Manufacturing Excellence - Imperial College London

Designed by Lillington Green 0118 927 2474

Constructing Excellence 108-110 Judd Street London WC1H 9PX T 0845 605 5556 E [email protected] www.constructingexcellence.org.uk

Tim Venables James Barlow David Gann

North East 0191 383 3182

Scotland 01923 664830 North West 0161 295 5076

Yorkshire & Humber 0113 283 1714

Northern Ireland 02890 366086

East Midlands 0116 221 7859 West Midlands 07949 243283 East of England 07766 757337

Wales 02920 646155

London 01923 664830

The Housing Forum

Manufacturing Excellence South East 0118 967 5542

UK capacity in offsite manufacturing

South West 07813 140 034

Innovation Studies Centre Tanaka Business School Imperial College London January 2004

HFCE-LG-O104-v.1

■ Best ■ Best ■ Productivity ■ Productivity Innovation Innovation Practice Practice

Innovation

■

Best Practice

■

Productivity

The Housing Forum

Manufacturing Excellence UK capacity in offsite manufacturing The following people contributed either directly or indirectly to the production of this report:

The Housing Forum Modern Methods of Construction Group

The Housing Forum would like to thank the above organisations for their sponsorship of this publication

2

Constructing Excellence – The Housing Forum Manufacturing Excellence

3

(Chair) Simon Dow

Guinness Trust

Keith Blanshard

Yorkon

Ruth Bloomfield

O.D.P.M.

Chris Blundell

Amicus Group

Mehban Chowdery

N.H.B.C.

Clive Clowes

The Housing Corporation

Mark Cousens

O.D.P.M.

Alex Ely

C.A.B.E.

Judith Harrison

The Housing Forum

Andrew Heywood

Council of Mortgage Lenders

Andy Hill

Hill Partnerships Ltd

Peter Jenkins

Yorkon

John Johnson-Allen

RICS

Dr. Ashley Lane

Other contributors Tim Venables

Imperial College London

Prof. James Barlow


Westbury Homes

Prof. David Gann


Dale Meredith

Southern Housing Group

Dr Sunday Popo-Ola


John Miles

ARUP

Mariana Trejo Tinoco


John Nicholas

Redrow Group

Heather Lovell

Parliamentary Office of

Darren Richards

Mtech

Keith Ross

B.R.E.

Canda Smith

O.D.P.M.

Nigel Smith

Redrow Group

Elanor Warwick

C.A.B.E.

Jon Watson

Home Group Ltd.

Ann Alderson

Co-construct

Peter Wilkins

The Housing Forum

Sally-Anne Partoon

Video Consultant for

Paul Wornell

Building Performance Group


Science and Technology John Tebbit

Construction Products Association

Camargue PR Nick Whitehouse

Terrapin Ltd

Martin Clarke

British Pre Cast

Innovation ■ Best Practice ■ Productivity

3

Manufacturing Excellence “The Sustainable Communities Plan that I

Manufacturing Excellence is the second report of the Housing Forum Modern

published a year ago called for a step change in

Methods of Construction Group.

the way that housing is delivered in this country.

In our first report HOMING IN ON EXCELLENCE we set out why we believe

I firmly believe that modern methods of

modern methods of construction – and in particular off-site manufacture – could

construction have an important part to play in

make a major contribution to improving and expanding the nation's housing stock.

delivering this change. It is clear from this report,

Support for this view has grown both inside the house-building industry and also

which is the result of a very positive collaboration

within government.

between my officials and the Housing Forum,

To build momentum we decided to look at how far and fast the offsite

that the house-building industry has a good story

manufacturing of new homes has developed. What we found is the subject of this

to tell about the increasing contribution that

report. It is the first such snapshot and for that reason it is imperfect.

modern methods of manufacture is making to

Even so our research shows that an increasing number of organisations are ready

the house-building industry in this country.

and willing to respond to the real challenges that off-site manufacture represents.

It is important that we continue to build on this

A preliminary database of potential suppliers is part of our report.

good work, so that we are able to provide the

I am very grateful to the large number of distinguished practitioners who freely

high quality, well-designed homes that people

contributed to this report. Their interest is a reminder of the growing support for the

not only need, but increasingly demand, in the

modernisation of the house-building industry.

21st Century.” Simon Dow, Chair The Housing Forum Modern Methods of Construction Group, January 2004 The Guinness Trust, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP11 2NZ Rt Hon John Prescott MP

4



5

Table of contents Table of Contents

6


1

Executive summary

9

2

Introduction

14

2.1

Terms of reference and scope of work

14

2.2

Categorisation of OSM

15

2.3

Other definitions

16

2.4

How the research was carried out

17

3

Background

19

3.1

Meeting the future demand for new homes

20

3.2

Modernising the house-building industry

21

4

OSM producers and their capacity

23

4.1

Current output

23

4.2

Sourcing of raw materials and components

26

4.3

Perceived limitations to expansion

26

5

Factors shaping the uptake of OSM

29

5.1

Housing development – differing business models

29

5.2

OSM vs. ‘traditional’ housing development processes

31

5.3

The cost of OSM

33

5.4

The appropriate use of OSM

35

5.5

New regulations

35

6

Labour, skills and OSM

38

6.1

On-site skills issues

38

6.2

Skills in the factory

39

7

Conclusions

41

8

Recommendations

43

Appendix 1: List of Interviewees

46

Appendix 2: Interview checklist

47

Appendix 3: List of Survey Respondents

51

Appendix 4: Survey instrument

52

Appendix 5 Directory of Suppliers

57

References

61

Bibliography

62


7

2 Executive summary Background

The research investigates the UK’s off-site

Capacity of the OSM sector to respond to future demand The research suggests that suppliers are currently

manufacturing (OSM) industry in relation to the supply

operating at approximately 70% of maximum plant

of OSM components for housing. It evaluates whether

by 2006. Housing has accounted for around 60% of

this industry can expand its current production capacity

increase to over 70% in the near future.

to suit a future increase in demand and if so, by how

It is not possible to gain a full picture of OSM output

much and what might enable or inhibit such expansion.

problems in relating numbers of systems sold to

output. This is predicted to increase to around 80% total output in recent years. This is predicted to

in terms of housing units. This is because of numbers of completed housing units and because of

It is based on research jointly sponsored by the Housing

double counting by suppliers. We estimate that

Forum, The Housing Corporation and the Office of the

housing units per annum. Given the right market

Deputy Prime Minister. It aims to support policy

production facilities there may be scope to expand

objectives set out in Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future and it develops the work started by the Housing Forum in Homing in on Excellence.

major suppliers currently produce at least 17,000 conditions and the completion of planned new to c.30,000 units in 2004.

A number of companies are either expanding their own facilities or engaging in joint ventures with other firms to set up new production facilities, and others producing OSM components for other parts of the construction market are keeping a watching brief on market developments. Some overseas firms are monitoring developments in the UK to identify a

Suppliers regard the two main limiting factors as

suitable time to enter the market. These firms could

market demand (including public perception) and

raise overall capacity if the use of OSM in the UK

production capacity. The availability of capital for

housing market becomes more prevalent.

expanding facilities is not seen as a significant limitation, providing a clear forward order book can be identified, nor are building and planning regulations. None of the manufacturers considered the mortgagability of OSM produced homes to be a barrier despite the fact that strong reservations have been raised by some lenders.

8


Given the right market conditions and the completion of planned new production facilities there may be scope to expand to c.30,000 units in 2004


9

Factors shaping the uptake of OSM

Conclusions

Recommendations

The uptake of OSM is partly influenced by the

In the short-term the UK’s OSM industry is capable

If targets for OSM production are to be set, then

perceptions of developers on its advantages and

of accommodating any foreseeable increase in the

accurate figures on the number of dwellings

disadvantages, which are themselves influenced by

demand for its products by expanding its current

completed by type of construction will be needed to

their business models and processes, and partly by

production capacity.

measure performance against these targets.

A fundamental problem in moving house-building

There is a need for more research to be carried out

The business drivers and models of housing

towards OSM is the mismatch between the norms

to clarify the relative costs of various construction

developers and manufacturers are radically different.

and practices of housing development and those of

forms and to identify where cost savings can be

There are also significant differences in the business

the OSM suppliers. Both parties need to examine

achieved.

wider market and regulatory factors.

drivers of speculative and social housing developers.

how best to adapt working practices to the new

These all create tensions which may influence the

by developers. Moreover, many OSM suppliers’

uptake of OSM.

systems and components are currently designed

Manufacturers regard quality of production and finish

approach. Current policy initiatives are already addressing some

can best work together and stimulate supply chain

than to suit the specific characteristics of OSM.

of the more pressing inhibitors to the expansion of

integration.

