This article was downloaded by: [University of Alberta]

On: 01 January 2015, At: 02:36

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Engineering and Design Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taem20

Constraints to the Use of Off-site Production on

Construction Projects
a b c d
Nick G. Blismas , Martyn Pendlebury , Alistair Gibb & Christine Pasquire
a
School of Property Construction and Project Management, RMIT University , PO Box
2476V, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, Australia Phone: +613 9925 5056 Fax: +613 9925 5056 E-
mail:
b
Department of Civil and Building Engineering , Loughborough University ,
Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK E-mail:
c
Department of Civil and Building Engineering , Loughborough University ,
Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK E-mail:
d
Department of Civil and Building Engineering , Loughborough University ,
Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK E-mail:
Published online: 06 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Nick G. Blismas , Martyn Pendlebury , Alistair Gibb & Christine Pasquire (2005) Constraints to the Use
of Off-site Production on Construction Projects, Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 1:3, 153-162, DOI:
10.1080/17452007.2005.9684590

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2005.9684590

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 153

ARTICLE

Constraints to the Use of Off-site

Production on Construction Projects
Nick G. Blismas, Martyn Pendlebury, Alistair Gibb and Christine Pasquire

Abstract
Off-site production (OSP) has been promoted as one of the solutions to the industry’s performance problems.
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

Numerous works have demonstrated the possible benefits of adopting such approaches to construction projects,
yet uptake has been slow. Addressing these concerns, a series of factors were identified that affect the use of
OSP within construction projects. From these factors a pattern emerged in which some factors drove OSP
adoption, whereas others constrained its implementation. These constraints were investigated further using a
questionnaire survey that was sent to all major stakeholders, ranging from clients through to end manufacturers.
The extent to which the constraints inhibit the use of OSP were ascertained, scored and ranked. Four broad
constraint themes emerged from the findings, namely process, value, supply-chain and knowledge constraints.
A model illustrating the relationship between the four themes provides further insight into the constraints to OSP
uptake. The authors further suggest that a broader understanding of the constraints is required, arguing that
although OSP can contribute to change in the industry, it itself depends on change in order to be widely adopted.

■ Keywords – Constraints; mitigation; off-site production; 1992; Gibb, 2001). Yet others see construction as unique
prefabrication; value in nature, possessing characteristics and problems
innate to the industry that severely inhibit the application
INTRODUCTION of manufacturing principles (Nam and Tatum, 1988).
Recent UK government reports, including the Egan None of these views is necessarily appropriate. A pilot
Report Rethinking Construction (1998) produced by the study demonstrated that decisions to use OSP are still
Construction Task Force, discussed the need for largely based on anecdotal evidence rather than rigorous
performance improvements in the UK construction data, as no formal measurement procedures or
industry. Egan (1998) identified supply-chain partnerships, strategies are available (Pasquire and Gibb, 1999). OSP is
standardization and off-site production (OSP)1 as having hindered by the industry’s inability to appreciate the
roles in improving construction processes. However, benefits and also the inherent constraints of the
the uptake of OSP in construction is limited despite the approach.
well-documented benefits that can be derived from Research undertaken by CIRIA (1999, 2000) identified
such approaches (Neale et al, 1993; Bottom et al, 1994; a series of factors that affect the use of OSP within
CIRIA, 1999, 2000; Wilson et al, 1999; Housing Forum, construction projects. Among these factors were a
2002; Gibb and Isack, 2003). number identified as constraints to the implementation of
The use of OSP by many of those involved in the OSP. However, the distribution and effect of these
construction process is poorly understood (CIRIA, 2000). constraints within the industry were ill-understood. This
Some view the approach as too expensive to justify its paper discusses the results of a questionnaire survey that
use, whereas others view OSP as the panacea to the ills investigated the impact of constraints identified by CIRIA
of the construction industry’s manifold problems (Groak, on the implementation of OSP within the construction

