2002). Factorybased prefabricated housing ensured the consistency of quality, components life and reduced whole life cost than that could be achieved on site. The fact that design is refined during manufacturing process and component parts are assemble together by skilled workers is likely to reduce the need for snagging and defects thereby reduces wastage from the process (Blismas and Wakefield, 2009; Gibb and Isack, 2003). Greater use of factory production can reduce defects because there is less risk of weather damage during construction and materials can more easily be standardised and tested (POST, 2003). Instead of producing prefabricated housing reminiscent of 1960s just for the purpose of living in and failed to achieve the level of quality and choice of design required by the market, prefabricated housing now aiming to offer high-design flexibility to suit specific customers' need (Gann, 1996; Johnson, 2007). The performance of prefabricated housing is closely supervised by British Board of Agrment and Building Research Establishment (BRE) accreditation system alongside with validation and government regulations (POST, 2003; Burwood and Jess, 2005). Quality assurance is increased by the use of factory assembly and through pre-delivery inspection. Likewise, if a problem is found with a particular component of prefabricated housing then this could be easily solved as this would have been replicated in many houses, because they are mass produced (POST, 2003).

2.6.3 Skill Shortage

According to CIOB skill shortage survey (2006), with the gradually increase of construction demand over the coming year, there will not have sufficient number of skilled workers to fill up the skills gaps (Figure 13). Barker (2003) suggested that skills and innovation have great influence in determining the industry's ability to increase housing supply. Many consider skill shortages is a driver but minority is seeing it as a barrier to expand prefabrication. Factory-based production provides the opportunity to develop steady workforce by training new workers and make more efficient use of resources. On the contrary, the number of skilled workers on-site and wet trades will decrease as most assemble work is done in factory (Gann and Senker, 1993; Burwood and Jess, 2005). This is seen to be the main benefit when skilled labour is scarce and thus increase the attractiveness of prefabrication.

2.6.4 Health and Safety

Health and safety is an important consideration throughout project life cycle. All construction sites inherent with hazardous no matter how well organised. By transferring construction work on site to factory environment, the level of control gained on health and safety issue is ascertained, particularly reduce the risk of working at height and the levels of overcrowding on site (Building, 2002). At the same time, factory environment also guaranteed a better provision of health and safety as compared to on site construction as site conditions are unpredictable and it is far harder to control the risks (Gibb, 1999).

2.7 Barriers to Prefabrication 2.7.1 Cost

Generally, time, cost and quality are the most frequently questioned issues in choosing prefabrication. The most significant barrier cited is cost (Goodier and Gibb, 2007; Johnson, 2007; Pan et al, 2008). Survey carried out by Goodier and Gibb (2007) showed that majority thinks that offsite is more expensive than traditional construction and case studies above also proved prefabrication to be more expensive. UK industry sources stated that prefabrication may outrun traditional build by 10% (Pan et

al, 2007; POST, 2003). Although offsite construction is not new to the industry, many materials used are still new and yet to be tested. Concerns regarding the unforeseen costs such as maintenance, long-term costs remain unclear resulted in difficulties to evaluate life-cycle cost (Burwood and Jess, 2005). Meanwhile, initial set-up cost may be proved high but future and whole-life costs could be reduced if critical mass is achieved and mass production becomes prevalent (Burwood and Jess, 2005). Therefore, incentives and policies pioneered by The Housing Corporation are an important encouragement for contractors to adopt prefabrication to create more sizeable market. Other than that, offsite manufacturing should be considered at the earliest possible stage of development to avoid design changes which will contribute to the costs increment.

2.7.2 Inflexible Design Changes

Time management is vital in projects using prefabrication because significant decisions made will cause major impacts on the characteristics and form of the project. Prefabrication requires early involvement in the planning stage as changes cannot be dramatically changed in subsequent stages otherwise will incur in the increase of time and cost (Othman et al, 2004). According to Tam et al (2006), this is also one of the main reasons the clients and contractors reluctant to adopt prefabrication despite the inability to freeze designs in the development stage. In addition, late changes may also lead to disputes and litigation as a result of amending project brief. On the contrary, traditional scheme will not suffer the great consequences of prefabricated scheme if something goes wrong.

2.7.3 Risks
Prefabrication able to change certain risk profiles such as minimise delays due to bad weather and price fluctuations. On balance, other risks such as factory production capacity, inaccurate or unsuitable foundations, fail to deliver modules on time and manufacturer insolvency have become more notable (NAO, 2005). Risk management and risks mitigation therefore become an important expertise when adopting prefabrication. There is a need to employ qualified staffs who is experienced in working with prefabrication.

2.8 Discussion from Theoretical Analysis

This chapter analysed how current construction method utilised in the UK construction industry to aid in the quicker construction of housing and to help in increasing housing stock. Following the most political driver Egan Report - Rethinking Construction (1998), the construction industry comes to think differently in selecting construction method, with a view to improve value for money (Gibb, 2001). It appears that the construction industry is beginning to realise prefabrication may play a major role in future housing construction, yet it still appears this is not fully utilised by companies. From historical review to case studies, the overall literature review showed evidence of the greatest challenge faced by the industry is to address current shortfall of houses. Many clients, contractors and house buyers tend to be conservative and influenced by negative perceptions of post war prefabrication and resist innovations in house construction (Goodier and Gibb, 2007; Gann and Senker, 1993). However, due to the extensive demand of housing from the market, prefabrication is once again largely encouraged by the government. From reviewing case studies, it is shown that prefabrication is slowly expanding its usage in different sectors as prefabrication can efficiently shorten the construction time other than ensuring the quality of end product. After comparing prefabrication with traditional construction, the major benefits and challenges of prefabrication are identified. The main benefits are interrelated to time and quality. The short construction time, excellent quality and finishes control, compensate skill shortage and health and safety are the main concern of clients and house builders. As for the barriers, the most cited is cost, inflexible design changes and risks. Usually, most of the offsite construction will go slightly cost overrun as compared to traditional construction. Yet, prefabrication construction is possibly to be built

to the same cost or even lower than traditionally built largely depending on the volume and specification (Bgenholm, 2001). From reviewing the literature of the subject, the author has come to realise that the triple constraints which is time, cost and quality are the most dominant factors when coming to selecting a construction method. Nowadays, clients and end users are after value for money rather than attaining maximum profits and money savings. The three main constraints, benefits and barriers will be used as a basis to try and test the hypotheses set out in Chapter 1 as will be discussed in the next chapter. http://projects.bre.co.uk/prefabrication/prefabrication.pdf http://www.hbf.co.uk/fileadmin/documents/barker/MMC_Final_Draft.pdf http://www.englishpartnerships.co.uk/mmc.htm http://www.nhbcfoundation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kGLN0pdBF9Q%3D&tabid=339&mid=774&la nguage=en-GB