You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Offsite Construction Typology
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/buildings12010020

Offsite construction (OSC) delivers multiple products that vary in design and building complexity. Considering the growing prevalence of OSC, a systematic categorization of OSC types can offer operational and macroeconomic benefits to the construction industry.

offsite construction typology Delphi study modern construction

1. Introduction

Offsite construction (OSC) has been in existence for centuries, and it has evolved through different terminologies and taxonomies [1]. Technological evolution has triggered the simultaneous advancement of OSC techniques and terms [2]. Since the prefabricated pavilion roof constructed in 1772, and Manning’s Portable Colonial Cottage constructed in 1833 [3], OSC has been an integral element of industrialization [4], modularization [5], mechanization [6], and digitalization [7]. The broad definition—“manufacturing buildings or functional elements of buildings in a factory to be transported and erected onsite” [1][8][9]—was used to refer to several terms, including OSC. Once OSC was differentiated from traditional onsite construction, several OSC types emerged with distinct characteristics [10].
Gibb [11] introduced component manufacture and sub-assembly, non-volumetric pre-assembly, volumetric pre-assembly, and modular/complete building under the umbrella term of OSC. Subsequently, various researchers adopted this OSC classification to match their research purposes. However, these published classifications are based on industry practices and theoretical assumptions rather than a rigorous systematic evaluation.
The uniqueness of OSC types and thresholds that distinguish them are imperceptible in the current body of the literature due to the myriad terms used to refer to them [10]. The inability to accurately differentiate OSC types is a challenge for OSC operations [12], OSC design [13], and procurement processes [14], causing time and cost inefficiencies [15]. Therefore, the development of a succinct OSC typology assists in enhanced product specification [5], process improvement [16], minimized operational risk [17], efficient procurement process [14], multi-skilling for optimal process integration [18], skill prediction [19], and increased levels of automation [7][20]. Such operational benefits can escalate production by incorporating the technological advancements evident in distinct OSC types. Accordingly, both onsite and offsite processes can be improved to embed the features of different OSC types [10].
It is proven that operational advancements in OSC can contribute to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) under macroeconomic terms [6][21][22]. A longitudinal study by Taylor [6], with reference to Farmer [20], reveals the criticality of different OSC types and their categorical value addition to the United Kingdom (UK) economy. As such, the development of an OSC typology results in both organizational and macroeconomic benefits by improving the overall industrial output.
The rapid evolution of Industry 4.0 technologies is impacting construction, changing the way building components and buildings are constructed. This, in turn, affects OSC methods and the advancement of materials. Consequently, the existing OSC classifications no longer support new types of OSC. Hence, the research addresses the following research question: what are the distinct characteristics of unique OSC types that have emerged through the adoption of Industry 4.0-based technological advancements? This research aims to develop an OSC typology by structuring and validating the pre-identified OSC classifications. A comprehensive literature is conducted to recognize the current state of OSC and identify the knowledge gap. It is found that a validated OSC typology with defined distinct features of OSC types, integrating modern technological advancements, is non-existent in the current body of knowledge. As such, the OSC typology is developed through a rigorous research process incorporating a case study and an expert forum guided by the Delphi methodology. The outcomes of this research contribute to improved communications related to distinct OSC types. The OSC typology will generate organizational benefits in terms of product specification in OSC design, comprehensible procurement processes, and improved production processes. Subsequently, such operational benefits can result in macroeconomic benefits through OSC productivity enhancement.