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162

 154 N.G. BLISMAS ET AL

industry. A model of the interaction between constraints ● deliver a revised toolkit that addressed those
is developed through the paper and discussed with findings
specific reference to their mitigation. The following ● provide a final output deliverable in the form of an
sections elaborate on the derivation of the constraints interactive CD.
and the methods used for the questionnaire survey.
During formative workshops, the merits of OSP were
CONSTRAINTS TO OSP IMPLEMENTATION debated and the applicability of the toolkit questioned.
The formative research (Gibb and Isack, 2001) for the These workshops involved an assembly of key
development of the Client’s Guide and Toolkit for individuals – strategic thinkers able to use the input from
Standardisation and Pre-Assembly2 (CIRIA, 2000) the literature search to hone project definition and flush-
investigated client/owner drivers to help understand out the appropriate issues. One of the findings was the
their impact on the pre-contract decision-making existence of a close similarity in the project drivers for
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

process. The research found that client’s want value for both traditional and OSP techniques. What stood out as
money in terms of: missing and what construction professionals needed
was an appropriate balance to the CG&T’s pro-OSP bias.
● lowest whole life cost Working together with the research team they found that
● lowest cost for a given quality by identifying disadvantageous project attributes and
● satisfied end users aligning them against the project drivers, a project
● highest quality for a given cost strategy started to evolve.
● consistent quality. The initial research also found that most design
professionals were already aware of the benefits OSP
Further research (Gibb and Isack, 2003) qualified those offered to them. They were not looking for an educational
drivers in terms of what clients see as the benefits of off- tool but were looking for a tool to help determine viability
site production i.e. cost, time and quality. For the Client’s and influence the outcome from applying OSP
Guide and Toolkit (CG&T) they were extended to include techniques on their particular project. They required this
the terms profitability, predictability and productivity. tool to help with the creation of a project strategy and
Gibb and Isack (2003) recorded that clients also assist in the measurement of benefits from the
perceived disadvantages to OSP and noted in particular: implementation of that strategy.
A close examination of how the CG&T presented its
● some products are poorly built information was made; the output of that examination
● some contractors are not experienced enough was brainstormed with an industry-led focus group to
● some original designs do not suit off-site production establish the best way to respond to the identified
● some sales teams were over ambitious needs. The toolkit was then redesigned into a format
● many solutions had a high initial cost that delivered background, strategic and measurement
● supply chains were often inadequate advice.
● there was a low volume of work. The redesigning of the CG&T necessitated a change
in the way its information was accessed. It was decided
It was clear that where there were advantages, there to restate original project driver sets of cost, time and
were also disadvantages. Those attributes were then quality and in addition create subsets to accommodate
used to engage invited design professionals in the major variables under those headings. These drivers
workshops as part of a CIRIA/Loughborough University would be used in the initial creation of the project
demonstration project for the UK government. strategy. It was noted that the verified list of benefits in
Originally the demonstration project objectives were to: the original CG&T provided both positive and negative
influences on OSP and it was these attributes that
● test the CG&T on live projects would determine the use of OSP on a project. The
● examine the response of industry positive influences evolved into the driver subsets and

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162

 Constraints to the Use of Off-site Production on Construction Projects 155

the negative influences were termed constraints to the systematic layout that was employed in the drivers, so
process. Initially these were presented as a list of 22 a set of headings was provided to separate the
constraints. These constraints were viewed as the most constraints into site constraints, process constraints
likely to inhibit implementation of OSP on a project or and procurement constraints. The final negotiated list
reduce the likelihood of achieving the potential benefit is given in Table 1.
when applying OSP techniques – they now required Although a rigorous set of constraints had been
testing and confirmation from industry. Further identified by the CG&T workshop groups, there lacked a
workshops with construction clients and their designers measure of their influence on OSP within the broader
were convened to examine the conformity of the new UK construction industry. As part of another related
toolkits to their brief. Some beneficial changes were research project at Loughborough University, a
made, such as the addition of environmental issues and questionnaire survey was undertaken to gauge the
moving some drivers to the constraint section. industry’s perception of where the main constraints lay
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

The list was again presented to the focus group for within the industry. From these data, a higher-level
them to negotiate both context and meaning before re- model of the constraints on OSP use could be
presenting the proposed mark two version of the developed. The following section describes the survey
toolkit to the designers. Some reviewers missed a results.