OSM, by seeking to expand the supply of land for

traditional construction, along with the reduction in

OSM at present seems to lend itself more to certain

housing and targeting developments that use

on-site assembly time. The main disadvantage is the

types of construction and client than others. While it

modern methods of construction. However, guidance

interaction between the manufacturing nature of the

can be applied to most forms of construction, with

on planning issues relating to OSM may be required

OSM suppliers and the craft based nature of the

certain limits in some cases on storey height, non

to overcome resistance to its use by some planning

house-building industry. Consequently design lead-in

technical reasons generally relating to finance and

authorities.

time for OSM does not always fit in with the existing

cash flow may make it inappropriate in some cases. There is a danger in expecting the market to develop

construction and procurement schedules of the the way OSM components interface with on-site works. Finally there is a tension between the needs of OSM manufacturers for a degree of standardisation and the desire of developers or planners to produce variation in dwellings, or the

Labour and skills

Manufacturers argue that their costs are not being compared in a like-for-like manner and potential onsite time savings are not always taken into account

10 Constructing Excellence – The Housing Forum Manufacturing Excellence

time to develop closer links and identify suitable projects. Sudden shifts in the market may cause

medium level of training particularly in what are seen

disruption that could result in market exit by some

as the traditional craft skills. Firms are generally

manufacturers.

interested in semi skilled or multi skilled operatives rather than specific current trade skills. The vast majority of manufacturers report that the

expensive to build than traditional construction.

too quickly. Developers and manufacturers need the

OSM suppliers tend to look for people with a

need to respond to site-specific conditions. It is unclear whether OSM construction is more

manufacturers and developers to explore how they

around developers’ traditional housing types, rather as the most significant advantage of OSM over

housebuilders. There are also tensions arising from

There is a need for a forum which allows designers,

core skills required in operatives to work in their plant do not exist in the general stock of labour and

OSM offers the potential to relieve some of the skills shortages in construction; however, this can only take effect if there is a sufficient pool of manufacturing trained labour available. Steps should be taken to encourage careers in this area. Planning authorities and consumers need to be informed of the relative merits of OSM to provide assurance that this approach is of a similar quality and longevity to traditional construction. Until certification of systems becomes the norm for manufacturers, lenders will continue to have concerns over the security of their investment. OSM manufacturers will need a clear sign that there is sufficient certainty of return on investment before they are able to commit significant resources to the development of new systems.

they would need to provide additional training. Firms are as likely to employ from the construction industry as from manufacturing companies in other sectors.


11

3 Introduction This report is based on research carried out by the Innovation Studies Centre1 jointly sponsored by the Housing Forum, the Housing Corporation and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The research was commissioned to support some of the policy objectives set out in Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (ODPM 2003) and to follow on from the work started by the Housing Forum detailed in the report Homing in on Excellence (Housing Forum 2002). It investigates the UK’s off-site manufacturing (OSM) industry in relation to the supply of OSM components for housing. It evaluates whether this industry can expand its current production capacity to suit a future increase in demand and if so, by how much and what might enable or inhibit such expansion. The research was carried out over the summer 2003

3.1 Terms of reference and scope of work

3.1.2 Labour supply and skills

The research focused on the development and use

from severe on-site skills shortages. One objective of

of off-site manufacturing in the UK housing market.

OSM is said to be its ability to address aspect of this

In early 2003 the term ’modern methods of

problem. There has, however, been little discussion

construction’ started to be used to refer to a range of

on the skill requirements of OSM suppliers

innovative technical solutions for construction, of

themselves, rather than the on-site requirements for

which OSM is a subset. For the purposes of this

assembly. The research therefore explored labour

report OSM is defined as panelised and volumetric

and skills issues faced by OSM suppliers.

It is commonly held that house-building is suffering

systems, and major prefabricated components.The research investigated two main areas: producer and capacity issues, and labour supply and skills:

3.1.1 Producer and capacity issues This aspect of the research sought to identify current levels of production and levels of potential future capacity within the OSM industry. It also considered the current level of imported products and components as a source of OSM supply.

1


The Innovation Studies Centre is a research centre within the Tanaka Business School, Imperial College London


13

3.2 Categorisation of OSM

3.3 Other definitions

A variety of different types of OSM products were considered in the research:

This report tends to refer to housing ‘developers’ rather than ‘housebuilders’. We use the term developer to include both speculative developers, who are responsible for

Volumetric systems The most factory-based form of production, volumetric systems involve three dimensional modules that can be used in isolation or in multiples to form the structure of the building. These modules can be pre-finished in the factory to include all

Hybrid systems

the production of homes for sale, and registered social landlords (RSLs), who are

A combination of volumetric and panelised systems

generally responsible for the production of affordable homes. The main business

where the high value areas (kitchen and bathroom)

objective of both is not the actual construction of homes – in fact many developers

are typically formed from volumetric units

have no construction capability and sub-contract the entire construction process.

(sometimes referred to as pods) and the rest of the structure formed from some form of framing system.

fixtures and fittings, requiring a very limited amount of installation work on site.

Sub-assemblies Major building elements that are manufactured off

Open panel systems The construction of the structural frame for the building using panels assembled in the factory. Open

site but do not form the primary structure of the building. Foundation systems and cassette panels are typical examples.

panel systems are typically delivered to the site purely as a structural element with services, insulation,

Components

cladding and internal finishes installed in situ. Non-structural elements that are assembled off site. Although currently less common than structural

Closed panel systems These are similar to open panel systems in that the structural elements of the building are delivered to the site in flat panels. However, closed panel

elements, components such as mechanical and electrical services infrastructures are being developed with significant assembly work being carried out off site.

systems typically include more factory based fabrication such as lining materials and insulation and may even include cladding, internal finishes, services, doors and windows.



15

3.4 How the research was carried out The research was based on three main sources of data: Review of literature on OSM production in

that a significant proportion of respondents are

surveys. However, as can be seen from the tables

involved in one or more of the principal structural

below the survey provides a representative sample

systems but that there is also representation in the

Client Market

both in its response rate and the scope of markets

sample of producers of sub-assemblies and

Private Housing

90%

and technologies used by respondents. It also

components.

Social Housing

81%

Education

77%

Commercial Buildings

75%

Hotels

72%

Healthcare

71%

Retail

56%

Industrial Buildings

48%

Temporary Buildings

30%

Other market

10%

encompasses the vast majority of the major

housing from academic sources, trade press and

suppliers

Table 2. Primary construction form

general media. The survey served a dual purpose. It was partly

Survey of manufacturers and suppliers of OSM

concerned with data for a directory of firms involved

products

in OSM (see appendix 5). It also aimed to canvass

Formal and informal interviews with leading

Table 3. Client market

possible to define an exact response rate for these

Form

Number of responses

% of respondents

the view of manufacturers on their current and future

Volumetric modules

10

capacity to supply OSM products to housing, and the

Framing systems

32

external influences that might affect this capacity.

Panel systems

20

Foundation systems

7

Cladding systems

19

whether it was applied to housing or other form of

Roofing systems

11

construction. Table 1 illustrates that out of the 61

Bathroom and kitchen pods

8

Semi structured interviews were carried out with 27

Questionnaires were sent directly to 100

responses firms supplying products from the full range

Building Services

11

key players (representing 21 organisations) in both

manufacturers of OSM products identified through

of primary materials were canvassed. Additionally this

Other (floor/stairs/roof)

4

literature and internet searches. Additionally, the

table shows that firms produce components using

of those interviewed is included in appendix 1.

survey was distributed through the Construction

multiple materials and have products that were

These interviews were predominantly conducted

Products Association (CPA) and British Precast to all

applicable across the construction market.

players in the manufacture, supply, construction of OSM as well as housing developers (social and speculative) who have had experience of

Respondents were asked to classify the primary

projects involving OSM

construction material used in their products and

3.4.1 Survey

response rate of 51%. We have been unable to determine the exact number of recipients of the survey via CPA and British Precast and given a

manufacturing and housing development. A full list

Table 3 shows the range of client markets served by

face to face, with a small number carried out by

respondents, based on 61 responses. The majority of

telephone. The interviews aimed to capture

Table 2 illustrates the spread of construction forms

those canvassed are already active in the UK housing

qualitative information on the industry and explore

produced by respondents of the survey. These

market serving both the speculative and social

issues arising from the survey in more depth. A copy

ranged from fully volumetric whole house systems,

markets. These suppliers also service a wide variety

of the interview checklist is included in appendix 2.

through a variety of structural forms, to smaller

of other client markets.

of their members. A total of sixty one responses were received, 31 from the direct mailing, giving a

3.4.2 Interviews

components. Again based on 61 responses, it shows

certain degree of overlap with our own list it is not

Table 1. Primary construction material Primary Material Market Number of responses

Concrete

Steel

Timber

Other

Housing

Other

Housing

Other

Housing

Other

Housing

Other

24

26

39

33

46

37

14

15



17

4 Background The context for the increased interest in OSM is set by two important factors – the intense pressure within the

4.1 Meeting the future demand for new homes A number of recent policy documents both from

housing market, especially in South East England, and a

government and non-government sources have

government and industry concern to improve the

produced annually in the UK. These are summarised

performance of the construction industry.

The report suggests that new technologies could both improve the quality of construction and assist with addressing skills constraints in the industry.

identified concerns over the number of houses being below.

factors and influences on the housing supply system the report suggests that new technologies could

Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future

both improve the quality of construction and assist

(ODPM 2003) sets ambitious housing and planning

with addressing skills constraints in the industry.

targets for the period 2003 - 2006. It is the first radical attempt to tackle the housing supply issues that exist across England. The plan aims to tackle the lack of affordable housing, the supply of high-quality homes, reform of the planning system and revitalisation of run down communities blighted by abandonment and neglect. It considers the ‘liveability factor’ for communities (transport, schools, open spaces, etc.). It targets growth in areas like the Thames Gateway to stop urban sprawl and safeguard countryside. It also calls for an increase in density.

The earlier Joseph Rowntree Land Enquiry (Barlow et al, 2002) also argued that there was a substantial under-supply of new housing in the UK. It suggested that to meet the demand arising from demographic changes and other needs up to 2016 around 225,000 new homes will be needed each year in England alone. The enquiry found that demand for new homes is likely to remain concentrated in the South and particularly in London – some two thirds of the growth in household numbers is projected to be in southern England, with 20% concentrated in

The interim report of the Review of Housing Supply

London. In contrast, almost 50% of new housing

(Barker 2003) also examines the question of

has been developed in the North and the Midlands

appropriate levels of house-building throughout the

in recent years. Many feel that without an increase in

UK, but with more of a focus on the economic

land availability and reforms to the planning system,

effects of undersupply. It expresses concern that

meeting this demand will be hard.

lower rates of house-building are constraining economic growth, restricting access to housing, and influencing the distribution of wealth through our society. The report suggests that to keep the cost of housing in line with that of the 1980s there is a shortfall in production of between 93,000 and 146,000 homes per annum (compared to current output of around 140,000). Amongst many other



19

4.2 Modernising the house-building industry From the early 20th century until the end of the 1960s, innovation in many industries was characterised by attempts to improve the production process by concentrating on mass production to take advantage of economies of scale. Manufacturers were able to produce more goods, more cheaply, enabling them to expand markets and increase profitability. In turn, this improved returns on investment in expensive factory equipment. Consumers found that many products became readily available at affordable prices. There was a compromise, however, in that mass production approaches resulted in standardised products providing little choice for consumers.