2. Significance of the Validated OSC Typology

The validated OSC typology is presented in Figure 1, which shows the definitions, features, and examples of all OSC types. It includes six unique OSC types whose features are distinct from each other. These OSC types are classified under non-volumetric (components, panels, foldable structure) and volumetric (pods, modules, complete buildings) categories.
Buildings 12 00020 g003 550
Figure 1. Definitions, examples, and features of the validated OSC typology.
Compared to the original classification by Gibb [11], the validated OSC typology represents the holistic nature of OSC. A rigorous research method was followed to develop the OSC typology, including a multi-level expert forum via the Delphi method, to achieve an unbiased consensus through expert opinion. However, the previous classifications adopted Gibb [11] to suit their research purposes, and hence a validated OSC typology that matches Industry 4.0-driven technologies in the 21st century is long overdue.
Neither the original classification nor any of the adopted classifications have used a rigorous research method to justify the development process of OSC classifications. In contrast, this research deploys a systematic scientific process to develop an OSC typology that depicts the holistic nature of OSC types. Existing classifications strongly represent the subjective judgments and independent expert opinions of the researchers to derive OSC categorizations that match their research purposes. These classifications also portray the influence of industry practices where multiple terms are used to refer to similar OSC products without a clear distinction between their features and the definitions. For example, the terms volumetric [23][24][25], volumetric and modular [26], volumetric pre-assembly [8][11][27][28], volumetric offsite prefabrication [29], modular [11][27][23][25], modular building [8][29][30], modular construction [31], modules [32], 3D volumetric modules [31], complete modular [33], pods [33], volumetric pods [25], structural volumetric spaces [34], volumetric modular system [35], complete building [11][27], complete building systems [36][36], and modular and mixed construction systems [36] have been used to refer to any volumetric element. Similar complexities are evidenced for non-volumetric elements as well. The existing classifications do not present a clear distinction between the terms used to refer to OSC products. Many of them fail to capture the holistic nature of OSC products [8][29][23][30][24][26][35][28][32][25]. Therefore, the developed OSC typology (Figure 1) resolves the complications surrounding OSC types and indicates their distinct features.
The first OSC type, component, is a constant in many previous classifications [11][27][23][24][26][28][31][32][36][25], and the current typology represents them as factory-made, non-volumetric building elements. Panels are also recognized in the literature [8][11][29][27][23][30][24][26][35][28][31][36][25], yet the definition, features, and differentiation from other OSC types were not given consideration in previous studies. Foldable structures are not evidenced in any of the existing classifications. Among the many terms used to refer to volumetric building elements, pods [33][25], modules [32][25], and complete buildings [11][29][31][33][36] are interchangeably used to refer to anything that comes in a box. Therefore, the differentiation of these three volumetric OSC types assists the industry with operational and, subsequently, macroeconomic benefits. The developed typology is accompanied by a building classification process (Figure 2), which provides a decision matrix to match various OSC projects with building elements manufactured offsite.
Buildings 12 00020 g004 550
Figure 2. OSC building classification process.

3. OSC Building Classification Process

The process to be followed for OSC building classification is presented in Figure 2. The purpose of the building classification process is to have a better understanding of the distribution of various OSC types in a project. Building construction projects are complex [37] and, thus, most of them do not fall into one distinct OSC type. Every project includes an onsite element [38], while the rest of the building structure can incorporate more than one OSC type. As such, classifying a construction project under one unique OSC type can be done by considering the predominant OSC type.
Buildings that belong to the component OSC type are recognized by considering the non-availability of other OSC types (Decision 1.0). If the building does not have panels, pods, modules, a complete building, or a foldable structure, it belongs to the component OSC type and has close resemblance to a traditionally constructed building. Components are common in many buildings irrespective of whether the buildings are constructed traditionally or offsite. Examples for components vary from pre-manufactured fittings, fixtures, columns, beams, staircases, trusses, and façades to building services that include site-intensive construction [31].
Furthermore, due to their wide variety and abundance, the chances of components having a higher total value percentage than other OSC types are exceptionally high (E2 and E5). Jaillon and Poon [39] evaluated 11 prefabricated elements frequently used in Hong Kong, out of which five were components, while the rest were either panels or volumetric elements. Therefore, the subsequent steps in OSC building classification exclude components. As such, if a building only has a single OSC type (panels, pods, modules, a complete building, or a foldable structure) besides components, it is recognized under the relevant OSC type (Decision 2.0).
When a building has more than one OSC type, the OSC type with a higher value percentage is considered (Decision 3.0). If a building involves the same OSC percentages for two OSC types in value terms, the OSC type with the higher complexity is considered the relevant OSC type. The complexity of OSC types can be decided based on the nature of the products and the manufacturing processes involved. For example, compared to a panelized project, pods can be far more complex to manufacture. As such, the decision process considers the predominant usage of a specific OSC type.

4. Non-Volumetric OSC Types

4.1. Components

Since the first reference to “component manufacture and sub-assembly”, components have been considered in many classifications as the simplest OSC type [24][31][36]. Components have been stereotyped as non-structural building elements, with examples such as doors, windows, light fixtures [11], and pre-assembled mechanical services [24]. Boyd, Khalfan and Maqsood [30] renamed components as “offsite pre-assembly” to incorporate trusses and staircases. Gosling, Pero, Schoenwitz and Towill [40], with reference to the OSC sub-component classification by Schoenwitz, et al. [41], consider beams and columns as sub-components, but this is critically questioned by da Rocha and Kemmer [12] due to the inadequate rationale behind the consideration.
Although earlier classifications recognize the volume-based differentiation in OSC types, none of them consider the structural-based differentiation of non-volumetric elements. Therefore, the validity of considering beams and columns as structural components was questioned, to which all experts agreed. As such, this study suggests a rearrangement of components, including both structural and non-structural building elements.