TABLE 1 List of drivers and constraints

DRIVERS CONSTRAINTS
Cost drivers Site constraints
D1 Ensuring project cost certainty C1 Restricted site layout or space
D2 Minimizing non-construction costs C2 Multi-trade interfaces in restricted work areas
D3 Minimizing construction costs C3 Limited or very expensive available skilled on-site labour
D4 Minimizing overall lifecycle costs C4 A problem transporting manufactured products to site
Time drivers C5 Live working environment limits site operation
D5 Ensuring project completion date is certain C6 Limitation to movement of OSP units around site
D6 Minimizing on-site duration C7 Site restricted by external parties
D7 Minimizing overall project time Process constraints
Quality drivers C8 Short overall project timescales
D8 Achieving high quality C9 Unable to freeze design early enough to suit OSP
D9 Achieving predictability of quality C10 Limited capacity of suppliers
D10 Achieving performance predictability throughout the C11 Not possible for follow-on projects to use the same
lifecycle of the facility processes
Health and safety driver C12 No opportunity for component repeatability on this
D11 Reducing health and safety risks or future projects
Sustainability drivers Procurement constraints
D12 Reducing environmental impact during construction C13 Project team members have no previous experience
D13 Maximizing environmental performance throughout of OSP
the lifecycle C14 Obliged to work with a particular supply chain
D14 Implementing Respect for People principles C15 Not willing to commit to a single point supplier
C16 Obliged to accept lowest cost rather than best value
C17 Key decisions already made preclude OSP approach
C18 Limited expertise in off-site inspection
C19 Early construction/manufacturing expertise and advice
unavailable
C20 Obliged to accept element costing based on SMM

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162

 156 N.G. BLISMAS ET AL

SURVEY RESULTS TABLE 3 Table illustrating the distribution of survey replies

A questionnaire survey was undertaken to understand according to respondents’ OSP experience
the particular areas within the broader construction EXPERIENCE RESPONSES (%)
process that constrain the implementation of OSP on High experience 24
building projects. The questionnaires comprised the Moderate experience 42
drivers and constraints listed in Table 1, against which Low experience 30
respondents could indicate, on a likert scale, their No experience 4
responses to the questions posed. Among the
questions, respondents were asked what the likely outcomes that suppliers of OSP products claim. Table 3
impact of using OSP could be for each of a given series graphically depicts the level of experience with OSP by
of process and procurement constraints. respondents.
Two hundred and eighty-nine (289) questionnaires Reponses to the questions regarding the various
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