Accelerating Change set new targets to recruit 300,000 people into the industry by 2006 and double applications to higher education construction courses by 2007.

In more recent years, many industries have

identified five key drivers of change which set the

industry. Accelerating Change distinguishes between

attempted to work more closely with prospective

agenda for the construction industry at large:

the integration of supply teams

customers in an attempt to address issues of

committed leadership, a focus on the customer,

(which include the client and are formed to provide

customer requirements. New product development

integrated processes and teams, a quality driven

solutions that meet clients' requirements and then

strategies have evolved linking customer

agenda and a commitment to people. Targets for

often disbanded) and supply chains (which are long-

requirements with better production technologies

performance improvement include an annual 10%

term relationships often involving design,

and systems. A greater level of customisation of

reduction in capital cost and construction time, a

procurement, inventory management and product

products, produced on flexible manufacturing

20% reduction in defects and accidents,

installation).

systems has emerged. Economies of scale have

a 10% increase in productivity and profitability and a

been complemented by ‘economies of scope’ in

10% increase in predictability of project

production, where a range of customised goods

performance.

are made using the same production facilities.

government sponsored innovation in house-building, similar ideas were adopted – the aim was to optimise housing production systems to increase output in response to an increased aggregate

building in particular – and the pressure from housing demand forms the backdrop for the growing

Manufacturing Working Group, Homing In On

interest in OSM. This interest was directly expressed

Excellence (Housing Form 2002), aimed to promote

by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has stated ‘To

the use of OSM in the UK, based on a projected

increase the supply of affordable housing we need

In a similar manner to efforts in the 1960s, the

skills shortage for traditional methods, a concern

to use more off-site manufacturing’ (Prescott 2003)

house-building industry has again come under

over the ability of traditional construction to regularly

pressure from government to adopt concepts and

produce homes of sufficiently high construction

techniques from other manufacturing industries.

quality, and a belief that OSM had the potential to

It has frequently been argued that the construction

address both of these issues in a cost effective

industry in the UK is very different from the

manner. It explored where OSM may be best applied

manufacturing industry and this – along with the

and discusses the benefits of not just ‘design for

distinctiveness of the different market sectors of

production’, but also ‘design for living’ and the

house-building – has inhibited the industry from

benefits of OSM to consumers of housing.

are able to purchase goods which match their requirements more closely.

a number of government and other reports have called for the industry to modernise, notably Rethinking Construction (Egan 1998), Homing in on Excellence (Housing Forum 2002), and Accelerating Change (Strategic Forum for Construction 2002.

Accelerating Change set new targets to recruit 300,000 people into the industry by 2006 and double applications to higher education construction courses by 2007. It also set a target for 20% of construction projects by value to be undertaken by integrated teams and supply chains by end 2004,

demand for new housing. But this approach largely

The central message of Rethinking Construction is

reaching 50% by end 2007. An ‘integration toolkit’

failed to address user requirements, and it failed to

that through the application of best practices, the

has been produced to help the industry to achieve

fundamentally re-shape the political context within

industry and its clients can collectively act to improve

these targets. The toolkit provides guidance on

which novel forms of housing were produced and

their performance. The report identified targets for

processes and methods, culture and activities, and

used.

improvement in construction productivity, profits,

tools and techniques for integrating whole-life

and defect and accident reduction. The report

(sustainable) activities of the UK construction


construction industry as a whole – and house-

The first report of the Housing Forum’s Off Site

Customers have been offered more choice and

adopting approaches used elsewhere. Nevertheless, During the 1960s, the last period of major

The combination of a desire to modernise the

The central message of Rethinking Construction is that through the application of best practices, the industry and its clients can collectively act to improve their performance.


21

5 OSM producers and their capacity This section discusses current levels of production and levels of potential future

Respondents were also asked to indicate the

capacity within the OSM industry in the UK. It also considers the current level of

proportion of production that was housing related for the same periods. Table 4b shows a fairly steady

imported products and components as a source of OSM supply, and manufacturers’

level of around 60% in recent years but with a

perceptions of limitations to their ability to expand production levels.

predicted general increase in the coming years to

Table 4b. Housing related output as a % of housing capacity Year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

% of maximum housing output

59

59

60

63

70

73

73

over 70%. This suggests that manufacturers are expecting housing related output to increase at a

5.1 Current output

higher rate than other markets.

Survey respondents were asked to give an indication

From the data above we can therefore conclude that

of the actual output of their production facilities in

manufacturing facilities are not generally running at

relation to capacity over the period 2000-2002 and

full capacity either for housing or for other markets.

an estimate for the period to 2006. Forty-eight

There is scope within current facilities to increase

responses were received to this question. As table

output and in some cases expand output further

4a shows, capacity has remained fairly steady on

through the introduction of multiple shifts.

average at around 70% of maximum plant output, with a predicted increase to around 80% by 2006.

It has not been possible to gain a full picture of OSM

Discussions with manufacturers on this issue

output in terms of housing units. This is because of

highlighted that these figures were generally for

problems in relating numbers of systems sold to

single shift working on a production line and there

numbers of completed housing units and because of

could be scope for expansion through the

double counting by suppliers. However, estimates

introduction of multiple shifts.

can be made based on a combination of survey and interview data and extrapolation, supplemented by work from Ove Arup and Partners.

Table 4a. Output as a % of total capacity Year % of maximum plant output


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 73

73

66

69

71

76

79

There is scope within current facilities to increase output and in some cases expand output further through the introduction of multiple shifts.


23

Table 5 shows 15 of the major OSM manufacturing companies, along with the number of housing units each expects to supply in 2003 and 2004 (unit numbers have either been obtained directly or extrapolated from floor areas or numbers of modules). This suggests that the major suppliers currently produce at least 17,000 housing units per annum with scope to expand to in excess of 30,000 units in 2004. However these numbers should be treated with caution as some industry commentators have suggested they are overly optimistic, particularly for 2004.

Table 5. Estimated output of major OSM suppliers

5.2 Sourcing of raw materials and components

Respondents were asked to identify factors that Table 6 shows the percentage of imported materials

might limit the expansion of the UK OSM market.

used in OSM production, based on 61 responses.

Based on the responses from 59 firms, we can see

The majority of firms do not appear to rely heavily

that there are two main themes relating to market

on imported materials or components in their current

demand and production capacity. Market demand

production processes. Interviewees suggested that

and public perception are linked and can be said

the main reason for imports are economic rather

therefore to have by far the greatest influence on any

than a lack of availability in the UK, with a number of

expansion in capacity (table 7).

Company

2003

2004

Notes

Barratt / Terrapin

1000

6000

Estimate from Ove Arup

Britspace

300

300


Elliott

100

200

Based on interview

Forge

300

600

Based on survey

imported because of the limits on home grown

Framing Solutions

750

2000

Based on survey

product.

Fusion Homes

300

900

Based on survey

2000

In design

Meteor

5.3 Perceived limitations to expansion

firms reporting that their imports vary according to where they can source materials at the best price at the time. The only major element that falls outside this picture is timber where significant quantities are

Similarly, actual production capacity and the availability of labour can be seen as imposing limits on rate of expansion without a corresponding expansion in production facilities. As discussed above most manufacturers do have the ability to expand production levels using existing facilities but only to a certain extent before further investment is

Table 6. Percentage of materials and components used in systems that are imported

required. The issue of skills availability, both in the

Pace Timber

1800

2250

Based on interview

Pinewood

3000

3000


Prestoplan

2000

2400

Based on interview

Range of responses

500

Based on interview

0-20%

54

3500

Based on survey

21-49%

8

appear to be able to readily access capital for

500

Based on interview

50-75%

13

expansion of their facilities, providing a clear forward

Rollalong Space 4 Spaceover

350 2000 350

Percent

factory and to an extent on site, is covered in more detail later in the report In contrast, the availability of finance is seen as a relatively insignificant limitation. OSM manufacturers

Stewart Milne

4000

6000

Based on survey

76-100%

20

order book can be identified. This was supported by

Yorkon

1500

1500

Based on interview

n/a

5

comments in the interviews. Likewise government

Total

100

regulation is not seen as a limitation on expansion of capacity, although it has been suggested by some housebuilders that this could be a result of a lack of

n/a = not answered or qualitative answer

awareness by some manufacturers of forthcoming regulations relating to housing construction. A

Market demand and public perception are linked and can be said to have by

summary of new housing related government regulation and its potential impact on OSM produced homes can be found in section 5.5.

far the greatest influence on any expansion in capacity



25

Table 7. Possible limitations on expansion of capacity

the research has identified a number of overseas firms that currently produce OSM components for their domestic market and who are monitoring

Answer

% of respondents

developments in the UK to identify a suitable time to

Market demand

47

enter the market. We have also identified firms in the

Skills shortage

37

UK who produce OSM components for other parts of

Public perception

36

the construction market again keeping a watching

Capacity

36

brief on market developments. Both of these sets of

Competition

25

firms could contribute to overall capacity if the use of

Finance

17

Regulation

15

Technical issues

14

From the preceding two sections of the report we

No limit

7

can surmise that from the manufacturers’

