Modular Construction in the UK: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Niraj Thurairajah
,
Akila Rathnasinghe
,
Mehvish Ali
,
Shashwat Shashwat

Offsite modular construction has emerged as a popular solution to tackle the chronic housing shortage and attain net-zero carbon targets in the UK. This technique involves the prefabrication of building components, sub-assemblies, and parts in off-site factories, which are then transferred and assembled on site as integral parts of a larger structure. These modular units may either constitute a small fraction of the overall project or form the entire building. Accordingly, the proliferation of modular construction is frequently justified by the promise of superior quality and precision in manufacturing, as well as economies of scale in mass-producing numerous standardised units, leading to enhanced productivity, rapid production, reduction of waste, and efficient allocation of resources.

  • modular construction
  • off-site construction
  • UK construction industry

1. Introduction

In a retrospective trajectory, the existence of the underlying principle behind off-site modular construction in the UK (i.e., relocation of on-site activities to a controlled factory environment) can be traced back to 1940s, and its use has been increasing ever since [1]. Nevertheless, despite the long-standing interest in off-site modular construction, the UK has been lagging behind other developed nations in adopting this method. The reasons for this are frequently acknowledged to be deep-rooted and intertwined with the fragmented industry landscape [2] in addition to comprehensive collaboration required due to the planning, coordination, installation, procurement, and scope of works [1]. Additionally, the lethargic adoption of modular construction has been attributed to concerns surrounding costs, site productivity, and workmanship issues, which can all have a detrimental impact on the quality of the finished modular product during real-life implementation [3]. Nevertheless, these implementation challenges appear to contradict early studies that promoted modular construction adoption, such as [4][5][6], who posited that modular construction could simply reduce costs, boost productivity, and enhance quality control based on the input of experts’ opinions with a minimal attention towards practical/procedural aspects. Hence, it seems that reality of modular construction is considerably more multifaceted than initially thought. Anecdotally, Knightfrank’s report [7] reveals that roughly 43% of respondents believe that modular construction will have no impact or even exacerbate the UK construction industry’s existing challenges without proper guidance for its real-life application. 
Despite the widespread acknowledgment of the potential of off-site modular construction in addressing some of the UK’s most pressing construction issues, such as the housing crisis and the net-zero carbon objectives, the complete realisation of its perceived benefits requires a comprehensive understanding and resolution of the practical challenges encountered by contractors and other adopters in real-world situations. Accordingly, contractors and other adopters must anticipate and develop effective strategies to overcome such challenges, thereby instilling greater confidence in the viability of modular construction as a viable alternative for the UK construction industry.

2. Offsite Modular Construction in the UK

For over a century, the construction industry has relied heavily on conventional on-site and labour-intensive construction techniques, which have been deemed as the norm for the sector, including in the UK [8]. Nevertheless, the world’s population is growing at an unprecedented pace, generating a higher demand for infrastructure and housing, which is further compounded by increasingly complex requirements such as sustainability and zero-carbon emissions [9]. These changes require the construction industry to re-evaluate its traditional ways and adapt to the evolving landscape, as evident in the automobile and aviation sectors [10]. Failure to respond effectively to these challenges may lead to the industry’s stagnation, which would ultimately result in the inability to meet the demands and expectations of the ever-changing society [11]. In response, the construction industry has somewhat embraced modern construction techniques that are purportedly both efficient and sustainable, shifting the majority of on-site operations to factory-controlled environments in order to improve productivity [12]. Although the definition of off-site construction (OSC) remains contentious, various studies have employed terms like modern methods of construction (MMC), modular construction (MiC), volumetric construction, industrialised construction, and prefabricated construction to refer to the practice of moving on-site work to a factory environment. However, regardless of terminology, the core principle remains the same: the relocation of on-site activities to a factory setting [13][14].
Meanwhile, the UK CI serves as an intriguing case study to showcase the evolution of OSC and the integration of various terminologies to signify specific stages of this evolution over the last century. OSC’s origins can be traced back to the Roman occupation of Britain, with Lunt Fort’s archaeological site near Coventry built using components sourced from elsewhere [1]. Joseph Paxton later revived this construction approach during the 1851 Great Exhibition, constructing the Crystal Palace in just nine months, and later dismantling it to be relocated elsewhere. After World War II, the UK deployed a prefab mission to meet the housing needs of the population; however, these prefabricated dwellings proved to be substandard in terms of durability and criteria, leading to negative public perceptions [1][8]. To counter this perception, the UK CI introduced industrialised building concepts, with a focus on a closed construction process in a factory setting and leaving basic assembly activities for on-site work. This approach often employed large panel methods (i.e., panelised construction), and by the end of the 1970s, the UK CI had progressed towards volumetric construction, with modular construction becoming more prevalent in the 1990s [13]. In 2019, the UK government defined modern methods of construction (MMC) as an umbrella term for seven categories of OSC forms that encompass all the previously listed taxonomies, all of which share the fundamental principle of relocating on-site work to a factory environment [12].
The persistent promotion of MMC, particularly off-site modular construction in the UK, can be attributed to the perceived sustainability benefits derived from these practices. Evidently, the low level of embodied carbon during the manufacturing and assembly processes, as well as the potential for standardisation of designs and building components have been acknowledged by scholars and the UK government [12][13][15]. By standardizing components, they can be more readily reused and recycled at the end of their lifecycle, thus reducing the future demand for raw materials and component production and representing a significant step towards achieving greater sustainability [16].
Overall, it can be identified that the scholars have widely researched OSC in various forms and specifications. Despite this, there is unanimous agreement among scholars regarding the advantages and capabilities that OSC may provide over traditional construction, which will be discussed in the following section.