were mailed in December 2002 to a sample comprising process and procurement constraints were scored
the IMMPREST (Interactive Method for Measuring PRE- according to the responses selected on the likert scale.
assembly and STandardisation benefit in construction) Responses at either extreme were weighted to enhance
project mailing list (Blismas et al, 2003), Lean their significance within the results. Table 4 provides the
Construction Network mailing list and the delegates of points used to score each constraint response. Each
The Way Forward conference.3 Seventy-three (73) constraint was then scored and ranked from lowest to
replies were received, representing a 25.3% response highest scores, reflecting the constraints that most
rate. Responses were received from a wide spread of hinder OSP implementation and use. Figure 1 displays
groups within the construction team, from clients and the individual hindrance and benefit, as well as total,
consultants right through the entire supply chain. scores for each constraint that constituted the final
Table 2 illustrates the spread of responses according to points used for ranking.
roles within the industry. Significantly, the proportion of
specialist suppliers was only 15%, diminishing the ANALYSIS OF CONSTRAINTS
possibility that the results were biased by their desire to An overview of the ranked constraints presented in
portray OSP as a highly beneficial solution for Figure 1 shows that time and cost issues are identified
construction projects. within the top three factors most hindering OSP
A simple profile of respondents’ experience with implementation. Being the most familiar of project-
using OSP also revealed that approximately two-thirds related factors, they are expected to rank highly in any
had moderate-to-high experience of using OSP in questions regarding project constraints. Early decisions
construction. This majority ensured that the responses and a value-based approach appear to be the two
were based on actual experiences and not on expected greatest issues hindering OSP. Attention to these two
issues within projects would certainly mitigate the
TABLE 2 Table illustrating the distribution of survey replies conditions that hinder OSP. However, viewing these
according to respondents’ roles constraints in isolation does not provide the necessary
ROLES RESPONSES (%) context to allow the formulation of effective OSP
Contractor 30 strategies for organizations and project teams. Taking a
Design Engineer 15
Specialist supplier 15 TABLE 4 Scores used to weight the questionnaire responses
Client/Client adviser 12 LIKERT SCALE OPTION SCORE
Architect/Designer 11 Significant hindrance to using OSP –3
Other 10 Moderate hindrance to using OSP –1
Project Manager 7 No impact 0
Cost Consultant 0 Moderate benefit to using OSP 1
Facilities Manager 0 Significant benefit to using OSP 3

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162

 Constraints to the Use of Off-site Production on Construction Projects 157
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

FIGURE 1 Constraint scores depicted as hindrances and benefits to OSP implementation. Scores were derived from survey
results and are ranked according to their total scores shown in brackets against each constraint

broader view, this section discusses constraints within averages as indicators of relative importance between
themes that are modelled to reveal the broader issues themes revealed significant changes to constraint
hindering OSP implementation. emphasis. Table 5 lists the themes and their constituent
The constraints were grouped into four broad constraints, including individual, cumulative and average
themes. The use of cumulative hindrance scores and scores. Each theme is discussed individually within this

TABLE 5 Constraint themes ranked by cumulative hindrance scores, illustrating the broader constraint issues of OSP
THEME CONSTRAINT SCORE CUM. SCORE
Unable to freeze design and specification early –108
Process constraints Key decisions early in the process preclude OSP –84 –113
Short project timescales* 79*
Obliged to accept lowest cost rather than best value –93
Obliged to accept element-specific costing –46
Unwilling to commit to single point supplier –75
Supply-chain constraints Limited choice of supply-chain for the project –65 –195
Limited capacity of supplier(s) –55
Early advice unavailable –64
Limited previous OSP experience within the team –63
Knowledge constraints Limited expertise in off-site inspection –43 –231
Product or component repeatability not feasible –42
Difficult to reuse process on new projects –19
*Results would indicate that this factor is not a constraint, but a driver of OSP

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162

 158 N.G. BLISMAS ET AL

section. A model of their interaction is developed in the comparing various options, often disregarding other cost-
following section. related items such as site facilities, crane use and
rectification of works. These cost factors are usually buried
PROCESS within the nebulous preliminaries figure, with little
The main constraint to OSP implementation and use is reference to the building approach taken. Further, softer
the client’s or designer’s inability to freeze the design and issues such as health and safety, effects on management
specification early enough within the construction project and process benefits are either implicit or disregarded
process. This constrains the manufacturing process from within these comparison exercises.
proceeding concurrently with other works in order to The inadequacies of current evaluation systems are
ensure that delivery of the component is made when a major constraint to OSP implementation within
required on site. Ordinarily, clients and designers have construction. On a simple cost basis, OSP options will
some freedom to develop designs and make changes often appear more expensive than their traditional
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