OSM in the UK housing market becomes more prevalent.

perspective, any major increases in capacity will need to be driven by expressed market demand. Providing such demand is of sufficient scale and It should be noted that none of the manufacturers considered the mortgagability of OSM produced homes to be a barrier despite the fact that strong

durability, manufacturers and their financiers should have confidence in investing in additional plant and labour.

reservations have been raised by some lenders. The UK’s OSM industry therefore appears capable of responding to an increased demand for its products by expanding its current production capacity. There are a number of examples of companies preempting such demand and either expanding their own facilities or engaging in joint ventures with other firms to set up new production facilities. Additionally


We can surmise that from the manufacturers’ perspective, any major increases in capacity will need to be driven by expressed market demand


27

6 Factors shaping the uptake of OSM The uptake of OSM is partly influenced by the perceptions of developers on its advantages and

6.1 Housing development – differing business models

disadvantages, which are themselves influenced by their

Shifting the location and nature of house-building

business models and processes, and partly by wider

from a site based craft activity to a manufacturing

market and regulatory factors. This section brings

based OSM activity does not simply involve the replacement of one set of processes by another. The

together views from manufacturers, housebuilders and

business drivers and models of housing developers

other key players to explore these issues.

and manufacturers are radically different. To better understand the differences between these two sectors and the implications for the adoption of OSM, it is necessary to consider the key influences on each party’s business practices. Speculative developers generally work on a business model that is primarily concerned with the increase in the value of land as a result of a change of use to residential use. They profit from the development of land and the management of finance during this process, rather than the actual construction process itself. Their current market is constrained by the availability of land suitable for development and the time taken to agree the appropriate conditions to change the use of such land. As discussed above,

In a similar manner, but for a different target market, the business model for RSLs is not based around the actual construction process either. RSLs are non profit making organisations who aim to provide affordable homes to rent for people on low incomes. Much of the funding for a new development is based on grant applications to the Housing Corporation, with associated caveats that influence the design of their homes. Unlike the speculative developers, however, RSLs have a long term interest in the homes built on their behalf as they will have a maintenance responsibility for them throughout their lifespan. Both forms of developer are primarily concerned with acquiring land in the right location and securing development permission and funding. The construction processes that have evolved to support

The final part of this supply chain is occupied by the

these activities therefore tend to be based around a

assemblers of new housing, whether employed

highly flexible supply chain linking contractors and

directly by the developer or sub-contracted to carry

subcontractors in a way that can respond quickly to

out specific tasks. These, the actual house builders,

changing demands with a reasonably predictable

are usually working to very low margins of

level of performance.

profitability and high expectations of speed. As such they have little scope in their own business activities

the level of new house-building is estimated to be

In contrast, the business success of manufacturers of

much lower than the potential demand. In short,

OSM components and systems depends on the

there is a sellers’ market and the primary

efficient use of their production facilities to maximise

consideration for a purchaser is the price and

the return on investment for these facilities. In order

The major actors in the supply chain for OSM

location of a dwelling. This means that speculative

to best achieve this they aim to minimise variations

produced housing thus have significantly differing

developers tend to compete with each other less on

in their product and ensure a steady flow in the

drivers to their businesses, potentially creating

the basis of the physical product (product

volume of production. Short term variations in

tensions which may influence the speed and extent

differentiation) than the value of their products for a

demand that the developers can readily absorb are

of uptake of OSM.

given location (cost leadership).

less readily accommodated in a factory environment.

for experimentation unless supported by the developer.

Production planning is often carried out over a long period to ensure that the flow of production is as smooth as possible and to minimise inventory of both raw materials and finished products.



29

6.2 OSM vs. traditional housing development processes In order to investigate the factors shaping the uptake of OSM in housing, manufacturers were asked an open-ended question on the advantages (table 8) and disadvantages of OSM (table 9). The responses (60) were coded and grouped into the general headings shown in the tables. From the perspective of OSM manufacturers, quality of production and finish are regarded as the most significant advantage of OSM over traditional construction. With responses ranging from the ability to design for manufacturing through to higher levels of control over the production process they were able to achieve in the factory, there was a general consensus that OSM produced components were of a higher quality than traditionally built equivalents at handover, a key issue in a market where consumers

are becoming increasingly discerning. Manufacturers

Table 9 Disadvantages of OSM

also considered the reduction in on-site assembly time to be a particular advantage of OSM. The time

Disadvantage

to produce components in the factory was also felt

Lead-in time (for design and scheduling)

21

to be lower than equivalent construction time on-site

Matching tolerances to on site work

19

since factory production was able to take advantage

Public and industry perception

19

of higher levels of automation and mechanical

Cost

17

assistance in production.

Design limitation in providing variety

14

Turning to the disadvantages of OSM, while public

Handling / Logistics

8

and industry perception was seen as a problem, with

Certainty of future demand

2

current products being viewed in the light of the failures of prefabricated systems in the 1960s and 1970s, many of the responses suggest that

issues that would be resolved on-site need to be

considerable variation in the tolerances expected by

manufacturers perceive there to be problems arising

specified at an earlier date under OSM. While many

manufacturers and builders. Of lesser importance,

from the differences between their business

manufacturers are willing to ensure that their

but still considered a potential problem, was the

processes and those of housing developers. In

systems are applicable to established designs from

issue of handling OSM components, in terms of their

particular, the change in production locale from site

developers, finalising the design of a dwelling needs

size and weight and minimising the risk of damage

to factory means that more extensive design work

to occur earlier for most OSM systems than for

during installation.

needs to be carried out prior to manufacture and

traditional construction methods. However, the design lead-in time for OSM may not readily fit in with the existing construction and procurement schedules of the housebuilders. The survey

Table 8. Advantages of OSM

suggested that this issue applied consistently across Advantage

% of respondents

% of respondents

the different types of OSM, from large structures

Quality

39

through to smaller components. Problems may also

Time (e.g. speed of construction, of return of investment etc)

31

arise when late changes to the design are requested.

Reduced reliance on skilled trades

15

An example of this is the minor alterations to design

Control (e.g. of production process, non-weather dependant etc)

13

that may be agreed with the on-site sales team, such

Optimisation of existing processes (e.g. waste reduction)

11

Predictability (of outcome/programme/cost)

8

Improved performance

5

Sustainability

2

As well as the tension between the business

Reliability

5

processes of OSM manufacturers and those of

Other advantages

18

Another tension lies in the drive by OSM manufacturers to standardise components and minimise variations on the production line, to optimise manufacturing efficiency – this may sit awkwardly with the desire of developers or planners to produce variation between individual dwellings or the need to respond to site specific conditions.

as moving the position of a power outlet, an easy activity at first fix on site but less easy once the designs have been sent to the production line.

housing developers, the survey suggested that tensions exist at the site level. These relate to the interfaces between OSM components and site produced work, where there may between



31

6.3 The cost of OSM Overall, OSM construction is generally seen as a more costly solution than traditional construction. While a small number of developers have found that OSM is cost neutral, or even possibly lower in cost than traditional construction, the general view appears to be that it is currently more expensive. While the actual

suit the specific characteristics of the OSM product

to make small savings on costs as they become more

would certainly allow for a cost reduction. Likewise the

familiar with OSM systems, but overall it is likely that

creative combination of standard components to

on average OSM will remain more expensive that

create variation in overall design without causing

traditional construction.

Model 2. Increased demand Traditional construction projected increase in cost

excessive variation on the production line will allow best advantage to be made of economies of scale

Model 1. Static demand

and scope. Range of OSM costs

on site assembly time for many OSM components is

There is therefore the potential for the current cost gap

significantly less than their traditional components (for

between OSM and traditional house-building

example volumetric suppliers reported being able to

approaches to narrow as products and markets

install 10-15 modules per day on site), the design and

mature in the longer run. In the short term if demand

production lead times, and in particular redesign

increases faster than suppliers can expand there may

times, can remove this time advantage and any

be short term price fluctuations. However, continued

beneficial impact this may have on costs. Another

inflation in the costs of traditional house-building

with a re-engineering of the production processes of

problem lies in the mismatch between the delivery of

approaches may mean that at some point in the

both suppliers and developers. In a similar manner

OSM components and systems, and the often poorly

future, the combination of economies of scale through

coordinated on-site building processes. As one developer, who had moved back to traditional housebuilding from timber frame, put it, ‘It was costing us too much money. It wasn’t the cost of the frames – it was when you got to the site and how the site was managed.’

Range of OSM costs

Traditional construction projected increase in cost

increased demand and economies of scope through design engineering will allow OSM and traditional

demand on suppliers. This model still accepts that

construction to compete on pure price grounds.

manufacturers will be subject to increases in the

Indeed, some developers and manufacturers would

costs of labour and materials, but this will be offset

argue that this is already possible.

by their ability to reduce overall production costs through economies of scale and scope. As such the overall cost of OSM production is likely to remain

Manufacturers recognised that higher costs were a

possible directions in which the OSM market could

reasonably stable while the cost of traditional

significant disadvantage to OSM (table 9). This was,

evolve can be envisaged. These models are based on

construction is predicted to rise. Discussions with a

however, frequently tempered with a view that costs

data from both the survey and the interviews and are

number of suppliers have suggested that an

were not always compared in a like-for-like manner.

intended to illustrate possible routes rather than to

increased market would enable them to be more

Potential savings in time spent on site and the cost of

predict specific outcomes.

competitive with traditional construction purely on

account by developers. Furthermore, economies of scale and cost engineering would reduce current costs. Many OSM suppliers currently design their products around traditional housing types, often the ones in current use by developers. This is seen as a market entry strategy since it allows developers to demonstrate that a house produced using OSM components can be indistinguishable from a traditionally built home. Redesigning houses to better


Model 1 shows the likely effects if current market trends continue with very little growth from current

increase in demand for OSM products combined

to model 2, the increase in demand allows Model 2 illustrates the effect of increased market

Three potential economic models illustrating the

associated preliminaries may not always be taken into

Model 3 illustrates the combined effect of an

economies of scale and scope to reduce overall production costs. However, this is coupled with savings arising from closer links between manufacturers and suppliers enabling a higher level of design for production, more effective scheduling to accommodate variations on site, and a greater general awareness of the different market forces affecting each party. In this instance it is likely that cost would be reduced more dramatically than in model 2 but over a longer period of time as the reengineering of the supply chain would require significant resources.

price terms in a few years if the market develops in the way they envisage.