4.2. Panels

All five experts unanimously considered panels as a valid OSC type, and several sub-sets of panels were suggested, viz.: sandwich, co-op (E5), open, and closed panels (E3). This finding is in accordance with open and closed panels [37][42], concrete, and structural insulated panels [35] in the literature. A detailed evaluation of the sub-categories of OSC types is a further research area beyond the scope of the current study.
Whilst agreeing for components and panels to be distinct OSC types, E3 highlighted the nexus between them (Figure 3). According to E3, some manufacturers (Company A) solely focus on components (e.g., wall frames) to be re-manufactured by a different entity (Company B) to produce panels (e.g., wall panels). However, as shown by the “red box” in Figure 3, the OSC type is decided based on the point of delivery to the construction site. Once the element is delivered to the building site for onsite assembly (shown within the red box), the OSC type is decided.
Buildings 12 00020 g005 550
Figure 3. Relationship between component and panel manufacturing.
This opinion provided the possibility of merging several OSC types on an organizational basis. However, as per the definition, any manufacturing activity within a factory before transportation to the site is OSC. Therefore, both “A” and “B” produce valid types, yet “A” also acts as a supplier to “B”. The scenario is similar to the sub-contracting process in traditional construction [1]. As such, several OSC types can always be incorporated within a much more complex type. However, OSC types in this study are developed from a building construction project perspective rather than from an organizational perspective. Therefore, the OSC types are differentiated within the project scope based on the final delivery for onsite assembly, and not on delivery for re-manufacturing.
E4 questioned the difference between the terms “flat-pack” and “panels”. The term “flat-pack” was claimed to be misleading, as it refers to the stacking and transportation of panels in a single flattened package. The literature also refers to 2D panelized structures as flat-pack [37], as opposed to a whole building of panels connected with hinges [43][44][45]. Therefore, the experts suggested a different term, “foldable structure”, to be used instead of flat-pack.

4.3. Flat-Pack/Foldable Structure

“Foldable structure” refers to building panels (floors, walls, ceilings) connected using hinges, to be folded, transported, and finally unfolded at the site [43][44][45]. None of the experts claimed foldable structure to be a common OSC type due to its limited use in the industry. E1 identified it as rare and hardly economical for any offsite manufacturer. E4 stated that its usage in the industry was less than 1%. Based on the findings in the current industrial context, the foldable structure is visible as an OSC type that has not yet gained sufficient market interest or economic viability. As technology is rapidly evolving, attraction for this type of semi-temporary buildings is also incrementing. Apart from the comments received about the limited use of foldable structures, none of the experts disagreed for this to be a valid OSC type. Given these comments, to future-proof the OSC typology, the foldable structure is kept as a part of the OSC typology.

5. Volumetric OSC Types

5.1. Pods

Despite the unanimous consensus that pods are a valid OSC type, several concerns were raised about their inflexibilities and stringent maintenance requirements (E2). However, studies comparing in-situ and prefabricated bathrooms demonstrated better maintenance for prefab bathrooms in regard to cost and performance [46][47].
E4, unlike other experts, was of the view that “it is not a must for pods to be repetitive” (Delphi round one), and that “pods can be repetitive from an economic point of view but not from a typology point of view” (Delphi round two). Thus, an 80% agreement was achieved for the consensus statement that pods are repetitive in nature. Goh and Loosemore [33] also acknowledge the repetitive tasks involved in pod manufacturing, as pods are entirely completed in a factory to install building services and finishes similar to an assembly line.