during the construction phase of a traditionally procured alternatives; however, a more holistic, value-based
facility. Changes to design, within the construction phase approach would highlight the advantages of OSP not
of a project, affect efficiency levels regardless of the readily convertible into monetary terms. IMMPREST
building method. However, the effects on OSP are more (Blismas et al, 2003) – an interactive toolkit developed to
pronounced due to the differences in the project process. facilitate the evaluation of benefit arising from the use of
Forcing clients and their teams to concentrate on design OSP – uses different facets of value rather than relying
fixity would significantly improve the project conditions solely on monetary measures. It moves the focus away
for the use of OSP. The authors also argue that a better from cost alone to a raft of other benefits that should be
understanding of design fixity would realize benefits for evaluated before deciding between different building
all construction projects whether or not using off-site methods. It provides the stimulus for project teams to
techniques. look beyond ‘lowest cost’ and ‘element-specific costing’
Surprisingly, the least influential constraint of short when planning projects.
project timescales is very closely linked to this
constraint. Suggestions that OSP cannot deliver SUPPLY CHAIN
solutions within short project timescales is dismissed The third group of constraints are those imposed by
by the data – indicating that the prime issue is early supply-chain issues. One of the main constraints to OSP,
decision-making rather than one of overall project an unwillingness to commit to single-point suppliers, is a
timescale. The constituent constraints of this theme risk-averting measure. Suppliers of OSP solutions are
strongly indicate that the main hindrance within the usually specialists who may therefore be the only
construction process to OSP is a lack of early and firm available suppliers to a project. In addition, the longer lead
decisions of design and specification. times required for OSP products means that a change of
suppliers after the design fix stage can be very complex.
VALUE A high degree of trust would be required by the client
An obligation, set by clients, to accept lowest-cost options team to place orders for OSP elements with a single-point
rather than best value, was indicated as the second-highest supplier. However, the data suggest that such trust within
individual factor hindering OSP implementation. Taken in the industry is required for OSP solutions to be explored
conjunction with the associated constraint of element- and employed more often within building projects.
specific costing, the theme demonstrates that the entire Corollary constraints to that of spreading supplier risk
issue of value and its measurement are impediments to are those imposed by limitations to supplier choice and
OSP use. An associated study within the research project capacity. The slow development of the OSP market has
demonstrated that choices between traditional and OSP resulted in a relatively small choice of suppliers from
elements were overwhelmingly based on simple cost which clients can select. In addition, these suppliers often
estimates. Common methods of evaluation simply take have relatively low production capacity for large projects
material, labour and transportation costs into account when or periods of market growth. The general structure of the

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162

 Constraints to the Use of Off-site Production on Construction Projects 159

supply market, and clients’ attitudes towards it, have a intricately related with the wider organizational culture.
significant impact on OSP implementation. Organizational-level initiatives that tackle groups of
constraints simultaneously would be of greater benefit.
KNOWLEDGE Many of these issues are addressed by the recommen-
The final theme contains the largest number of dations and consequent initiatives of Rethinking
constraints, although these were generally scored more Construction (Egan, 1998). The report’s focus on
moderately than other constraints. It is recognized that process, integrated teams, supply chains and value,
much of the hindrance to OSP stems from limited would largely alleviate constraints on the use of OSP.
experience in the use of the approach within the industry. Taking the constraints identified, ranked and
Knowledge and experience of OSP within project teams grouped above as a basis, a model of these themes is
encourages the investigation of OSP building options developed that maps the issues and the main steps
that perhaps would not usually be considered. needed to mitigate them. The hindrance scores given to
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