Model 3. Re-engineered process

levels of production. The costs of OSM – currently estimated by suppliers to be in the range 5% below

Traditional construction projected increase in cost

to 20% above the traditional construction costs – will continue to rise in a similar manner to the costs of traditional construction as they will be affected by similar market forces such as the cost of labour and materials. Manufacturers and developers may be able Range of OSM costs


33

6.4 The appropriate use of OSM OSM is not, and is unlikely to become, a universal construction solution for all housing in the UK. The applicability of OSM varies according to the type of building, the client market and the financing of the project. This is generally more of an issue in speculative house-building than in the public sector. Projects for public sector clients generally culminate

sale. Traditionally speculative house-building has relied on the ability to accelerate or retard the speed of construction on a particular plot to suit its sale status. In some instances OSM can remove some of this flexibility – the developer gains no benefit from the early completion of construction, rather has to finance the entire construction cost until occupation.

Part A. Progressive collapse of structure A new approved document will be released in 2004 covering the structural design of buildings. This new document will require that the structural design of all buildings, including houses, demonstrates structural integrity against disproportionate collapse caused by explosion etc.) To comply with this it is likely that

in phased handover of significant portions of the site or the handover of all the properties on a single day.

We noted in section 4.2 that while building

structures may be needed. ODPM believe that the

In these instances OSM techniques can benefit the

regulations are not seen as a limitation on the

implications of this may be more serious for brick and

construction process, given the relative surety of

expansion of OSM, some housebuilders feel there

block construction than for other structural forms.

completion time in comparison to traditional

may be a lack of awareness by some manufacturers

Timber-frame and particularly steel-framed structures

construction. Typical delays to handover such as

on the implications of forthcoming regulations.

are likely to be able to achieve compliance at little

exceptionally inclement weather are mitigated by the

Several sections of the building regulations are of

extra cost. Additionally steel structures may provide

form of construction.

particular relevance, notably:

greater flexibility in terms of means of compliance,

additional engineering design and bracing of

particularly in the 2-6 storey building range.

Part B. Fire

prior to occupation and as such can benefit from the OSM. However in the construction of detached, semi-detached and even terraced housing such certainty of completion date may not be necessary. Speculative development is highly dependant on the management of cash flow and the completion of a particular unit timed to suit the completion of the

prove compliance. Consultation is continuing on developing robust details for masonry, timber and steel framed buildings and up to 30 different wall and floor systems are being assessed.

Part L. Thermal insulation Similar issues are raised to those for acoustics in Part E, particularly concerning the use of bathroom modules where one of the walls forms the external wall of the dwelling.

Part Q. Access to broadband This proposed regulation is currently in consultation. If it becomes accepted there will be an additional need for manufacturers and constructors to provide

require completion or near completion of all units speed and certainty of construction time offered by

The onus will be on manufacturers and builders to

impact or other major forces (e.g. vehicle crash,

6.5 New regulations

Certain building types such as apartment blocks

used – at issue here is the insulation between units.

OSM is not, and is unlikely to become, a universal construction solution for all housing in the UK.

There are currently moves by the fire service and campaign groups to mandate the installation of sprinklers in multiple occupancy dwellings. It is unclear whether this will result in successful revisions

access ways to allow future cabling throughout all new dwellings. This could add extra costs in production, but if access ways are carefully designed into OSM systems the cost implications should be minimal.

to the building regulation. If it does, there could be a

OSM has the potential to address some of the issues

requirement to install additional systems into all such

being presented by new legislation in the form of the

buildings, increasing construction costs and with

building regulations. In particular the issues of thermal

implications for the type of structure.

efficiency and progressive collapse may be easier to design to using OSM components. However the issue

Part E. Acoustic insulation Sound attenuation has become a major issue in

of acoustic performance may present design challenges in OSM where structures tend to be of lighter construction than traditional masonry.

medium and higher density housing development and it is important that OSM techniques demonstrate compliance in terms of acoustical separation. There are some questions over whether this has been adequately dealt with in some instances, for example where volumetric units are



35

7 Labour, skills and OSM ‘I think this country is pretty poor at training large parts of its workforce. In Germany, you train for three years to become a concreter. Here, you only have to be able to handle a shovel.’ Nick Whitehouse, MD of Terrapin (Building, June 2001)

The skills shortages within the construction industry have been widely discussed. With an estimated annual turnover of between 65,000 and 75,000 people per year (Campbell 2001), the ability to recruit, train and retain skilled labour is critical for modernising construction. The UK construction industry has historically had low levels of training in comparison both with other countries and other domestic industries. Between 70% and 80% of UK construction's workforce is estimated to have no formal qualifications; at least 35% of workers are classified as labourers, compared with 5% in Denmark, 7% in the Netherlands and 17.5% in Germany (Clarke, 2002). Furthermore, the UK construction industry has seen a dramatic reduction

The UK construction industry has historically had low levels of training in comparison both with other countries and other domestic industries.

in training at all levels – entrants to professional courses fell 40% between 1995 and 2000 and construction trainees dropped steadily during the 1990s (Clarke, 2002). It has been suggested that an increase in the use of OSM may form part of a solution to the shortage of skilled labour in construction and in particular housing.

7.1 On-site skills issues Previous research on mechanisation and OSM in house-building in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands suggests that there is a contrast in the way labour is trained and different types of labour are categorised between the UK and other countries (Clarke 2000). These are associated with different work processes and different levels of mechanisation and OSM of components. Low levels of mechanisation and OSM were found in the UK, compared with Germany and the Netherlands, and the range of activities for the separate trades in assembling superstructure elements was simpler. In the UK labourers remain a significant group within the construction industry. Skills are narrow and training provision low. A high proportion of the labour force remains self-employed, working for labour-only subcontractors and working to price or output. In comparison, in Germany and the Netherlands labour is employed directly and work processes are more complex, with more specialisms at the interfaces. The division of labour is industrywide, training provision is extensive, and skills are broad and integrated into the grading structure. Greater speed, higher productivity and lower levels of supervision are associated with industry-wide systems compared with traditional craft forms.



37

which often requires considerable skill and

Table 10. Level of skills required

Table 12. General skills required

knowledge to perform properly. Firms also require multi-skills to improve flexibility, in which workers

Work ethic

30

with other trades.

Semi-skilled

28

Health and safety awareness

8

Unskilled

8

Interpret drawings

8

Multi-skilled

5

Numeracy

7

No skill level specified

Literacy

5

52

illustrated by the new CITB course in timber frame

Project supervision

2

assembly.

No general skill specified

40

It has also been suggested that there is a ‘built-in

Certain specific trade skills were valued by

resistance to change’ caused by the hierarchical

dominant form of expertise in UK firms. Together, these characteristics have led to the suggestion that innovation is being hampered by skills, education

7.2 Skills in the factory

solved by greater investment in off-site manufacturing – a key reason why many UK housebuilders are investigating prefabrication systems. Clarke (2002) reports that the opposite has been found to be true: a skilled workforce is needed to enable such innovations to be brought on stream. Gann (1998) supports this describing how the skill structure in UK construction is not sufficiently adaptable to support innovation required to sustain

and concreting. In many cases however those firms looking for these skills were more interested in a

manufacturers look for in their production line labour.

general ability than a specific craft training.

The 59 responses were coded and divided into three categories, skill levels, particular craft skills, and

Skills

% of respondents 31

Plant operation

21

Concreting / steel fixing

13

Mechanical / fabrication

7

Electrical

5

more general semi or multi-skilled abilities were

Glazing

5

preferred.

Plumbing

3

Plastering

3

Plant maintenance

3

No specific skill specified

9

training particularly in what are seen as the traditional craft skills. While general labourers and a small percentage of skilled (City and Guilds or NVQ qualified) individuals were needed, employees with

that the core skills required in operatives to work in their plant did not exist in the general stock of labour they were able to recruit and that they would those saying they did expect their labour to have

Carpentry / joinery

level were looking for people with a medium level of

The vast majority (89%) of manufacturers found

need to provide additional training. Around 16% of

Table 11. Specific skills required

general skills (tables 10 – 12). The majority of suppliers that specified a specific skill

on site caused by the lack of skilled workers can be

manufacturers, particularly in joinery, plant operation

The survey explored the kinds of skills OSM

and training structures in the UK (Clarke 2002). However, it is by no means evident that problems

% of respondents

7

take on board some of these comments as

functions (surveying, buying, estimating) forming the

General skills

Skilled

it can be seen that training agencies are starting to

professions from craft-based trades, with the cost

% of respondents

trained in one trade acquire new skills associated

In terms of the on-site assembly of OSM products,

nature of professional training, which separates the

Skill level

long-term performance improvements and suggests

acquired the necessary skilled labour through vocational training. A similar proportion said they would acquire it from other manufacturing companies (see table 13 below).