5.2. Modules

Modules were confirmed as a valid OSC type with unanimous consensus. Moreover, it was noted that several modules could be used to build a complete building (E1), which is the concept behind modules in the OSC typology. Although the OSC typology identifies pods, modules, and complete buildings under the umbrella term “volumetric”, several comments were received about using the terms “module” and “volumetric”. Both modules and volumetrics can be referred to as modes (E4); they are common terminologies to refer to anything that comes in a box (E3). “Module” can be misleading, as OSC operations are also called modular construction (E3). However, the term “modular” is a broad concept that spans several disciplines, referring to the breaking up of a particular system into various parts [40]. Such inconsistencies in an industrial context reveal the need to develop a validated typology to ease OSC communications and subsequently improve the operational benefits of OSC.
A question was raised to understand whether there are differences between pods and modules. The responses in the Delphi round one were mostly inclined towards an agreement. E3 stated that the only difference between pods and modules was related to size. As per E4, pods are parts of modules, and there can be occasions where a pod becomes a module. A consensus was reached in the Delphi round two by differentiating pods and modules as repetitive and non-repetitive volumetric types, respectively.
The entire building can be made up of modules, while pods have a limited mix of possibilities (E2). E1 proposed another view on modules, which is illustrated in Figure 4.
Buildings 12 00020 g006 550
Figure 4. Arrangement of pods and modules in a housing project.
There can be three different buildings (Buildings A, B, C) in a single project, and each building needs unique modules (Modules 1–9), resulting in nine unique modules (E1). However, the pods for the three buildings are similar (Pod x). This interpretation further aligns with the consideration of repetitive, finished pods. It shows how modules are not repeated building elements due to the uniqueness of building projects, while pods are repetitive as they are manufactured based on mass manufacturing principles. Several modules make up a building, while pods are finished components that need to be incorporated into a building (E1). In addition, modules possess a lower finishing level than pods, as modules need to be joined onsite for interior finishes (E1).

5.3. Complete Buildings

A complete building is a single unit or a single module building. The experts unanimously agreed that it is a valid OSC type with practical differences and unique features compared to modules. Moreover, complete buildings can be business models (E4). Referring to one of their projects, E1 stated that a police station in New South Wales, Australia, is 18 m × 4.8 m in size, including a fully furnished and cladded reception area, interview rooms, lock-up, and gun sites. E1 revealed that onsite tasks were limited to foundation construction and fixing of the delivered building. E1 also compared complete buildings with pods due to the level of finishes completed offsite, yet confirmed that complete buildings would never be called pods in the current industrial context.
Examples of complete buildings are fully fitted out telecommunications bases, fully kitted out infrastructure buildings, and health buildings, particularly in developing countries or remote locations, refugee camps, and disaster recovery areas (E2). These findings reveal a particular purpose of complete buildings, which are also considered a proven OSC solution to build back communities efficiently as a convenient disaster relief building model [1].

6. Overall Position of OSC Types

Responding to the questions on the overall stance of the preliminary OSC typology and the practical usage/applicability of the OSC types, all experts agreed that the developed preliminary typology paints a holistic picture of OSC. According to the experts, even the items that are not very common, such as foldable structures, are taken into consideration.
The OSC types are dispersed among various sectors, such as residential offices, school buildings, hotels, switch rooms, and police stations (E1). E3 opined that the practical usage of each type reduced with the complexity level. This finding implies that most OSC activities will be limited to non-volumetric/2D types rather than volumetric/3D building elements.

7. Materials Used in OSC Types

The experts mentioned relevant materials for each OSC type in the Delphi round one. All responses were circulated in the Delphi round two, and the materials with more than or equal to 60% consensus (minimum 3/5 experts agreed) are presented in Table 1. The materials that received more than or equal to 60% consensus are presented with “√” symbol. The materials with less than 60% consensus are shown with “- “symbol.
Table 1. Material used for OSC types.
Table
OSC Type/Material Concrete Steel Timber Other
Timber Frame CLT
Components - √ √ - Aluminum, glass—façade
Panels √ √ √ √ Oriented Strand Board (OSB)
Pods - √ √ - Tiles, high tech interior, composite material, fiber cement, plasterboard
Modules √ √ √ - OSB, compressed panel with insulation
Complete Buildings - √ √ √ -
Steel and timber stud frames are significant materials for all OSC types. Despite the consensus on the use of timber in all OSC types, OSC in Australia is mostly made from pre-cast concrete, while timber contributes only 1% of the materials (E2). Furthermore, timber pod construction is common in other countries, whereas there is a limited number of timber pod manufacturers in Australia (E1). Steel frames are commonly used with a solid concrete base for pod manufacturing (E4, E5). A primary concern related to the materials used for volumetric OSC is the requirement of lightweight structures, resulting in CLT, steel, and timber frames being the typical materials.

8. Offsite Construction Skills

The experts were required to provide their opinions on various skills used in the OSC types. E1 observed a gradual increase in skills when the complexity of the OSC type increased. The complex OSC types (modules and complete buildings) are project-oriented and require an OSC project team, including an architect, a mechanical engineer, and technical staff to manage the building services (E1). These views specify how skill needs vary significantly among the OSC types, primarily due to mass manufacturing as opposed to project-based manufacturing.
The experts stated various skills, such as planning, designing, manufacturing, logistics and assembly processes, as important skills in OSC compared to traditional onsite construction. Both E2 and E3 mentioned the need for architects with computer-aided designing (CAD) skills to suit a manufacturing environment (DfMA) and how OSC design must begin with a simple approach like AutoCAD. Moreover, E2 suggested how BIM is not in line with DfMA. However, this finding is against the promising synergy between BIM and DfMA [16].
Further, E4 highlighted the critical need for increased design time and decreased production time in OSC. Similar OSC skill needs are also acknowledged by Hairstans and Smith [42]. These findings signal the possible skill quantity variations for different OSC tasks compared to traditional construction. The references to production-based skills (E1), technology-driven skills (E3), and logistics-based skills (E4) signify how OSC skills differ from the usual trade-based construction skills.

References

  1. Goulding, J.S.; Pour Rahimian, F. Offsite Production and Manufacturing for Innovative Construction: People, Process and Technology; Routledge: Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2020.
  2. Liu, G.; Nzige, J.H.; Li, K. Trending topics and themes in offsite construction (OSC) research. Constr. Innov. 2019, 19, 343–366.
  3. Herbert, G. The portable colonial cottage. J. Soc. Archit. Hist. 1972, 31, 261–275.
  4. Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution; World Economic Forum Geneva: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  5. Johnsson, H. Production strategies for pre-engineering in house-building: Exploring product development platforms. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2013, 31, 941–958.
  6. Taylor, M.D. A definition and valuation of the UK offsite construction sector: Ten years on. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 1–9.
  7. Woodhead, R.; Stephenson, P.; Morrey, D. Digital construction: From point solutions to IoT ecosystem. Autom. Constr. 2018, 93, 35–46.
  8. Blismas, N.; Arif, M.; Wakefield, R. Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite manufacture in Australia. Constr. Innov. 2009, 9, 72–83.
  9. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q.P. Holistic Review and Conceptual Framework for the Drivers of Offsite Construction: A Total Interpretive Structural Modelling Approach. Buildings 2019, 9, 117.
  10. Ginigaddara, B.; Perera, S.; Feng, Y.; Rahnamayiezekavat, P. Typologies of offsite construction. In Proceedings of the 8th World Construction Symposium, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 8–10 November 2019; pp. 567–577.
  11. Gibb, A.G.F. Standardization and pre-assembly- distinguishing myth from reality using case study research. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2001, 19, 307–315.
  12. Da Rocha, C.G.; Kemmer, S. Integrating product and process design in construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2018, 36, 535–543.
  13. Lu, W.; Chen, K.; Xue, F.; Pan, W. Searching for an optimal level of prefabrication in construction: An analytical framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 236–245.
  14. Agapiou, A. Factors influencing the selection of a procurement route for UK off-site housebuilding. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. Law 2020, 1–13.
  15. Pan, W.; Sidwell, R. Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite construction in the UK. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2011, 29, 1081–1099.
  16. Razkenari, M.; Fenner, A.; Shojaei, A.; Hakim, H.; Kibert, C. Perceptions of offsite construction in the United States: An investigation of current practices. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 29.
  17. Arashpour, M.; Wakefield, R.; Lee, E.W.M.; Chan, R.; Hosseini, M.R. Analysis of interacting uncertainties in on-site and off-site activities: Implications for hybrid construction. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1393–1402.
  18. Arashpour, M.; Wakefield, R.; Abbasi, B.; Arashpour, M.; Hosseini, M.R. Optimal process integration architectures in off-site construction: Theorizing the use of multi-skilled resources. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2018, 14, 46–59.
  19. Ginigaddara, B.; Perera, S.; Feng, Y.; Rahnamayiezekavat, P. Offsite construction skills evolution: An Australian case study. Constr. Innov. 2021, 22, 41–56.