This group of constraints clearly demonstrate that each constraint within the questionnaire (Figure 1) show
knowledge input is required throughout the construction that issues that are more prominent within construction
project process. Advice is required at the early are scored more highly than those that may be implicit
conceptual and developmental stages, within the in nature. As discussed above, cost and time feature
construction team in the design and build stages, and highly, whereas process repetition and knowledge
for off-site inspections during manufacture. In addition, score low. However, it is argued that addressing these
product and process reuse on new projects stems from less prominent constraints will have a direct impact on
experience and knowledge gained by previous OSP the more prominent constraints.
projects. Seen holistically, this group of constraints A simple model was constructed (Figure 2) to
influences all the other themes discussed above. illustrate the relationships that exist between the
The following section draws these four themes various constraint themes. Client perception of value (a)
together into a high-level model that forms the basis of ultimately drives an entire project, dictating the criteria
a strategy to mitigate constraints on OSP implementation. by which a project should be delivered. Usually these
are monetary, but increasingly, softer issues are
MITIGATING OSP CONSTRAINTS impinging on client project values. Client values
The successful completion of a construction project, therefore set the tone for an entire project, influencing
whether using OSP or traditional approaches, depends the method of delivery. Cost minimization as a driver
on the clear identification of the key factors driving the may yield a different procurement method to one of
project, as well as an appreciation of the constraints
affecting its efficient completion (Gibb and Isack, 2001).
However, within the broad group of factors that
constrain projects, specific factors particularly limit OSP
implementation. Identification of these, and steps to
ensure that they are mitigated, will ensure that evaluation
of the benefits possible through OSP can be realistically
achieved. These constraints can be addressed on two
levels, at the individual micro level and the broader macro
level.
Where constraints are easily identifiable and
prominent, individual mitigation is possible. However, it
is more probable that projects will have a mixture of
constraints that all impact on OSP implementation to
varying degrees. Attempting to mitigate these FIGURE 2 Simple model mapping the interaction between various
individually would be difficult and inefficient, as they are aspects of OSP constraints

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162

 160 N.G. BLISMAS ET AL

sustainability. Given appropriate experienced input at specified by the client. Supplier capacity, selection and
the outset, the client can pinpoint the main project relationship all hinge on previous decisions and
drivers based on the organization’s strategic goals. processes. Again, individuals or teams experienced in
Processes (b), therefore, are influenced by the dealing with specialist or single suppliers would be able
factors that hold the greatest value to the client. Explicit to advise on the structure and management of supply
value for the client should provide an appropriate chains so as not to hinder OSP use.
process that will deliver those desires. However, an Common to all the themes discussed above is the
understanding of the link between the two levels is need for knowledge (d) input, as illustrated in Figure 2.
required to ensure that they are appropriately aligned. Analysis of the individual knowledge constraints shows
Determining the process and the decision-gates are how these cover the entire spectrum of activities from
important steps in focusing the client and project project inception through to manufacturing inspections.
team’s efforts towards enabling the efficient Table 6 shows how each of the constraints contained
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

implementation of OSP on a project. Input from persons within the other themes is affected by knowledge.
with experience in OSP is vital to ensure that processes Mitigation of the constraints obstructing the use of
are sustained by timely decisions. OSP on construction projects should be addressed on
Supply-chain (c) management styles are linked to the macro level by increasing the level of knowledge
processes. Procurement routes, processes and supply input into all levels of the project process. Experience in
chains are all linked within a project to deliver the values OSP is necessary to drive constraint mitigation at the

TABLE 6 The influence of knowledge on OSP constraints

CONSTRAINTS KNOWLEDGE
● Early advice to the client and design teams would encourage design freeze by
Unable to freeze design and explaining the consequences to OSP solutions
specification early ● Experienced advisers and team members are able to guide the client and design team to

a freeze more quickly, thereby enhancing conditions for OSP implementation

● Early advice by experts in OSP would ensure that initial designs and decisions do not
Key decisions early in the process
preclude the option of using an OSP solution, although OSP should ideally be included in
preclude OSP
the design from inception
● Early advice by experienced persons could influence the client and other advisers to

Obliged to accept lowest cost rather evaluate the project in terms of value and not simply build cost
than best value ● OSP knowledge within the team and advisers will be able to highlight the benefits of