Table 13. Where skills expect to be acquired from. Source

% of respondents

Vocational training

16

Other manufacturing companies

16

Construction trades

13

Other OSM manufacturers

8

that changes in skill requirements can be met better

Table 12 shows how 30% of respondents were

Other training source

5

if operatives are initially given broad foundation

more interested in a more general issue of character

No response

42

training to which additional skills can be added when

and attitude to work. Which we have categorised as

and if they are required. Firms currently fill gaps in

work ethic, this comprises responses relating to a

the availability of appropriately trained people by

commitment to quality and performance.

employing labourers with minimal training for work



39

8 Conclusions In the short-term the UK’s OSM industry is capable of accommodating any likely increase in the

Current policy initiatives are already addressing some

demand for its products by expanding its current production capacity. Several companies are either

of the more pressing inhibitors to the expansion of

expanding their own facilities or engaging in joint ventures with other firms to set up new production

OSM. In particular any major expansion in land supply for housing and ring-fencing both land and

facilities. Greater levels of expansion may be possible through the introduction of multi shift working

finance for developments that will use modern

or through further investment in new facilities. Manufacturers have shown willingness in our research

methods of construction should both give a boost to

to commit to further investment in plant and facilities if a stable market demand emerges.

OSM. However, while we do not address the issue

And while OSM costs may currently be higher than the equivalent under traditional approaches to

of planning directly in this report, it appears that the clear guidance on planning issues relating to OSM

house-building, this gap may narrow with a maturing market. However, there are potential barriers to

may be required as a number of respondents have

the uptake of OSM.

suggested that the use of OSM in a proposed development has led to resistance from some planning authorities.

One major restriction to an expansion in OSM is the

Manufacturers need to consider how best to link

availability of appropriate labour. This is partly an

design and production cycles to allow late alterations

This report has not discussed two issues which will

Finally, while the findings of this research are

issue of appropriate future training in the skills

in design to permit customer choice. One

be critical in shaping the future market for OSM

generally positive, there is a danger in expecting the

required in both the factory and on site. On a

compromise may be for a hybrid of OSM and

housing: customer attitudes and life cycle

market to develop too quickly. Any expansion in the

positive note, manufacturers have argued that they

traditional construction, whereby certain components

economics. With regard to the former, lessons from

use of OSM should be clearly signalled to give both

are not necessarily looking to recruit highly trained

are standardised while craft activities produce the

past experiences in mass manufactured housing

developers and manufacturers the opportunity to

operatives and are prepared to invest in training of

external variation in design, but this might

must not be neglected and it is to be hoped that

develop closer links and to identify suitable projects

employees.

significantly impair the benefits of OSM.

regulatory measures today are sufficiently robust to

in sufficient time for the manufacturers to have

A redesign of OSM components around the

ensure OSM housing is built to a standard that is

appropriate input into the design. Sudden shifts in

A more fundamental problem in moving house-

manufacturing process rather than the current norm

acceptable to its end-customers. While the report

the market will cause disruption that is equally likely

building towards modern, OSM-based methods of

– designing components to traditional house designs

has touched on the economics of OSM housing,

to result in market exit by some manufacturers who,

construction is the mismatch between the norms

– would therefore allow a more efficient production

it has not been able to address the lifecycle

by the nature of the manufacturing processes will be

and practices of housing development and those of

process. However such a redesign could involve a

cost/benefit implications. Costs in use are clearly of

unable to remain competitive in a cyclical industry.

the OSM suppliers. In order for OSM to become more universally applicable for house-building both

significant time lag before these components could

parties need to examine how to best adapt working

be implemented on site. Moreover, while

practices to the new approach. In particular, the

reengineering the activities of all the major players in

issue of ‘design freeze’ and production scheduling

the supply chain may well permit a more rapid

demonstrates the need for better coordination

response to new development opportunities while

between each link in the supply chain. Developers

retaining the advantages of off-site production, this

need to start considering how best to adapt their

would represent a very significant challenge to the

design practices to best utilise OSM components.

housing sector as a whole.


considerable importance in influencing the financial viability of OSM, and better data is needed to investigate this issue.


41

9 Recommendations Action

Action

This report has identified that the UK manufacturers of OSM systems

Housing Forum /

Consumers make the final purchase decision and will therefore need to be

Manufacturers /

produced in the region of 17,000 homes in 2003. However we have been

Government

made aware of the relative advantages and disadvantages of OSM over

Developers

unable to accurately determine a precise figure for OSM house-building in

traditional construction so that they can make informed decisions.

general or for individual structural forms in particular. The NHBC goes some

Manufacturers / Developers

way towards this in recording timber framing construction figures from its members. However if targets are to be set for an increase in OSM

Manufacturers are not necessarily looking to recruit highly trained operatives

Manufacturers

construction then accurate figures will be needed to measure performance

and are prepared to invest in their own training. However, there is still a need

/ CITB / RIBA

against these targets.

to raise awareness of careers in this sector and encourage basic training in factory assembly.

The research has highlighted a discrepancy of opinion between

Housing Forum /

manufacturers and developers as to the relative costs of OSM and

Government

CITB have just introduced training for on site assembly for timber framed

traditional construction. There is a need for more research to be carried out

systems. This could be expanded to other forms of OSM and used to ensure

to clarify the relative costs of various construction forms and to identify

site operatives understand the specific requirements of OSM systems.

where cost savings can be achieved. The growth of OSM usage is currently inhibited by the fragmented nature of

There is a need to ensure that the design community is made aware of the Housing Forum

diversity using standard components.

the UK housing industry. In particular misconceptions and misunderstandings over business drivers and what value is added can be

This research has predominantly looked at the use of OSM in new

observed along the supply chain. Manufacturers in particular have

Housing Forum

construction. Other European countries, most notably the Netherlands have

suggested that some forum which would allow designers, manufacturers

also made use of OSM in refurbishment. Further research is needed into

and developers to explore how they can best work together would lead to a

whether there is potential for this kind of activity in the UK.

greater level of supply chain integration. Manufacturers need to raise their awareness of the concerns and

specific requirements of OSM systems and appropriate ways to achieve

Manufacturers

requirements of the various lending bodies to ensure that their products

The next generation of OSM systems has the potential to exploit more fully

Manufacturers /

the benefits of modern manufacturing methods. However manufacturers will

Developers

need a clear sign that there is sufficient certainty of return on investment

and systems are treated and valued in a similar manner to those

before they are able to commit significant resources to the development of

traditionally used in house-building. A number of leading firms have

new systems. This can only come from a steady increase in the demand for

ensured that their products have undergone a rigorous independent testing

OSM rather than any short term, unsustainable, flurry of activity.

and certification process to assure the robustness and longevity of their systems. However, until certification of systems becomes the norm for manufacturers lenders will continue to have concerns over the security of their investment. In a similar manner there is a need to inform planning authorities of the

Manufacturers /

relative merits of OSM production and to give them assurance that

Developers

developments that are proposed which intend to use OSM will be of a similar quality and longevity to traditional construction.



43

Appendix 1: List of Interviewees picture to go here or colour page Company Person

Position

Date

David Wilson Homes

Mike Stansfield

Managing Director

27/8/03

Elliott Group Limited

John Boyce

Business Development Director

2/9/03

Fusion Homes

John Fleming

Chief Executive

27/6/03

Fusion Homes

Robert Clark

UK Development Director

27/06/03

George Wimpey

Keith Cushen

Technical Director

30/9/03

Guinness Trust

Nick Powell

Investment Strategy Manager

1/10/03

H+H Celcon

Cliff Fudge

Technical Director

10/9/03

H+H Celcon

Andrew Edwards

National Business Development Manager

10/9/03

Mtech Group

Martin Goss

Technical Director

6/10/03

ODPM Building Regulations

Paul Everall

Head of Building Regulations

23/9/03

Willmott Dixon Housing Ltd

Brendan Ritchie

Innovation Director

2/10/03

Willmott Dixon Housing Ltd

Chris Durkin

Chief Operating Officer

2/10/03

Westbury/Space 4

Robin Davies


23/9/03 & 2/10/03


Pace Timber

Jason Pritchard

Director

1/10/03

Prestoplan

John Bedford

Managing Director

22/9/03

PRP Architects

Peter Phippen

former Chairman

11/8/09

Redrow

Stuart Norton

Technical Director

1/10/03

Redrow

Garry Markham

Senior Architect

1/10/03

Rollalong

Roger Fysh


5/9/03

Sunley Holdings Ltd

James Sunley

Chairman

6/8/03

Southern Housing Group

Tom Dacey

Chief Executive

13/8/09

Spaceover

John Prewer

Technical Director

1/10/03

Stuart Milne

Graham Nield

Commercial Director

3/9/03

Terrapin Limited

David Varley

Technical Director

30/9/03

Unite Group

Joss Dyer

Unite Group

John Tomkiss

General Manager

17/10/03

Yorkon and Portacabin

Keith Blanshard

Managing Director

23/9/03

17/10/03


45

Appendix 2: Interview checklist

3 System limitation How many storey heights does the system currently have approval for? Are you applying for approval for multi-storey buildings, if so what is the maximum number of storeys?

This form presents a list of possible questions to be posed during interviews of clients, product manufacturers

How many units above 3 storeys are you currently supplying?

and users of OSM.

How do you envisage the market developing for multi-storey housing using your system?

The interviews aim to elicit information on the UK’s current capabilities and future potential for expansion of the

4 key DRIVERS for increasing volume (external and internal)

Off Site Manufacturing (OSM) industry. The information gathered will be used to prepare a directory of firms

External

Internal

engaged in off-site production of components and systems for housing. General Details Name of Company

(Such as Govt policy changes, shift in mortgage lending, market position, reduce cost of production etc. Highlight

Address

most important factors)

Website

5 key BARRIERS to increasing volume (external and internal) Respondent’s details

External (outside the business)

Name

Skills shortage

Job Title

Public perception

Internal (inside the business)

Capacity

Tel. no.

Regulation

E-mail address

Market demand Competition Finance

1 Data on current and likely future capacity for housing units

Technical Issues

By Unit, we understand it to be one dwelling. How do you define it?