  20. Farmer. The Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model; Construction Leadership Council (CLC): London, UK, 2016.
  21. Taylor, M.D. A definition and valuation of the UK offsite construction sector. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 28, 885–896.
  22. Ahmad, S.B.S.; Mazhar, M.U.; Bruland, A.; Andersen, B.S.; Langlo, J.A.; Torp, O. Labour productivity statistics: A reality check for the Norwegian construction industry. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 20, 39–52.
  23. Abanda, F.H.; Tah, J.H.M.; Cheung, F.K.T. BIM in off-site manufacturing for buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 14, 89–102.
  24. Kempton, J. Modern methods of construction and RSL asset management: A quantitative study. Struct. Surv. 2010, 28, 121–131.
  25. Agapiou, A. An exploration of the best value perceptions of small housebuilding developers towards offsite construction. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4054.
  26. Kamar, K.A.M.; Hamid, Z.A.; Azman, M.N.A.; Ahmad, M.S.S. Industrialised Building System (IBS): Revisiting issues of definition and classification. Int. J. Emerg. Sci. 2011, 1, 120–132.
  27. Gibb, A.G.F.; Isack, F. Re-engineering through pre-assembly: Client expectations and drivers. Build. Res. Inf. 2003, 31, 146–160.
  28. Arif, M.; Egbu, C. Making a case for offsite construction in China. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2010, 17, 536–548.
  29. Gibb, A.G.F. Off-Site Fabrication: Prefabrication, Pre-Assembly and Modularisation; John Wiley and Sons Incorporation: New York, NY, USA; Toronto, ON, Canada, 1999.
  30. Boyd, N.; Khalfan, M.M.A.; Maqsood, T. Off-site construction of apartment buildings. J. Archit. Eng. 2013, 19, 51–57.
  31. Nguyen, Q.C.; Perera, S.; Jin, X. The status of offsite construction in Vietnam. In Proceedings of the 42nd AUBEA Conference 2018: Educating Building Professionals for the Future in the Globalised World, Singapore, 26–28 September 2018; pp. 68–77.
  32. Quale, J.D.; Eckelman, M.J.; Williams, K.W.; Sloditskie, G.; Zimmerman, J.B. Construction matters: Comparing environmental impacts of building modular and conventional homes in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16, 243–253.
  33. Goh, E.; Loosemore, M. The impacts of industrialization on construction subcontractors: A resource based view. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2016, 35, 288–304.
  34. Steinhardt, D.A.; Manley, K. Adoption of prefabricated housing–the role of country context. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 22, 126–135.
  35. NHBC. Modern Methods of Construction Who’s Doing What? 978-1-9995997-1-3; NHBC: Buckinghamshire, UK, 2018.
  36. Lawson, M.; Ogden, R.; Goodier, C. Design in Modular Construction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014.
  37. Bertram, N.; Fuchs, S.; Mischke, J.; Palter, R.; Strube, G.; Woetzel, J. Modular Construction: From Projects to Products; McKinsey & Company: Zurich, Switzerland, 2019.
  38. Eastman, C.M.; Sacks, R. Relative productivity in the AEC industries in the United States for on-site and off-site activities. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 517–526.
  39. Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S. The evolution of prefabricated residential building systems in Hong Kong: A review of the public and the private sector. Autom. Constr. 2009, 18, 239–248.
  40. Gosling, J.; Pero, M.; Schoenwitz, M.; Towill, D. Defining and categorizing modules in building projects: An international perspective. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142.
  41. Schoenwitz, M.; Naim, M.; Potter, A. The nature of choice in mass customized house building. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2012, 30, 203–219.
  42. Hairstans, R.; Smith, R.E. Offsite HUB (Scotland): Establishing a collaborative regional framework for knowledge exchange in the UK. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2018, 14, 60–77.
  43. Boxabl. Available online: https://www.boxabl.com/ (accessed on 12 October 2021).
  44. MADI. MADI home. Available online: https://www.madihome.com/ (accessed on 16 November 2021).
  45. Ten Fold Technology. Available online: https://www.tenfoldengineering.com/ (accessed on 19 March 2021).
  46. Pan, W.; Arif, M.; Gibb, A.G.F. Maintenance performance evaluation of offsite and in situ bathrooms. Constr. Innov. 2009, 9, 7–21.
  47. Pan, W.; Gibb, A.G.F.; Sellars, A.B. Maintenance cost implications of utilizing bathroom modules manufactured offsite. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 1067–1077.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Construction & Building Technology
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Buddhini Ginigaddara
View Times: 782
Revisions: 4 times (View History)
Update Date: 28 Mar 2022
Table of Contents
Academic Video Service
Feedback