OSP options both in monetary and non-monetary terms

Obliged to accept element-specific ● As above, non-element costing would allow the project team to view all building aspects

costing in terms of value and not simply cost

● OSP experience in the team and advisers will grant the client confidence to commit to

single-point suppliers should the project require

● Use of past relationships with suppliers will also give the team confidence to place
Unwilling to commit to single point
orders with a single supplier
supplier
● Expertise in off-site inspection, to monitor off-site manufacture quality and progress,

adds further confidence to the team to commit to a single-point supplier should the
need arise
● Early advice may enlighten the client to search for possible suppliers more broadly
Limited choice of supply-chain for the
● Contacts made through previous contracts including OSP may prove valuable in accessing
project
suppliers with appropriate skills and knowledge
● Early advice, decisions and therefore negotiations with key suppliers may permit earlier
Limited capacity of supplier(s)
start to production, thus alleviating capacity problems

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162

 Constraints to the Use of Off-site Production on Construction Projects 161

macro level, while specific tactics can be employed to array of specific constraints identified in previous
deal with constraints at the micro level. However, it is research. The constraint themes were ranked using
argued that without the necessary expertise, even these cumulative scores and arranged into a model that
micro-level initiatives will not yield their potential success explained the relationships between the themes. Most
as tactics will be borne out of a lack of knowledge. prominent were process constraints, followed by value,
supply-chain and knowledge constraints. Steps to
CONCLUSION mitigate the constraints were suggested in the paper,
The challenges facing the industry are essentially although these have larger implications than simply
knowledge related. These relate to methods of encouraging OSP on a project. They affect procurement,
generating, obtaining and disseminating expertise on teams, culture, professions and many other aspects. The
OSP evaluation, manufacture and use. The toolkits, benefits of OSP cannot be realized until a more holistic
mentioned within the paper, offer some contribution to view of the factors affecting its use is taken. It is unlikely
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

alleviating the knowledge gap; however, the results that OSP can effect any changes in the industry until
presented suggest deeper issues are constraining the change first takes place to create an environment
use of OSP in construction. Off-site research, including conducive to its successful use.
this study, has largely concentrated on project-level
issues. Insufficient attention has been devoted to
adequately exploring the wider economic, social and AUTHOR CONTACT DETAILS
environmental issues surrounding OSP. Nick G. Blismas (corresponding author): School of Property
The industry has largely been recognized as one that Construction and Project Management, RMIT University, PO Box
is disjointed, underachieving, working at a low 2476V, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australia. Tel: +613 9925 5056,
profitability, investing too little capital in research and Fax: +613 9925 1939, e-mail: [email protected]
development (R&D) and training, and generally leaving Martyn Pendlebury: Department of Civil and Building
clients dissatisfied with performance (Egan, 1998). Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
Further reports, such as Graves et al (1998), concur with e-mail: [email protected]
these findings identifying poor leadership, risk Alistair Gibb: Department of Civil and Building Engineering,
averseness, fragmentation (Bauml, 1997), poor project Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
flow and a non-value oriented approach to procurement e-mail: [email protected]
as the main performance problems. The contradiction Christine Pasquire: Department of Civil and Building Engineering,
lies in that the very environment and culture OSP has Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.
been promoted as being able to change, is itself e-mail: [email protected]
inhibiting OSP adoption and success.
Other underlying inhibitors of OSP adoption may lie
within the issue of labour in construction. Green and
May (2002), for instance, argue that promotion of REFERENCES
OSP serves to justify shifts towards labour-only Bauml, S., 1997, ‘Engineering and construction: building a stronger global
subcontracting and the associated reduction of industry’, in Journal of Management in Engineering, 13(5), 21–24.
employment rights. Such ‘mechanistic’ attitudes have Blismas, N.G., Pasquire, C.L., Gibb, A.G.F. and Aldridge, G.B., 2003,
implications for labour, businesses and society at large. IMMPREST – Interactive Method for Measuring Pre-assembly and
Paradoxically again, the skills shortages that are driving Standardisation Benefit in Construction, (CD format), Loughborough,
many business cases towards using OSP, are possibly a Loughborough University Enterprises Ltd.
reason that people are deterred from joining the Bottom, D., Gann, D., Groak, S. and Meikle, J., 1994, Innovation in Japanese
industry. Prefabricated House-Building Industries, London, Construction Industry
The study has highlighted the project-level Research and Information Association.
constraints on the use of OSP in construction. These CIRIA, 1999, Adding value to construction projects through standardisation and
were grouped into four broad themes that covered the pre-assembly, compiled by Gibb, A.G.F., Groak, S., Neale, R.H. and