None Other, please specify:

Years

Maximum number producible

Number of units predicted

(Highlight most important factors)

2003 2004 2005

6 No 1 capacity constraint (Absolute physical limits to capacity) External

Internal

Skills shortage

2006

Capacity

Onwards

(Factory space, equipments) Regulation Market demand

2 Market

Competition

Primary (housing, school, apartments etc.)

Finance

Development (new markets)

Technical Issues (Transportation etc.) Other, please specify: (Highlight most important factors)



47

7 Supply chain issues

10 Time of Production

Material flow

How long to make unit from first order to

Components

delivery on site

Partnership/mergers/

Factory hours/unit

long term relationship with suppliers

Site erection hours/unit

Inhibitors to capacity working and improvement

11 Investment

Transport cost

High

On-site handling costs/issues

Low

Capital cost of facility

What is needed to be done to help

People and development cost Ongoing R & D Investment

8 Economics of Scale (total output, breaking point)

Marketing investment

Total output Break even point

12 Others

Cost reduction over time

Strategic vision for future

How long to increase capacity

Any other issues

without changing design How long to increase capacity without investing in new plants and equipments Cost versus time Onsite/Offsite Others

9 Economics of Scope High

Low

Design lead time Design adaptation costs Flexibility of design Mass customisation Cost of producing different product range How long to make changes in design How long to make changes in production How does scale/scope influence the competitiveness of OSM against traditional methods



49

Appendix 3: List of Survey Respondents

Appendix 4: Survey instrument This survey aims to elicit information on the UK’s current capabilities and future potential for expansion of the

AM Profiles Ltd

Marshalls plc

Off Site Manufacturing (OSM) industry. The information gathered will be used to prepare a directory of firms

Antique Style Pine Doors

McMullen Architectural Systems Ltd

engaged in off-site production of components and systems for housing. Please indicate any confidential

ARM Buildings Ltd

Milbank Industries Ltd

responses you would prefer to be excluded from publication in this directory.

Baggeridge Brick plc

Norman & Underwood Group

Benfield ATT

Oregon Timber Frame Ltd

Corus Living Solutions

Pace Timber Systems Ltd

CV Buchan

Premier Transline Group

Ecowarm Ltd

Prestoplan Purpose Built Ltd

If you have any queries relating to this research or would like an electronic version of the survey email:

Elliott Group Ltd

Pyramid Building Systems

[email protected]

Fineline (Elliot Group Ltd)

Renaissance (Enlightened Building)

Please return the questionnaire 1st August. Thank you for your assistance.

Finlay Breton Ltd

Ridgeons Timber Engineering

Finlay Breton Ltd

Roger Bullivant Ltd

General Details

Fitzroy Joinery Ltd

Scotframe Timber Engineering Ltd

Name of Company

Framing Solutions plc

Selleck Nichols Ltd

Fusion Building Systems UK

Space4 Ltd

Geberit Ltd

Stewart Milne Timber Systems

George Fischer Sales Ltd

Sylvan Stuart Ltd

Glazeguard Ltd

Tarmac Precast

Gradient Insulations Ltd

Tarmac Precast Concrete Ltd Speediwall Division

Greenfield Way Ltd

Tarmac Topblock Ltd

H+H Celcon Ltd

Taylor Lane Timber Frame Ltd

Tel. no.

Hanson Building Products

The Concrete Centre

E-mail address

Hanson Building Products

The Forge Company

Hepworth Plumbing Products

The Marble Mosaic Co. Ltd

Homelodge Buildings Ltd

Thermonex Ltd

Hunter Plastic Ltd

Thomas Armstrong (Concrete Blocks) Ltd

Ibstock Brick Ltd

Timber Frame Solutions Ltd

Ibstock Brick Ltd

Timber Frame Solutions Ltd

Kawneer UK Ltd

Trent Concrete Ltd

Kingspan Insulation

Van Elle Ltd

Knauf Insulation

Vencel Resil Ltd

Marley Plumbing & Drainage

Walker Timber Group

Marshall Tufflex Ltd

Yorkon Ltd


We would be grateful if you could attach to your response relevant product literature either technical or promotional. Could you please also complete one of the forms included at the end of the survey for each of your main housing products. (Please photocopy as needed).

Address Website

Respondent’s details Name Job Title


51

Market and technology coverage

What percentage of the materials and components used in your systems is imported?

Please use the following table to indicate the types of technology produced by your firm (please tick box): Primary Material

Concrete

Market

Housing

Steel Other

Housing

Timber Other

Housing

Other (please specify) Other

Housing

Other

Prefabricated foundation systems

Production capacity

Framing systems

Please fill the following table with details of your past, current and predicted plant output:

Structural Insulated Panel

Year

Systems Cladding systems

2000

Panelised roofing systems

2001

Volumetric modular

2002

buildings

2003

Factory assembled

2004 (predicted)

Bathroom/Kitchen modules

2005 (predicted)

Pre-assembled building

2006 (predicted)

Plant output

Proportion of output that

Number of housing units

(% of total capacity)

is housing related (%)

your products used in

services Other, please specify

Standards and accreditations What quality assurance standards does your firm manufacture under?

Which particular markets are your products used in? (Please Tick Box): Main Market

Also Supply

Social Housing Private Housing

Labour and skills

Healthcare

What sort of skills do you look for in your production line labour?

Hotels Commercial Buildings Industrial Buildings Temporary Buildings Education

Do you need to train your labour in these skills? Yes

Retail Other, please specify

No

If no, then where will they have acquired these skills (Please Tick Box): Other OSM manufacturers

What geographical areas are you able to supply to in the UK?

Construction trades Vocational Training (e.g. City & Guilds) Other manufacturing companies Other, please specify:



53

The future

Thank you very much for your co-operation

By how much do you estimate the OSM market for housing will expand / contract in the next five years (% of

We would be grateful if you could attach to your response any relevant product literature either technical or

existing market)?

promotional. Could you please also complete the following form for each of your main housing related products. (Please photocopy as needed).

Which of the following might limit your company’s ability to expand OSM production for housing? Please tick box

Product Name

Skills shortage

Description of the product

Public perception Capacity

Physical limitations of this product (e.g. maximum size of panels or modules, maximum number of storeys etc.)

Regulation Market demand Competition Finance

Details of any special requirements for transport, site handling, site storage.

Technical Issues None

Is the product standardised, or can it be customised to suit the required house type?

Other, please specify: Standardised

Customisable

If customisable, what is the minimum production run? Please provide full details of any accreditation and certification for this product

General views What in your view is the single main advantage of off-site manufacturing? Anticipated design life (life expectancy) – years: What maintenance will be required through the stated lifetime to sustain the element/component (e.g. coating of steelwork, replacement of lining used as a structural diaphragm, recovering roof membrane)?

What in your view is the single main disadvantage of off-site manufacturing? What is the eventual failure mode likely to be (e.g. corrosion of fixings, delamination of composites, loss of strength, decay of timber base plates)?

If you have any additional comments please state below


Thank you


55

Appendix 5 Directory of suppliers Firm Name

Volumetric

ADROIT MODULAR BUILDINGS PLC

Y

ADVANCED HOUSING LTD

Y

Firm Name

Open Panel

Closed Panel

Hybrid

Sub Assemblies

Components

Volumetric

Open Panel

Y

EUROPOD

Y

EXCEL BUILDING SOLUTIONS

Y

FILLCRETE LTD

Y

FINLAY BRETON LTD

Y

FITZROY JOINERY LTD

Y

FRAME HOMES (SOUTH WEST) LTD

Y

FRAMEWORK CDM LTD

Y

FRAMING SOLUTIONS

Y

Y

ANTIQUE STYLE PINE DOORS

Y

ARM BUILDINGS LTD

Y

AYRSHIRE STEEL FRAMING LTD BAGGERIDGE BRICK PLC BAILEY & DAVISON LTD

Y Y

BAILEY PREFABRICATION

Y

BATHROOMS ITALIA

Y

FUSION BUILDING SOLUTIONS

Y

Y

GATEWAY FABRICATIONS

Y

Y

Components

Y

ALPHA TIMBER FRAME LTD

ANDREW DAVIE TIMBER FRAME HOMES

Sub Assemblies

FINELINE (ELLIOT GROUP LTD) Y

Y

Hybrid

EUROPEAN EN-SUITES

ALLWOOD BUILDINGS LTD

AM PROFILES LTD

Closed Panel

Y

GEBERIT LTD

Y

GEORGE FISCHER SALES LTD

Y

GLAZEGUARD LTD

Y

GRADIENT INSULATIONS LTD GREENFIELD WAY LTD

Y

BELL AND WEBSTER CONCRETE LTD

Y

GREENFRAME LTD

Y

BENFIELD ADVANCED TIMBER TECHNOLOGY

Y

GUARDIAN TIMBER FRAME LTD

Y

BISON CONCRETE PRODUCTS LTD

Y

H+H CELCON LTD

Y

BOURNE STEEL LTD

Y

HANSON BUILDING PRODUCTS

Y

BOYTON-BRJ SYSTEM BUILDINGS LTD

Y

HEPWORTH PLUMBING PRODUCTS

Y

BRITSPACE MODULAR BUILDINGS

Y

BULLOCK & DRIFFILL LTD CALEDONIAN BUILDING SYSTEMS

HERON TIMBER FRAME HOMES LTD Y

HOMELODGE BUILDINGS LTD

Y Y

Y

HUNTER PLASTICS LTD

CENTURY HOMES

Y

IBSTOCK BRICK LTD

COMPTON BUILDINGS LTD

Y

IDEAL BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD

Y

CONCEPT TIMBER

Y

INTERLINK BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD

Y

CORUS LIVING SOLUTIONS

Y

KAWNEER UK LTD

COVERS TIMBER STRUCTURES LTD

Y

KINGSPAN INSULATION

CUSTOM HOMES

Y

KITPAC BUILDINGS LTD

CV BUCHAN LTD

Y

KNAUF INSULATION

D.A. GREEN & SONS LTD -GREEN STRUCTURAL

Y

KYOOB BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD

DERBYBEECH LTD

Y

L. BASTABLE AND CO. LTD

ECOWARM LTD

(CONSTRUCTION DIVISION)

Y Y

Y

Y Y Y Y

LOMOND HOMES Y Y

ELLIOTT GROUP LIMITED

Y

Y

CARPENTER OAK & WOODLAND CO. LTD

EJ BADEKABINER

Y

HISTON CONCRETE PRODUCTS LTD

Y

EDWARDS BUILDING SERVICES LTD

Y

Y

MANCHESTER CABINS LTD

Y

MARCHANT WALKER LTD

Y

MARLEY PUBLING & DRAINAGE Y

ELVET STRUCTURES


MARSHALL TUFFLEX LTD Y

MARSHALLS PLC

Y Y Y


57

Firm Name

Volumetric

Open Panel

Closed Panel

MASTERFRAME (UK) LTD

Y

Y

Y

MCAVOY GROUP

Y

Hybrid

Components

Volumetric

STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANELS (SCOTLAND) LTD.

Y

METSEC FRAMING LTD MILBANK INDUSTRIES LTD

Open Panel

Closed Panel

Y

Y

Y

SYLVAN STUART LTD

Y

TABS TECHNICOM (UK) PLC

Y

TAPLANES LTD

Y Y Y Y

Y

TAYLOR LANE TIMBER FRAME LTD

Y

TECHRETE

NVC MECHANICAL SERVICES

Y

TERRAPIN INTERNATIONAL LTD

Y Y

OREGON TIMBER FRAME LTD

Y

THE AA GROUP LTD

Y

PACE TIMBER ENGINEERING LTD

Y

THE FORGE COMPANY

Y

PANEL PROJECTS (BRISTOL) LTD.

Y

THE MARBLE MOSAIC COMPANY LTD

Y Y

(CONCRETE BLOCKS) LTD

PYRAMID BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD

Y

THURSTON BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD

RB FARQUHAR MANUFACTURING LTD

Y

TILDEN INDUSTRIES

RIDGEONS TIMBER ENGINEERING

Y Y

ROGER BULLIVANT LTD

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

SGB ROVACABIN

Y

VENCEL RESIL LTD Y

Y Y

SPACE SAVERS

Y

SPACEOVER

Y

SPEEDFRAME LTD

Y

STEPHENSON


Y Y Y

WALKER TIMBER GROUP

Y

WARD BUILDING COMPONENTS LTD

Y

WERNICK BUILDINGS

Y

WESTERN BUILDING SYSTEMS

Y

YORKON LTD

Y Y

Y Y

STRUCTHERM LTD STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANEL TECHNOLOGY LTD

VOLUMETRIC LTD

Y

WYCKHAM BLACKWELL

Y

STEWART MILNE TIMBER SYSTEMS

Y

UNITEK

Y

SIAC CONSTRUCTION

Y

TULLOCH TIMBER SYSTEMS LTD

SERVACCOMM REDHALL LTD

SPACE4 LTD

Y Y

TRU HOMES LTD

UNITE MODULAR ROOMS

Y

SNOWS TIMBER

Y

TIMBERFRAME (WALES) LTD

VAN ELLE LTD

SIBCAS LTD

Y

TRENT CONCRETE LTD

Y

SELLECK NICHOLS LTD

Y

TIMBER FRAME SOLUTIONS LTD

Y

ROBERTSON TIMBERKIT

Y

THOMAS ARMSTRONG

Y

SCOTFRAME TIMBER ENGINEERING LTD

Y

THERMONEX UK LTD Y

PROJECT METEOR

ROLLALONG LTD

Y

THERMATECH TIMBER STRUCTURES LTD

Y

RENAISSANCE (ENLIGHTENED BUILDING )

Y

THERMASTRUCTURE EUROPE LTD

Y

PRESTOPLAN PURPOSE BUILT LTD

Y

THE TIMBER FRAME COMPANY

POLYBEAM LTD

PREMIER TRANSLINE GROUP

Components

Y

TARMAC TOPBLOCK LTD

NORMAN & UNDERWOOD GROUP

POTTON LTD

Sub Assemblies

TARMAC PRECAST CONCRETE LTD

MURUS BUILDING SYSTEM

PINELOG LTD

Hybrid

Y

Y Y

NORWEGIAN LOG BUILDINGS

Firm Name

SWIFT HORSMAN

MCMULLEN ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEMS LTD

MODULOGIC

Sub Assemblies

For a more definitive description of these organisations, see the Housing Forum website www.thehousingforum.org.uk Y

Y

Y


59

References

Bibliography

Barlow, J; Bartlett, K; Whitehead, C; Hooper, A (2002) Land for housing: current practice and future options. York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Barlow, J. (1999) ‘From craft production to mass customisation. Innovation requirements for the UK house-building industry’. Housing Studies 14(1), pp.23-42.

Barker, K. (2003) Review of housing supply. Securing our future housing needs. London, The Stationery Office.

Barlow, J. and Ozaki, R. (2003) ‘Customer focus in private house-building: lessons from other industries, current practice and the potential of new technologies.’ Housing Studies 18(1), pp.87-101.

Campbell, M. (2001) Skills in England 2001. Leeds, Policy Research Institute, Leeds Metropolitan University. Clarke, L. and C. Wall (2000) ‘Craft versus industry: the division of labour in European housing construction.’ Construction Management & Economics 18(6): 689-698. Clarke, L. (2002) Standardisation and skills. A transnational study of skills, education and training for prefabrication in housing. London, University of Westminster Business School. Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking construction. Report of the Construction Task Force. London, HMSO. Gann, D. and P. Senker (1998) ‘Construction skills training for the next millennium.’ Construction Management & Economics 16(5): 569-580.

Barlow, J.; Childerhouse, P.; Gann, D.M; Naim, M.; Ozaki, R. (2003). ‘Choice and delivery in house-building: examples from Japan.’ Building Research & Information 31(3), pp.134-145. Barlow, J. and R. Ozaki (2001) Are you being served? Japanese lessons on customer focused house-building. Report of a DTI Mission. Brighton, University of Sussex / SPRU. Brankovic, A. et al. (2001) Knowledge and experience transfer from prefabrication of building services to building designers and clients. CIB World Building Congress, Wellington, New Zealand. Clark, P. (2002) ‘Wilcon halves timber-frame output in strategic shake-up’. Building, 01/03.2002.

Housing Forum (2002) Homing in on excellence. A commentary on the use of offsite fabrication methods for the UK house-building industry. London, The Housing Forum.

Craig, A. et al. (2002) Assessing the acceptability of alternative cladding materials in housing: theoretical and methodological challenges. 17th Conference of the International Association for People-Environment Studies, La Coruna, Spain.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) Sustainable communities: Building for the future. London, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Craig, A., et al. (2000) The social acceptability of prefabrication and standardisation in relation to new housing. 16th IAPS Conference ‘21st century: cities, social life and sustainable development’, Paris.

Prescott, J. (2003) ‘Home is where you want to live.’ The Observer: 6th April 2003, p,7.

Edge, M. and Craig, A. (2002) Change and innovation in housing design. Investment characteristics of new forms of owner occupied housing. ENHR 2002 Conference ‘Housing Cultures- Convergence and Diversity’, Vienna.

The Strategic Forum for Construction (2002) Accelerating change. London, The Strategic Forum for Construction Edge, M. et al. (2002) Overcoming client and market resistance to prefabrication and standardisation in housing. Robert Gordon University. Gann, D.M (1996) ‘Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences between industrialized housing and car production in Japan.’ Construction Management & Economics 14(5): 437-450. Gann, D.M et al. (1999) Flexibility and choice in housing. Bristol, The Policy Press. Gann, D.M and P. Senker (1998) ‘Construction skills training for the next millennium.’ Construction Management & Economics 16(5): 569-580. Gibb, A. (2001) ‘Standardization and pre-assembly - distinguishing myth from reality using case study research.’ Construction Management & Economics 19(3): 307-315. Gibb, A. and F. Isack (2003) ‘Re-engineering through pre-assembly: client expectations and drivers.’ Building Research & Information 31(2): 146-160. Green, S. and May, S. (2003) ‘Re-engineering construction: going against the grain.’ Building Research & Information 31(2): 97-106.



61

Bibliography continued Islam, F. (2003) ‘Expand the South and demolish the North?’ The Observer, 6/04/2003. Laing, R. et al. (2001) Prefabricated housing. An assessment of cost, value and quality. International Conference on Construction (Construction for tomorrow's city), Hong Kong. Mawdesley, M. et al. (2001) Integrating services design to simplify the use of manufacturing. 1st International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference (ISEC-01), University of Hawaii at Manoa. Mawdesley, M. et al. (2001) Effects of innovative distribution of services on project procurement. 1st International Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC), Loughborough University UK. Mawdesley, M. et al. (2001) Effects of modular building services on construction sequence, time and cost. Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) National Conference, London. Mornement, A. (2002). Modular muddle. The Guardian, 20/11/2002. Wilson, D. et al. (1998) Prefabrication and preassembly. Applying the techniques to building engineering services, BSRIA Advanced Constructions Techniques ACT 1/99. Winch, G. (1998) ‘The growth of self-employment in British construction.’ Construction Management & Economics 16(5): 531-542. Winch, G. (2003) ’Models of manufacturing and the construction process: the genesis of re-engineering construction.’ Building Research & Information 31(2): 107-118.



63