3. Advantages of Modular Construction

Table 1 summarises the key advantages of modular construction and the supporting literature. These advantages, ranging from improved quality control to enhanced mobility, make modular construction an attractive alternative to traditional construction methods for a wide range of building projects.
Table 1. Advantages of modular construction.
Advantage Brief Description References
Faster Construction Time Modular construction can be completed faster than
traditional construction methods because modules can be prefabricated off-site and then assembled on site. This
reduces the time required for on-site construction activities.		 [15][17][18]
Improved Quality Control The controlled factory environment in which modules are prefabricated allows for greater consistency and precision in the construction process, resulting in higher-quality
finished products.		 [18][19]
Reduced Site Disruption Because much of the construction work is done off site, there is less noise, dust, and traffic on the construction site, reducing the disruption to neighbouring properties and the local community. [1][20][21]
Greater Sustainability Modular construction can be more environmentally friendly than traditional construction methods because it produces less waste and uses fewer resources. It also allows for the use of sustainable materials and energy-efficient
designs.		 [22][23]
Increased Cost-Effectiveness Modular construction can be more cost-effective than
traditional construction methods because it allows for greater efficiency in the construction process, resulting in lower labour costs and shorter construction schedules.		 [17][24][25]
Improved Safety The factory-controlled environment in which modules are prefabricated is generally safer than traditional
construction sites. This can reduce the risk of accidents and injuries during the construction process.		 [26][27][28]
Flexibility in Design Modular construction allows for greater flexibility in design, because modules can be easily added, removed, or
reconfigured as needed. This makes it easier to
accommodate changes in design or use over time.		 [29][30]
Enhanced Mobility Modular construction can be an ideal solution for
temporary or mobile structures, such as disaster relief
shelters, healthcare facilities, or military housing. The
modular nature of the construction allows for easy transport and installation.		 [31][32]
Although modular construction has been recognised for its numerous benefits, it is crucial to acknowledge the associated complexities and challenges, which will be discussed in the following section.

4. Challenges for Modular Construction

Table 2 presents a critical and advanced overview of the challenges faced by modular construction, organised into six broad categories. These challenges are based on previous research and are intended to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by the industry.
Table 2. Challenges for modular construction.
Challenge Description References
Design challenges The need for freezing the modular designs at early stages poses several challenges for design professionals. Once the design is finalised, changes can be difficult and costly to
implement due to the modular units’ standardized
dimensions and limited flexibility. Additionally, transportation restrictions and site layout limitations may constrain the design process, further complicating design challenges.		 [33][34]
Labour shortages The modular construction industry has been plagued by
labour shortages, particularly for experienced designers and installers. These shortages can lead to increased project costs, delays, and quality concerns.		 [35][36]
Logistical challenges Modular construction requires careful planning and
coordination to ensure the efficient and timely delivery of modules to the construction site. This can involve navigating transportation regulations, protecting modules during transit, and managing organisational arrangements and
commitments.		 [37][38]
Initial capital cost challenges Although modular construction has the potential to reduce construction costs, it can also be more expensive upfront due to the need for specialised factories and equipment.
Additionally, logistical challenges and labour shortages can increase costs, particularly for projects with longer lead times.		 [18][39]
Communication challenges Modular construction requires extensive communication and collaboration among stakeholders, including designers,
manufacturers, contractors, and clients. Miscommunications or delays in communication can lead to errors, delays, and increased project costs.		 [40][41]
Regulatory challenges Modular construction is subject to the same building codes and inspections as traditional construction methods, but the modular nature of the construction can create additional regulatory complexities. Compliance with complex codes and inspections can lead to project delays and increased costs. [38][42]