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162

 162 N.G. BLISMAS ET AL

Sparksman, W.G., Report R176, Construction Industry Research and Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B., 1988, ‘Major characteristics of constructed
Information Association. products and resulting limitations of construction technology’, in
CIRIA, 2000, Client’s Guide and Toolkit for Optimising Standardisation Construction Management and Economics, 6(2), 133–148.
and Pre-assembly in Construction, compiled by Gibb, A.G.F. Neale, R.H., Price, A.D.F. and Sher, W.D., 1993, Prefabricated Modules in
Report CP/75, London, Construction Industry Research and Information Construction: A Study of Current Practice in the United Kingdom. Ascot,
Association. Chartered Institute of Building.
Egan, J., 1998, Rethinking Construction, The Egan Report, London, Department Pasquire, C.L. and Gibb, A.G.F., 1999, ‘Considerations for assessing the
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. benefits of standardisation and pre-assembly in construction (the findings
Gibb, A.G.F., 2001, ‘Standardisation and pre-assembly – distinguishing myth of a pilot study)’, report to CIBSE Seminar on Standardisation in the Design
from reality using case study research’, in Construction Management and and Construction of Building Services Installations, October 1999,
Economics, 19(3), 307–315. Loughborough University.
Gibb, A.G.F. and Isack, F., 2001, ‘Client drivers for construction projects: Wilson, D.G., Smith, M.H. and Deal, J., 1999, Prefabrication and
Downloaded by [University of Alberta] at 02:36 01 January 2015

implications for standardisation’, in Engineering Construction and Preassembly – Successful Application in Building Engineering Services,
Architectural Management, 8(1), 46–58. Briefing Note ACT 2/99, Bracknell, BSRIA.
Gibb, A.G.F. and Isack, F., 2003, ‘Re-engineering through pre-assembly: client
expectations and drivers’, in Building Research and Information, 31(2) NOTES
146–160. 1 Off-site production (OSP) can be defined as the completion of substantial
Graves, A., Rowe, D., Sheath, D. and Sykes, M., 1998, The Government Client parts of ‘construction’ works prior to their installation on site. It replaces
Improvement Study, HM Treasury Report, HMSO, Agile Construction previously common terms such as pre-assembly and prefabrication. There
Initiative Publication, University of Bath. are numerous levels of OSP, from pre-assembled sub-elements to whole
Green, S. and May, S., 2002, ‘Re-engineering construction: going against the buildings. A further discussion of these levels is given by Gibb and Isack
grain’, in Building Research and Information, 31(2), 97–106. (2003).
Groak, S., 1992, The Idea of Building, London, E & FN Spon Routledge. 2 This was the output from a UK government-funded project.
Housing Forum, 2002, Homing in on Excellence – A Commentary on the Use of 3 ‘The Way Forward’ conference for off-site construction in the health, social
Off-site Fabrication Methods for the UK Housebuilding Industry, London, housing and education sectors. Organized by Manufacturing Change,
Housing Forum. National Motorcycle Museum, Solihull, 5–7 November 2002.

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT ■ 2005 ■ VOLUME 1 ■ PAGES 153–162