After extensively reviewing the literature, it is apparent that modular construction faces a plethora of challenges, primarily pertaining to design, logistics, and financial overruns. However, there exists a paucity of research delving into the reasons behind its underutilisation and the persistent preference for traditional construction techniques.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15108105

References

  1. Young, E.; Seidu, R.; Thayaparan, M.; Appiah-Kubi, J. Modular Construction Innovation in the UK: The Case of Residential Buildings. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 10–12 March 2020.
  2. Parliament. What Are the Barriers in the Wider Uptake of Off-Site Manufacture? Lords Select Committee. 2018. Available online: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-committees/science-technology/off-site-manufacture-for-construction/off-site-manufacture-construction-ev.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2023).
  3. Kamali, M.; Hewage, K. Development of performance criteria for sustainability evaluation of modular versus conventional construction methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3592–3606.
  4. Lu, N. The Current Use of Offsite Construction Techniques in the United States Construction Industry. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, Seattle, WA, USA, 5–7 April 2009.
  5. Lu, N.; Korman, T. Implementation of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in Modular Construction: Benefits and Challenges. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress, Banff, AB, Canada, 8–10 May 2010.
  6. Azman, M.; Ahamad, M.; Hanafi, M. The Common Approach in Off-Site Construction Industry. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2010, 4, 4478–4482.
  7. Knight Frank. Housebuilding Report 2018; Knight Frank: London, UK, 2018; Available online: https://content.knightfrank.com/research/297/documents/en/uk-housebuilding-report-2018-5682.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2019).
  8. Zenga, M.; Javor, A. Modular Homes: The Future Has Arrived; Fideli Publishing: Martinsville, IN, USA, 2008; ISBN 9781604140675.
  9. Wilson, W.; Barton, C. Tackling the Under-Supply of Housing in England; House of Commons Library: London, UK, 2022.
  10. Egan, J. Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force, DTI (URN 98/1095); Construction Task Force: London, UK, 1998.
  11. Farmer, M. The Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model: Modernise or Die; Construction Leadership Council: London, UK, 2016.
  12. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). Modern Methods of Construction: Introducing the MMC Definition Framework; Cast Consultancy: London, UK, 2019.
  13. Ehwi, R.J.; Oti-Sarpong, K.; Shojaei, R.; Burgess, G. Offsite Manufacturing Research: A Systematic Review of Methodologies Used. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2021, 40, 24.
  14. Abanda, F.; Tah, J.; Cheung, F. BIM in off-site manufacturing for buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 14, 89–102.
  15. Hussein, M.; Eltoukhy, A.E.; Karam, A.; Shaban, I.A.; Zayed, T. Modelling in off-site construction supply chain management: A review and future directions for sustainable modular integrated construction. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 310, 127503.
  16. Wu, H.; Hu, R.; Yang, D.; Ma, Z. Micro-macro characterizations of mortar containing construction waste fines as replacement of cement and sand: A comparative study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 383, 131328.
  17. Pan, W.; Sidwell, R. Demystifying the Cost Barriers to Off-Site Construction in the UK. J. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2011, 29, 1081–1099.
  18. Pan, W.; Gibb, A.G.F.; Dainty, A.R.J. Strategies for Integrating the Use of Off-Site Production Technologies in House Building. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 1331–1340.
  19. Goulding, J.; Pour Rahimian, F.; Arif, M.; Sharp, M. New offsite production and business models in construction: Priorities for the future research agenda. Arch. Eng. Des. Manag. 2015, 11, 163–184.
  20. Park, H.K.; Ock, J.-H. Unit modular in-fill construction method for high-rise buildings. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 20, 1201–1210.
  21. Lawson, M.; Ogden, R.; Goodier, C. Design in Modular Construction; CRC Press: London, UK, 2014.
  22. Kamali, M.; Hewage, K.; Sadiq, R. Economic sustainability benchmarking of modular homes: A life cycle thinking approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 348, 131290.
  23. Pan, W.; Zhang, Z. Benchmarking the sustainability of concrete and steel modular construction for buildings in urban development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 90, 104400.
  24. Wasim, M.; Serra, P.V.; Ngo, T.D. Design for manufacturing and assembly for sustainable, quick and cost-effective prefabricated construction—A review. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 22, 3014–3022.
  25. Jang, H.; Ahn, Y.; Roh, S. Comparison of the Embodied Carbon Emissions and Direct Construction Costs for Modular and Conventional Residential Buildings in South Korea. Buildings 2022, 12, 51.
  26. Mostafa, N.; Kermanshachi, S.; Khalid, M.; Al-Bayati, A.J. Construction Safety Training: Exploring Different Perspectives of Construction Managers and Workers. In Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–24 June 2020.
  27. Liu, C.; Sepasgozar, S.M.; Shirowzhan, S.; Mohammadi, G. Applications of object detection in modular construction based on a comparative evaluation of deep learning algorithms. Constr. Innov. 2022, 22, 141–159.
  28. Mohandes, S.R.; Abdelmageed, S.; Hem, S.; Yoo, J.S.; Abhayajeewa, T.; Zayed, T. Occupational Health and Safety in Modular Integrated Construction projects: The case of crane operations. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 342, 130950.
  29. Chourasia, A.; Singhal, S. Manivannan Prefabricated Volumetric Modular Construction: A Review on Current Systems, Challenges, and Future Prospects. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2023, 28, 03122009.
  30. Ferdous, W.; Bai, Y.; Ngo, T.D.; Manalo, A.; Mendis, P. New advancements, challenges and opportunities of multi-storey modular buildings—A state-of-the-art review. Eng. Struct. 2019, 183, 883–893.
  31. Shahzad, W.M.; Rajakannu, G.; Ghalenoei, N.K. Potential of Modular Offsite Construction for Emergency Situations: A New Zealand Study. Buildings 2022, 12, 1970.
  32. Chen, L.; Zhai, C.; Wang, L.; Hu, X.; Huang, X. Modular Structure Construction Progress Scenario: A Case Study of an Emergency Hospital to Address the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11243.
  33. Pan, W.; Gibb, A.G.F.; Dainty, A.R.J. Perspectives of UK housebuilders on the use of offsite modern methods of construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2007, 25, 183–194.
  34. Zhang, W.; Lee, M.W.; Jaillon, L.; Poon, C.S. The hindrance to using prefabrication in Hong Kong’s building industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 204, 70–81.
  35. Iacovidou, E.; Purnell, P.; Tsavdaridis, K.D.; Poologanathan, K. Digitally enabled modular construction for promoting modular components reuse: A UK view. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 42, 102820.
  36. Arif, M.; Bendi, D.; Sawhney, A.; Iyer, K.C. State of offsite construction in India-Drivers and barriers. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2012, 364, 012109.
  37. Gibb, A.; Isack, F. Re-engineering through pre-assembly: Client expectations and drivers. Build. Res. Inf. 2003, 31, 146–160.
  38. Mao, C.; Shen, Q.; Pan, W.; Ye, K. Major Barriers to Off-Site Construction: The Developer’s Perspective in China. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014043.
  39. Wu, G.; Yang, R.; Li, L.; Bi, X.; Liu, B.; Li, S.; Zhou, S. Factors influencing the application of prefabricated construction in China: From perspectives of technology promotion and cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 753–762.
  40. Ezzeddine, A.; de Soto, B.G. Connecting teams in modular construction projects using game engine technology. Autom. Constr. 2021, 132, 103887.
  41. Ribeiro, A.M.; Arantes, A.; Cruz, C.O. Barriers to the Adoption of Modular Construction in Portugal: An Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach. Buildings 2022, 12, 1509.
  42. Gan, X.; Chang, R.; Zuo, J.; Wen, T.; Zillante, G. Barriers to the transition towards off-site construction in China: An Interpretive structural modeling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 8–18.
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.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback