ABSTRACT

SATISFACTION OF CLIENTS’ FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS THROUGH OFF-

SITE MODERN METHODS OF CONSTRUCTIONS

With the end of world war two, the demand for building construction increased together with
inadequate supply of traditional constructions. To cater the increased demand the modern
methods of constructions (MMC) came to practice as it yields high quality and less
construction time. Nowadays the off-site MMC play a significant role in construction industry
worldwide in terms clients’ fundamental needs by restraining problems in traditional brick,
block constructions. However, the application of MMC seems limited and few building
constructions have used MMC in the Sri Lankan construction industry. This research therefore
aims to explore current practice of off-site MMC in Sri Lankan construction industry, identify
the barriers in adopting off-site MMC and identify the most appropriate off-site MMC in terms
of clients’ fundamental needs.
Two questionnaire surveys were carried out in order achieve the aim of the research.
Questionnaire I was carried out among 37 respondents including engineers, quantity surveyors
and project managers who have worked in off-site MMC used projects to identify the
applicability of off-site MMC, barriers in using off-site MMC and to identify the most
appropriate off-site MMC in terms of each fundamental need of client. Questionnaire II was
used to gather data from practical scenarios of off-site MMC. 12 off-site MMC used projects
were selected and questionnaire was filled by engineers and quantity surveyors who were
worked and working in those projects. Data that have been gathered through two questionnaire
surveys have been analysed through statistical analysis
It has been investigated that volumetric constructions are mostly used for single storey other
building sectors, hybrid constructions are mostly used for single storey office and other
buildings while panelised constructions are highly used for single storey industrial and other
buildings sectors and sub-assemblies are mostly used single storey office and commercial
building sectors. Furthermore, main barriers in implementing all above mentioned methods
are public perception and poor awareness. In additionally Sri Lankan construction industry
client is primary concerned need is quality and after quality he/she concerning about
functionality, time, safety, economy running/maintenance cost, and flexibility to use
respectively. In terms of quality panelised construction is found be most appropriate and in
terms of functionality, time, safety, economy running/maintenance cost, and flexibility to use
off-site MMC sub-assemblies ,volumetric constructions, volumetric construction, sub-
assemblies constructions, volumetric constructions and panelised constructions is identified as
most appropriate.
Keywords: Hybrid construction, modern methods of construction, Sri Lanka, volumetric

i
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. i

TABLE OF CONTENT ............................................................................................. ii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ viii

LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................ 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................ 3

1.3 Aim and Objectives ....................................................................................... 4

1.4 Research Methodology .................................................................................. 4

1.5 Scope and Limitations ................................................................................... 5

1.6 Chapter Breakdown ....................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO ....................................................................................................... 7

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: OFF-SITE MODERN METHODS OF

CONSTRUCTION AND CLIENTS’ FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS ........................ 7

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Introduction to Modern Methods of Construction ........................................ 7

2.3 Definitions of Modern Methods of Construction .......................................... 8

2.4 Evolution of Modern Methods of Construction ............................................ 8

2.5 Usage of Modern Methods of Construction .................................................. 9

2.6 Types of Modern Methods of Construction ................................................ 10

2.7 Off-site Modern Methods of Constructions ................................................ 10

ii
 2.7.1 Benefits of off-site modern methods of construction .............................. 11

2.7.2 Barriers of off-site modern methods of construction ............................... 12

2.8 Classifications of Off-site Modern Methods of Construction ..................... 13

2.8.1 Volumetric construction .......................................................................... 15

2.8.2 Hybrid constructions ................................................................................ 16

2.8.3 Panelised constructions ............................................................................ 16

2.8.4 Sub-Assemblies constructions ................................................................. 18

2.9 Application of Off-Site Modern Method of Constructions ......................... 19

2.10 Construction Clients’ Fundamental Needs .................................................. 20

2.10.1 Functionality of the building ................................................................... 20

2.10.2 Safety of the building............................................................................... 21

2.10.3 Quality of the building ............................................................................. 21

2.10.4 Completion on time /Construction duration ............................................ 22

2.10.5 Cost of the building project ..................................................................... 23

2.10.6 Flexibility to use ...................................................................................... 25

2.10.7 Maintenance /running cost....................................................................... 25

2.11 Knowledge Gap ........................................................................................... 25

2.12 Summary ..................................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................. 28

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 28

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 28

3.2 Research Methodology ................................................................................ 28

3.3 Research Process ......................................................................................... 28

3.3.1 Research approach ................................................................................... 29

3.4 Research Methods ....................................................................................... 31

iii
 3.4.1 Data collection methods .......................................................................... 31

3.4.2 Data analysis methods ............................................................................. 34

3.5 Summary ..................................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................... 37

4.0 DATA COLLECTION, DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ................ 37

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 37

4.2 Questionnaire Survey .................................................................................. 37

4.2.1 Questionnaire survey I: profile of participants ........................................ 37

4.2.2 Questionnaire survey II: profile of cases ................................................. 39

4.3 Applicability of Off-Site MMC in Sri Lankan Construction Industry ........ 40

4.3.1 Practice of off-site MMC in Sri Lanka .................................................... 40

4.3.2 Applicability of off-site MMC in building sectors: overall ..................... 41

4.3.3 Current practice of each off-site MMC in various building types ........... 47

4.4 Key Barriers in Implementing Off-Site MMC in Sri Lanka ....................... 52

4.4.1 Barriers to use volumetric constructions ................................................. 52

4.4.2 Barriers to use hybrid constructions ........................................................ 53

4.4.3 Barriers to use panelised constructions.................................................... 54

4.4.4 Barriers to use sub-assemblies constructions .......................................... 54

4.5 Fundamental Needs of Clients .................................................................... 55

4.6 Most Appropriate Off-Site MMC in Terms Clients’ Fundamental Needs .. 56

4.6.1 Quality of building................................................................................... 56

4.6.2 Functionality of the building ................................................................... 62

4.6.3 Time /construction duration ..................................................................... 63

4.6.4 Safety ....................................................................................................... 65

4.6.5 Economy (cost) of the building ............................................................... 69

iv
 4.6.6 Running/maintenance cost ....................................................................... 73

4.6.7 Flexibility to use ...................................................................................... 74

4.7 Cost Comparison of Off-Site MMC with Actual Project Data ................... 75

4.7.1 Overall Cost comparison of off-site MMC .............................................. 75

4.7.2 Cost component comparison of off-site MMC ........................................ 75

4.8 Time Comparison of Off-Site MMC with Actual Project Data .................. 79

4.8.1 Overall time comparison of off-site MMC .............................................. 79

4.8.2 Overall time component comparison of off-site MMC ........................... 79

4.9 Comparison Questionnaire I and Questionnaire II Findings: Cost and Time .

..................................................................................................................... 80

4.10 Summary ..................................................................................................... 82

CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................... 83

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................... 83

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 83

5.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 83

5.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 87

5.4 Limitations of the study............................................................................... 88

5.5 Further Research Directions ........................................................................ 88

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 89

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE I .................................................................... 98

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE II ................................................................. 115

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Research process ..................................................................................... 30

Figure 3.2: Unit Analysis of Case Study ................................................................... 33
Figure 4.1: Experience of Respondents ..................................................................... 39
Figure 4.2: Practice of Off-site MMC ........................................................................ 40
Figure 4.3: Applicability of Off-Site MMC in Different Building Sectors in ........... 41
Figure 4.4: Barriers of Implementing Volumetric Constructions .............................. 53
Figure 4.5: Barriers of Implementing Hybrid Constructions ..................................... 53
Figure 4.6: Barriers of Implementing Panelised Constructions ................................. 54
Figure 4.7: Barriers of Implementing Sub-Assemblies Constructions ...................... 55

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Benefits of Off-site Constructions ............................................................ 11

Table 2.2: Areas of Off-site MMC, Addressed By Different Authors ...................... 27
Table 4.1: Professional Background .......................................................................... 38
Table 4.2: Details of Selected Cases .......................................................................... 39
Table 4.3: Applications of Volumetric Constructions ............................................... 42
Table 4.4: Applications of Hybrid Constructions ...................................................... 44
Table 4.5: Applications of Panelised Constructions .................................................. 45
Table 4.6: Applications of Sub-assemblies Constructions ........................................ 46
Table 4.7: Off-site MMC Applications in Buildings ................................................. 49
Table 4.8: Fundamental Needs of Client ................................................................... 55
Table 4.9: Overall Quality of Different Construction Methods ................................. 57
Table 4.10: Quality Components of Different Construction Methods ...................... 58
Table 4.11: Functionality of Different Construction Methods .................................. 62
Table 4.12: Overall Construction Duration of Different Construction Methods ....... 63
Table 4.13: Component Construction Duration of Different Construction Methods 65
Table 4.14 : Overall Safety Of Different Construction Methods ............................... 66
Table 4.15: Component Safety of Different Construction Methods .......................... 67
Table 4.16: Overall Construction Cost of Different Construction Methods .............. 69
Table 4.17: Component Construction Cost of Different Construction Methods ...... 71

vi
Table 4.18: Running/Maintenance Cost of Different Construction Methods ........... 73
Table 4.19: Flexibility to Use of Different Construction Methods ........................... 74
Table 4.20: Project Cost and Unit Costs of Selected Cases ....................................... 77
Table 4.21: Cost components comparison of selected cases ..................................... 77
Table 4.22: Project Duration and Unit Duration of Selected Cases........................... 78
Table 4.23: Time Component Comparison of Selected Cases .................................. 78

vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
GRP Glassed Reinforced Plastic

LSF Light Steel Frame

MMC Modern Methods of Construction

OSB Oriented Strand Board

OSM Off-Site Manufacturing

OSP Off-Site Production

SIP Structurally Insulated Panels

UK United Kingdom

USA United State of America

viii
LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Description Page

APPENDIX A Questionnaire I 96
APPENDIX B Questionnaire II (Case study based) 113

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Today construction industry is one of the cannonading industries, which is preforming

a vital role in rapidly growing global economy. Clients’ are having a special favour of
building their own construction in traditional way (Doherty, 2011). Nevertheless,
Chinyio, Olomolaiye and Corbett (1998) stated that traditional constructions are not
met required level of clients’ fundamental needs. Further Nadim and Goulding (2010)
has methioned that Modern Methods of Constructions (MMC) can avoid those lagging
situations. Therefore using modern techniques in construction is exigent rather than
using traditional construction methods, which is defined by Hook (2008) as nearly all
of the production happens at construction site. MMC are emphasized as a method to
reduce the uncertainties, which happen during construction such as time, defects,
safety, environmental impact, cost, profit and life cycle performance (Sarden &
Engstrom, 2010). Similarly Pan, Gibb and Dainty (2007) have highlighted that nearly
one third of UK construction firms believe that there needs to be a growth in adopting
of such technologies like off-site MMC in order to reduce cost, time ,increase the
quality and many other benefits. According to Lovell (2012) international usage of
MMC varies from country to country. For instance in Japan MMC usage in housing
of total construction is 40 %, while 50% and 15% respectively used in Finland and
Germany.

Kyjakova, Mandicak and Mesaros (2014) mentioned that MMC originated in the
United Kingdom, as a common term used for both off-site methods of construction
and on-site methods of construction. The off-site MMC are prefabricated elements or
parts of structures, which are transported and assembled on-site even though they were
manufactured in a factory. Off-site MMC includes categories of component and
subassembly, non-volumetric preassembly and volumetric preassembly, (Gibb A. G.,
1999). Moreover, Ross (as cited in Pan, Gibb & Dainty, 2008) stated, building systems
that are manufactured and jointed away from site or manufactured away and assemble
on site are included in MMC. However Mapston and Westbrook (2010) brought up

1
that off-site construction principles are often referred as ‘modern methods of
construction’ (MMC). Furthermore Kyjakova et al. (2014) identified that building
blocks and parts of structures take place directly on site is referred as on-site MMC.

According to Bennett and Grice (as cited in Bowen, Hall, Edwards, Pearl & Cattell,
2010) the client of the construction industry generally are concerned with time, cost
and quality. Kometa, Olomolaiye and Harris (1995) has identified functionality of the
building, safety of the building, quality of the building, and completion on time, cost
of the project ,flexibility in use and maintenance cost as the fundamental needs of the
construction client. Authors Burwood and Jess (2005) identified off-site MMC provide
an efficient product management process to provide more products of better quality in
less time. Mapston and Westbrook (2010) recognized that in recent years cost saving
is perceived as the primary benefit which is gained from off-site methods. Also it is
stated that repeatable processes are merged in off-site production, therefore the time
and resource allocation can be done properly and it will reduce the unit cost .Similarly
drivers of off-site MMC include achieving high quality, minimizing on-site duration,
ensuring time certainty, ensuring cost certainty, etc. (Pan et al., 2007).

In opposite opinion Rahman (2014) indicated that cost related issues are the most
significant barriers to implementing off-site MMC. Furthermore, off-site MMC
provide list of benefits such as reductions in waste, defects, time, costs, health and
safety (HS) risks, and environmental impact, improvements in profits, predictability,
and life performance (Rahman, 2014).In similar view Lovell (2012) stated that
although some house builders argue that traditional on-site construction methods are
more expensive than MMC, industry sources indicate 7-10% higher cost in off-site
MMC. Reason for the higher cost may be a result of other benefits of using off-site
MMC, such as better quality housing and fewer accidents, which are not obviously
reflected in project accounts. Additionally using off-site MMC is faster than traditional
on –site constructions, reducing on-site construction time by up to 50%, and hence
reducing labour costs. According to Parlimentary Office of Science and Tecnology
(POST), (2003) off-site MMC can increase the delivery time and achieve high quality
standards than in traditional method. Off-site construction focuses on increasing

2
potentiality to increase the efficiency and quality with reducing costs in construction
(Johnsson & Meiling, 2010).

According to Josephson, Larsson and Li (2002) traditional constructions are struggling

due to high costs and poor performance clients’ fundamental needs. Additionally
traditional constructions become more complex if the activities are not defined
properly or new, or the estimates have been made under time pressure (Ward &
Chapman, 2003). Similarly author Hook (as cited in Sarden & Engstrom, 2010)
emphasized traditional constructions are linked with different parties, therefore it will
affect to the quality and the supply chain of the construction product. Pan et al. (2008)
mentioned that utilization of off-site MMC has been increased due to under supply
and poor quality of housing .On the word of Goulding, Nadim, Petridis and Alshawi
(2012) traditional buildings are challenged to improve and change innate problems and
practices. However, there is a huge uncertainty running around construction projects,
because of not satisfying the clients’ needs, which can be replaced by off-site MMC.
Consequently, it is influential to find the most appropriate off-site MMC for the
industry in terms clients’ fundamental needs.

1.2 Problem Statement

Worldwide research have been done on different key areas of MMC. Rahman (2014)
has found out the barriers of implementing MMC such as cost related issues, market
for MMC, skill and competences, tools and standards, motivation and culture, etc.
Authors Pan et al. (2007) have identified the perception on house builders on off-site
MMC. Furthermore, Mostafa, Chlieshe and Zuo (2014) have identified issues in
housing supply in Australia and that the synergistic supply chain can overcome this
problem. Additionally areas such as MMC components, defects in MMC, uncertainty
of MMC methods, training requirement of MMC, etc. are also done by researchers.
However this type of research has not been done in the Sri Lankan context other than
the challenges face in operation, maintenance and construction of modular buildings
and applications of prefabrication in different sectors.

In Sri Lanka, construction projects are facing problems in terms of clients’

fundamental needs, as the industry is labour intensive, wet trade and due to many other

3
reasons. Project are facing difficulties in completion time of the project, quality,
project cost, and building functionality, building safety, running/maintenance cost and
flexibility to use. However, the researches failed to find most appropriate methods,
which suits most in Sri Lankan context among those off-site MMC in terms of each
fundamental need of the client. Bearing that in mind this research explores the most
appropriate off-site MMC in terms of clients’ each fundamental need in Sri Lankan
context.

1.3 Aim and Objectives

This research aim to identify most appropriate off-site modern methods of construction
applicable for Sri Lankan context in terms clients’ fundamental needs.

In order to achieve the aim following objectives are considered:

1. To review the off-site modern methods of construction used worldwide and

their performance in satisfying clients’ fundamental needs
2. To identify off-site modern methods of construction used in current Sri Lankan
construction industry and to ascertain the available applications of off-site
MMC among different sectors and building types
3. To explore barriers and challenges of each off-site MMC applied in Sri Lankan
context
4. To identify construction client’s fundamental needs
5. To evaluate off-site MMC used in Sri Lanka based on satisfaction of clients’
fundamental needs

1.4 Research Methodology

A well-structured literature survey was carried out referring books, journal articles
electronic sources, reports and conference papers to identify the prevailing MMC in
worldwide and construction clients’ fundamental needs.

As the second stage of the research, two questionnaire surveys were carried out.
Questionnaire survey I (APPENDIX A) was used to ascertain the available
applications of off-site MMC among different sectors, to explore barriers and

4
challenges of off-site MMC applied in Sri Lankan context, clients’ fundamental needs
and evaluate the off-site MMC as per clients’ needs. Questionnaire II (APPENDIX B)
was carried out to evaluate off-site MMC in terms of clients’ fundamental need in
accordance with practical scenarios. As the final stage, collected data was evaluated to
find the most appropriate off-site MMC to Sri Lankan context in terms clients’
fundamental needs.

1.5 Scope and Limitations

This study was mainly focused on off-site MMC in building constructions of Sri
Lankan context. On-site MMC were not included and, only off-site methods were
considered in this research.

1.6 Chapter Breakdown

Chapter 1- Introduction

This chapter gives an over view of the research and the arrangement of the research is
presented briefly with the research background, aim, objectives, and methodology.

Chapter 2- Literature synthesis

This chapter provides a comprehensive analysis of theoretical background related to

the off-site MMC in world as well as in Sri Lankan context and clients’ fundamental
needs, which will provide a primary specification to conduct an empirical survey.

Chapter 3- Research methodology

This chapter primarily emphasizes the significance of the study. Secondly, it justifies
the research approach. Finally, data collection and analysis techniques are discussed
comprehensively.
Chapter 4- Data collection, data analysis, and research finding

This chapter presents the findings on applications of off-site MMC methods Sri Lanka,
in which sectors and types of buildings, barriers, and challenges in using each off-site
MMC, Sri Lankan construction clients’ fundamental needs, and appropriate and

5
inappropriate methods in terms of clients’ fundamental needs. Finally, there is a
comparison the findings, which have collected through two questionnaire surveys.

Chapter 5- Conclusions and recommendations

This chapter concludes the research with its findings. Suggestions are provided for
further improvements, based on the findings of the survey. Finally, the chapter
discusses about the opportunities available for further researches.

6
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW: OFF-SITE MODERN METHODS

OF CONSTRUCTION AND CLIENTS’ FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS

2.1 Introduction

The preceding chapter contains an overall view of the research .This chapter is
focusing to review the off-site MMC, which spread throughout the world and their
details on clients’ fundamental needs. This review presents facts and arguments that
were used in developing the research problem. Moreover, this chapter was used to
accomplish the first objective of the research by collecting information from reliable
sources.

The foundation of this research problem was laid by defining MMC, evolution of
MMC followed by usage of MMC. Mainly MMC can be categorized in to two, off-
site MMC and on-site MMC. Out of these two off-site MMC is comprehensively
studied and presented herein followed by benefits and barriers of off-site MMC,
classifications of off-site MMC and details about off-site MMC in terms of clients’
fundamental needs.

2.2 Introduction to Modern Methods of Construction

In general, many of the people have a special favour of building their own house or
building in traditional way, which can be defined as constructions done with brick,
block or cavity walls (Doherty, 2011). Nevertheless, in today’s world it has become a
usual thing that using one or two factory build component with traditional construction
(Kyjakova et al., 2014). According to Chinyio, Olomolaiye and Corbett (1998)
traditional constructions are not met the client needs up to requirement.Withal Authors
Nadim and Goulding (2009) have emphasized that main reasons for poor performance
of traditional construction are skill scarcity and skill gaps. This has resulted missing
many opportunities which construction industry get and lagging behind all other
industries at the same time. MMC can be taken as a new invention to this lagging
situation (Nadim & Goulding , 2010). It is a new term, which reflects the
improvements of building fabrications technically (Lovell, 2012). Moreover, MMC

7
can be taken as an evolution of construction using new and innovative techniques.
Nevertheless, it is not a threat to traditional methods. Success of any method is
depending on how the architects, planners, and building engineers are used in
construction. Both can be use collectively according to the requirement and situation
with improvements (Kyjakova et al., 2014).But according to Nadim and Goulding
(2009) for the fruitfully carrying out MMC, it is required to go beyond the traditional
construction approach mentality and should go toward industrialization approach
mentality.

2.3 Definitions of Modern Methods of Construction

“MMC are defined as those which provide an efficient product management process
to provide more products of better quality in less time” (Burwood & Jess, 2005,p.2).In
additionally he has stated that it can be names as pre-fabrication, off-site production
(OSP) and off-site manufacturing (OSM). Although all OSM are MMC, neither all
MMC are OSM.

Furthermore, MMC can be defined as “a set of element or component which are inter-
related towards helping the implementation of construction work activities”
(Warszawski, 1999, p.4). Besides it is also said that MMC can be used as a production
maximizing technique, labour supply minimizing objective and quality aggregating
technique, at the same time performing as equipment, facilities, and technological
investment.

According to Thikha (as cited in Kyjakova et al., 2014) MMC is “a system in which
concrete components pre-fabricated at site or in factory are assembly to form the
structure with minimum in situ construction” (p.28).

Considering all these definition given by different authors it can be said that MMC is
a method, which provide efficient and effective process of implementing construction
activities with the use of pre-fabricated item.

2.4 Evolution of Modern Methods of Construction

In historical literature, it is clearly stated the evolution of manufactured buildings

(Taylor, 2010). According to Stone (1983) these are significantly came in to the

8
industry after the Second World War. In similar viewpoint, Author Gruneberg (1997)
stated there was an increase in using prefabrication components as the proportion of
total construction cost with material and components are cheaper than land and labour
costs since the world war two. Also Parlimentary Office of Science and Tecnology
(POST) ( 2003) highlighted that pre-fabricated housing had a great demand during
after world war slum clearence in 1960s.In 20th century it has been constructed more
than one millon pre-fabricated houses. And MMC used to imitate technical
improvements done to pre-fabrications. Kyjakova et al. (2014) stated that initiation of
MMC was happened in United Kingdom (UK).However it can be identify that MMC
has a long history running to finish of Second World War.

2.5 Usage of Modern Methods of Construction

During last few decades, there was an incensement in utilization of MMC technologies
for construction. For instance in early 1996, prefabrication levels rose to 31%, 40%
and 43% in Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark, respectively (Jaillona & Poona,
2008).The size of the off-site MMC industry in the United Kingdom (UK) will increase
from £2.2 billion in 2004 to £6 billion in 2006 (Chiang , Chan, & Leung, 2004).

In additionally Hampson and Brandon (2004) have stated that Australia has key vision
of improve the construction industry using MMC. For developed countries such as
Europe and United State of America (USA) MMC is not a fresh concept (Kyjakova et
al .,2014). Countries such as Scandinavia, Germany are using MMC in wide scale.
Therefore, international usage of MMC is varying. (Parlimentary Office of Science
and Tecnology (POST), 2003). Further author Lovell (2012) has highlighted that Japan
is using this method for 40% of their new housing constructions and Finland and
Germany is using 50% and 15% respectively for new constructions. Therefore, it is an
innovation in construction (Kyjakova el al., 2014). Similarly, Zhaia , Reeda and Millsb
(2013) have stated that European countries are also representing a significant
proportion of usage of MMC in their housing market. For instance, Austria and
Germany is representing 33% and 15% respectively.

By considering all the opinions supplied by the authors, MMC is nowadays widely
spreading concept throughout the world.

9
2.6 Types of Modern Methods of Construction

As per Kyjakova et al. (2014) off-site MMC are components, which are manufactured
in a factory and transported to the site for assembly. Where on-site MMC are
components or elements, which are directly constructed on-site. Gibb (1999) has
identified off-site MMC, as the manufacture and pre-assembly of components,
elements, or modules before installation into their final location.

In other word, pre-fabrication can be happen on-site as well as off-site. If the

prefabrication happened on-site, they are named as on-site MMC, while prefabrication
happened off-site are named as off-site MMC.

According to Lovell (2012) MMC is mainly focused on, off-site construction methods
but it can also use to address innovative on-site methods which uptakes the
construction process. Advance manufacturing of building sections at factories,
transported, and quickly assembled those components at construction site is known, as
be prefabrication. Authors Gouldinga , Rahimiana, Arifb and Sharp (2014) highlighted
that even though pre-fabricated construction came in different names such as
manufactured construction, OSP, off-site construction, OSM, industrialized building
systems, all these can be use the same name off-site MMC .In similar view Goodier,
Gibb, and Pendlebury (2013) stated that off-site MMC is named in by using many
ways. They can be grouped by affix such as off-site: off-site construction, fabrication,
and manufacturing, Pre: pre-assembly, pre-fabrication and pre-work, Building system
building, non-traditional building, and industrialized building, modern: modern
methods of construction .However as for the coherence, this research use the term off-
site MMC. In additionally the main forcus of this research is on, off-site MMC.

2.7 Off-site Modern Methods of Constructions

Off-site MMC are very effective compared to traditional constructions method due to
the reason of less on-site work. Therefore, usage of off-site MMC are beneficial in
numerous way. However, unfortunately it have been limited due number of barriers
and challenges acting on off-site MMC (Pan & Goodier, 2012).Accodring to different
authors following benefits and barriers can be identified.

10
2.7.1 Benefits of off-site modern methods of construction

Table 2.1: Benefits of Off-site Constructions

Benefit Description (* indicates high incidence)

Time Less time on-site: speed of construction*
Speed of delivery of product
Less time spent on commissioning
Guaranteed delivery
More certainty over the programme,
Reduced management time
Quality Higher quality: on-site and from factory*
Product tried and tested in factory
Greater consistency—more reproducible More control of
quality, consistent standards
Cost Lower cost *Lower preliminary costs
Increased certainty
Less risk
Increases added value
Lower overheads,
Less on-site damage
less wastage
Productivity Includes less snagging
More success at interfaces
Less site disruption
Reducing the use of wet trades
Removing difficult operations off-site
Products work first time
Work continues on-site independent of off-site production
People Fewer people on-site
People know how to use products
Lack of skilled labour
Production off-site is independent of local labour issues
Process Programme driven centrally
Simplifies construction process
Allows systems to be measured
Source: (Gibb & Isack, 2003)

According to Table 2.1 above Gibb and Isack (2003) has identified that off-site MMC
is beneficial in terms of cost, time quality, people, productivity, and process. In similar
view, Doherty (2011) have highlighted some benefits in terms of cost, quality and
time.Such as lower priliminary cost, lower project management cost, lower
professional fees, lower time wastage, less weather impact, high usage of procurement
strategies.

11
Other than above mentioned benefits Parlimentary Office of Science and Tecnology
(POST) (2003) have highlighted further benefits of off-site MMC as listed follows,

 Environmental benefits
• Energy saving: In cool climated countries off-sit MMC used building
require only less energy to heat and decrese air leakage.
• Less waste: As factory made materials can be ordered by giving acurate
specifications wastge of material is less.
• Transport: Off-site products are higher in their scale theirfore when
transporting number of trips will be less.
 Quality and accreditation: In off-site MMC, number of defects are less due to
less exposure to weather and standardization.
 Health and safety: Off-site MC lower the on-site accidents and factories are
safer than sites conditions.

By considering all of the authors identification, off-site MMC is inclusive of cost,

quality, time, environmental, health and safety, process and people wise benefits.

2.7.2 Barriers of off-site modern methods of construction

Even though off-site MMC produce many benefits, the usage is less in construction
industry compared to traditional constructions. There are some key barriers, which
limit the practical usage of off-site MMC (Blismas, 2007).

Parlimentary Office of Science and Tecnology (POST) (2003) has identified some
key barrirers which limit the usage of off-site MMC. Such as

 Cost: Due to high quality and speedy construction off-site MMC has become
costly than traditional constructions even though some authors have mentioned
that off-site MMC are not costly than traditional constructions. Construction
industry has found that there will be 7-10% cost increases because of off-site
constructions.
 Industry capacity: Industry capacity make two types of barriers such as
shortage of skills and factory capacity to manufacture parts.

12
  Public attitudes: Most of the people are not having a better attitude on off-site
MMC .they are mostly preferred to use traditional constructions.

Moreover Boyd, Khalfan and Maqsood (2013) has identified barriers other than above
such as,

 Issue of logistics: off-site MMC are mostly fully or partially completed unit.
Therefore, it is difficult, costly, and complex to transport within country with
road capacity, limitations due to permits and higher overhead.

In similar terms Shen (as cited in Boyd et al., 2013) stated technical difficulties are
affects to limited usage in off-site MMC, which include logistical, technological,
design problems. In addition, Kamar, Alshawi,and Hamid (2009) carried out a pilot
study and identified the barriers such as poor knowledge, lack of awareness, negative
perceptions, readiness issues, cost, equipment, poor planning, and regulations.
Moreover, limited market demand has also been identified by Venables, Barlow, and
Gann (2004).Other barriers cited by researchers include potential unemployment
caused by the reduced labour requirements of off-site MMC (Jaillona & Poona, 2008).

Although many authors have identified public is not aware about MMC in contrast
Goodier and Gibb (2005) has emphasized that understanding of consumers of MMC
and the general public is not grey.

By considering about authors ideas on barriers as mentioned above, off-site MMC

have barriers in terms of cost, public perception, poor awareness, poor technology,
capacity of the industry, logistical issues as major barriers. By looking at all these
views on benefits and barriers of off-site MMC, it is included of nearly similar
proportion of both. Nevertheless, Pasquire, Gibb and Blismas (as cited in Blismas,
Pasquire , & Gibb, 2006) has indicated that, off-site MMC have more benefits over
barriers in it, as well as in the industry. However, major reason for less adaptation of
off-site MMC by client and contractor is difficulties in discovering the real benefits.

2.8 Classifications of Off-site Modern Methods of Construction

Lovell (2012) highlighted that off-site MMC comprises of manufactured housing

components in a particularly designed factory, which have mainly two, Panels and

13
Modules. In a similar viewpoint, Doherty (2011) has highlighted that off-site MMC
can be catergorized in to two catogories such as panelised construction and volumetric
construction.

In contrast Kyjakova et al. (2014) has classified off-site MMC as follows,

 Volumetric construction
• Modular constructions
• Pod constructions
 Hybrid constructions
• Semi-volumetric constructions
 Panelised constructions
• Open panels
• Closed panels
• SIPS
• Composite non-structural insulated panels
• Prefabricated parts
• Prefabricated lightweight and roof panels
 Natural Material
• Timber frame construction
• Multi-Layered engineered timber(solid)
• Components from renewable materials
 Light weight facades
• Masonry block walls with timber frame
• Masonry block wall with metal frame
• The ventilated facade system
 Sub-Assemblies and accessories systems
• Floor or roof cassettes
• Pre-cast concrete foundation assemblies
• Pre-assembled products

Boyd et al. (2013) has classified off-site MMC differently than other authors .As
modular building, hybrid construction, panelised construction, sub-assemblies.

14
Many authors have given different classifications to off-site MMC .How ever by
compairing all these classifications,it can be summarize following classification will
be better for this research.

 Volumetric construction
 Hybrid construction
 Panelisedconstruction
 Sub-assemblies and accessory systems

2.8.1 Volumetric construction

According to Doherty (2011) volumetric constructions means procedure of

manufacturing and putting together components in order to create a completed
building or room and transporting to the site and form the fully completed building.
Under this system, the unit can be fully or partially finish the services and decorations.
There are mainly two method of construction, modular constructions, and pod
constructions.

Modular construction

As per Lawson , Ogden and Bergin (2012) modular constructions include room sized
volumetric unit, which are manufactured in factories, fixed, and installed at sites.
These are called as load bearing building blocks. The Modular Building Institute
(2010) mentioned that these units have a life time of 30 to 60 years. According to
Mapston and Westbrook (2010) those constructions have a performce over traditional
consructions.

Modular constructions are generally used in cellular – type building.According to the

requirements of transpotation and manufacturing modular constructions can be
customized, which are generally used for hotels,military accomodation,students
residences, soclial housing (Lawson et al.,2012) .

Modular constructions benefits have been identified by Martinez, Jardon , Navarro ,

and Gonzalez (2008) such as

15
 • Economics of scale is used, as modular units are repeating in many of the
constructions
• As the unit is room sized the installation is easier in on-site
• Quality of the units are high as modular units are manufacured under factory
built conditions
• Sustainablity

Pods Construction

Authors Mapston & Westbrook (2010) described pods as smaller sized volumetric
rooms. These units can be manufacture out of timer, light steel frame (LSF), concrete
and glassed reinforced plastic (GRP).Service installation of these units can be done in
factory. In addition, according to the building design usage of unit for load bearing or
non-load bearing differs. According Ross, Cartwright, and Novakovic (2006) pods are
usually used in washrooms, bathrooms, and kitchens.

2.8.2 Hybrid constructions

Hybrid constructions are a combination of volumetric and panelised constructions.

Most of the time for volumetric units are integrated to penalize constructions such as
full construction is done with panelised and kitchens or bathrooms are done with
volumetric units. Detail design should be considered in preparing the interface of those
constructions. Hybrid systems have the best of all two methods benefits, as the
construction is a mix of two types of off-site MMC (Ross et al.,2006).

2.8.3 Panelised constructions

Panelised constructions are constructions done with factory made flat panels, which
are manufactured at a factory and transported to the site for erections of three-
dimensional structure. It can also be fitting the panels to an existing structure.
Generally walls, floor and roof panels are used in competing the structural shell (Wood
products council, 2014). According to Ross et al. (2006) panelised constructions can
be further categorise as follows.

16
Open panels
In these type of systems services, windows, doors, insulation, and linings are done
after delivering the panels to site. Those systems have all visible structural
components. Moreover, these elements can be load bearing or non-load bearing
according to the design. On-load bearing wall panels are used to separate the spaces as
partitioning (Ross et al., 2006).

Closed panels
Closed type of panelised systems include factory fitted windows, doors, services,
internal wall finishes, and external cladding. The internal structural components can
only be seen around the perimeter of the panel (Ross et al., 2006).

Concrete panels
Those panels are made out of concrete and claddings, insulation, windows, and doors
are fitting to the concrete panels (Ross et al., 2006).

Composite panels

Composite panels are made out of two materials. Nevertheless, the structural support
is provided by both these materials as a combination. Structural Insulated Panels
Systems (SIP) are special type of composite panels (Ross et al., 2006).

SIPS: These are also called as sandwich constructions where two layers of sheet
material bonded to a foam insulation core (Ross et al., 2006).The structural Core of
Insulation are normally glued and bonded plywood, Oriented strand board (OSB) or
one of the new composite boards (Doherty, 2011).these are used as wall or floor panels
which are not depend on internal studs for the performance (Ross et al., 2006).

Infill panels

Infill panels are form of panelised constructions, which panels are inserted to the
structural frame and finalise the construction. For these masonry is also possible to use
(Ross et al., 2006).Moreover Ross et al. (2006) have mentioned cost effective ness as
a benefit of panelised constructions and specialized erection team need, early design
freeze need and if panels are highly weighted crane are needed are some of the
limitations.

17
2.8.4 Sub-Assemblies constructions

Sub-assemblies construction are which larger pre-fabricated component incorporated

into either conventionally built or MMC buildings. It is not required to compete the
whole building with sub-assemblies to call it as sub-assemblies constructions
(Technology Strategy Board, 2009). Accodring to Ross et al. (2006) following one or
all items can be found in sub-assemblies constructions.

Floor cassettes: Pre-fabricated panels, which are designed for floor construction.
Fewer labour hours on-site are needed per square meter of floor, and this reduces work
at height (Ross et al., 2006).

Roof cassettes: pre-fabricated panels which are designed for pitched roofs. These
systems provide room in roof and watertight conditions more speedily than traditional
constructions (Ross et al., 2006).

Pre-cast concrete foundation assemblies: pre-fabricated ground beams and other

components, which forms a foundation speedily (Ross et al., 2006).

Pre-assembled roof structure: In these systems, roof is assembled at ground level and
lifted it to roof level. After the entire super structure work, finished roof can be lifted.
This create weather tight and health benefits and safety benefits as less work at height.
(Ross et al., 2006).

Gibb and Pendlebury (as cited in Pan , Gibb, and Dainty, 2012) stated that off-site
production can rank according to its’ degree of off-site work with an ascending order
from component and sub-assembly to Panelised construction, hybrid construction
(non-volumetric preassembly) and modular building. Technologies with higher
degrees of off-site work (e.g., modular building) will more likely challenge the
conventional house-building practice, which largely employs site-based construction
methods (Roy et al.,2010).Therefore, greater attention is required in terms of
integrating these off-site technologies into the house-building business process if their
advantages are to be realized.

18
2.9 Application of Off-Site Modern Method of Constructions

Building constructions can be identified in two main buildings sectors. Such as

residential and non-residential sectors. Further, non-residential sector can be classified
in to several categories as commercial, industrial, offices and other type of buildings
(NZ Stat, 2014).

According to wrap (2007) volumeric construction are used in residential sector to build
houses, social housing, living accomodations.In commercial sector they are use to
build bussiness parks, stores and outlets. Under office building sector volumetric
constructions are used in back office constructions.further in other buildings such as
hospitals, tutorial blocks, scool classrooms and prisons are made out of volumetric
constructions.

In additionaly hybrid constructions are used in residential sector for apartment blocks
and in commercial sectro they are used to build hotels.withal in other building sector
thay are used in toilet bocks , universities and schools (wrap,2007).

Penelized constructions are used in residential sector for housing, barn conversions,
bunglows and apartments.in commercial secotor panelised constructions are used in
low-rise commercial buildings.In industrial sector they are used to build factories
(wrap,2007).

Sub-assemblies are used in industrial and commercial and office building sectors
mostly. Under industrial sectro they are used in factories and under commercial
building sector sub-assemblies are used to build hotels and shops. Futher they also
used to build residential buildings such as apartments, houses (wrap,2007).

Further more scale of building is considered in industry as low rise and highrise. Low
rise buildings are generally below 35m height.and highrise buildings are genrally over
35m height (Mujagic, Dolan, Ekwueme, Fanella, & LaBoube, 2012).According to
wrap (2007) off-site MMC are mostly used in single storey or low rise buildings.

19
2.10 Construction Clients’ Fundamental Needs

Client is the initiator and financer of a construction project. In additionally he is the

driving force of a construction project. Therefore considering about clients
fundamental needs is vital in any construction project. In addition, parties’ ultimate
goal is to accomplish those fundamental needs of the client (Kamara , Anumba, &
Evbuomwan, 2002).

Kometa et al. (1995) has identified functionality of the building, safety of the building,
quality of the building, and completion on time, cost of the project, flexibility in use,
and maintenance cost as the fundamental needs of the construction client. In similar
view Chlnylo, Olomolalye and Corbett (1998) has identified quality,functionality and
safty as fundamental needs of the client.Through this research

 Functionality of the building

 Safety of the building
 Quality of the building
 Completion on time
 Cost of the building project
 Flexibility to use
 Maintenance /Running cost

will be considered as construction clients’ fundamental needs.

2.10.1 Functionality of the building

Functionality of a project is refers to whether the building fulfill its intended

performance. A building project must fulfill its intended use of the project in order to
satisfy the requirement of functionality of the building. Generally, a construction client
is expecting the functionality from the project even though it is simple or complex
therefore project must satisfy the intended purpose of the project (Kometa et al., 1995).

20
2.10.2 Safety of the building

Poor safety in constructions cause accidents and those accidents effect the workers and
public. Moreover, poor safety leads to high finance costa therefore client is more aware
about the safety of building (Bourn, 2004).

According to Kometa et al. (1995) safety of a building holds two concepts, which are
important to client as follows,

 Safety of the project during construction

 Safety during its operating life.

As per Fawcett and Revill (2007) safety of off-site MMC used projects’ safety during
construction can be measured through quantifying number of off-site accidents and
number of on-site accidents.safty during operational life can be measured through
safety of occupants or quantifying the number of operational life accidents.

2.10.3 Quality of the building

A.P.Chan and Chan (2004) has identified quality as a key factor that affect the project
success. Jenkins (2010) has stated that quality represent the fitness for the purpose of
a project. According to Kometa et al. (1995) client, expect from a construction project
to meet its predefined quality requirements. Even though building does not meet those
predefined quality standards clients will expect that it will meet minimum quality
requirements of a building project.

According to Fawcett and Revill (2007) quality of construction project can be

measured as during constructions quality and after construction quality. During
construction quality measurements include

 Defects: at the point of delivery of the constructed building to the clients

,number of defects in completed projected is assessed through this
 Health and Safety: number of accidents linked with the construction project is
assessed.

21
  Environmental efficiency: Impact to the environment because of waste
removed from construction, carbon dioxide emission caused by the energy
consumption.

Moreover, according to Fawcett and Revill (2007) after construction quality

measurements include

 Workmanship: number of defects arouse during defects liability period of the

project and number of warranty claims made during the warranty period is
measure under workmanship.
 Customer satisfaction: customer satisfaction at the time of completion of the
construction project. Further, the period has been identified as three months
after the defects liability period.
 Environmental performance: covers energy efficiency, water efficiency, and
sustainability of the building project.

Quality of off-site MMC

Piroozfar, Altan and Larsen (2012) have stated that off-site MMC have high standards
of quality in products than traditional methods of constructions. Similarly, Barker (as
cited in Pan et al., 2007) suggested that off-site MMC technologies could improve the
quality of construction products.

Therefore, the quality of off-site MMC are higher than traditional construction
methods.

2.10.4 Completion on time /Construction duration

Kometa et al. (1995) defined completion on time as time vacant to complete the
project. Moreover he stated that most clients’ need the completion of the project
immediate as possible. Dursun and Stoy (2011) has identified construction duration as
a major factor that leads to project success.

Construction duration of a off-site MMC used project can be futher catergoried in to

off-site construction duration ,on-site construction duration and overlapping duration
of on-site and off-site works(Fawcett & Allison, 2005).

22
Construction duration of off-site modern methods

According to Fawcett and Allison (2005) off-site MMC can build more than usual
amount by using same amount of on-site labour. This will lead to reduce the on-site
construction duration. Moreover, off-site constructions have the benefit in working in
weather tight conditions and off-site MMC are using labour more intensively than
other building construction methods as different workforce is undertaking a part of
construction, which is process under factory conditions. In additionally Fawcett and
Allison (2005) stated that off-site MMC can build four times the same construction
with traditional method on-site labour requirement.

Furthermore Fawcett and Allison(2005) highlighted that volumtric construction have

the minimum construction time compaired with Panelised,hybrid and traditional
construction.Also time consumption of hybrid and Panelisedmethods are also lesser
than the traditional construction.

2.10.5 Cost of the building project

Cost of a building project is a primary concern of all construction industry clients and
it will leads to the project success (Ogunisemi & Jagboro, 2006). Kometa et al. (1995)
has futher stated that any construction project must be completed with minimum
cost.client need to fullfill their needs with least cost.

Pasquire, Gibb and Blismas (2004) stated that off-site MMC total construction cost
can be catergoried in to several sub catergories as follows.

 Off-site labour cost: off-site labour requirement

 On-site labour cost: on-site labour requirement
 Off-site material cost: materials cost in off-site production
 On-site material cost: on-site work material cost
 Small plant, tools &equipment cots: cost incurred for plants ,equipment and
small tools
 Transport, distribution &installation cost : transportation cost of off-site
production to on site work

23
  Commission & test costs: cost incurred to commission and testing of on-site
and off-site work
 Overhead cost: site overheads and head office overhead cost
 Package and storage cost : package and storage cost of off-site productions
 Rectification & rework cost : defects rectification and rework cost

Cost details of off-site modern methods

Off-site construction have been identified as a more expensive technique than

traditional construction methods but it can be used for appropriate circumstances with
the competitive construction market. Moreover open panel constructions are not
expensive than other off-site MMC and it is lesser than traditional constructions. Even
though off-site MMC have slightly higher cost ranges than traditional constructions,
cost ranges are overlapping (Fawcett & Allison , 2005).

In contrast Zhai et al. (2014) has emphasized that cost barrier is limited the
implementation of off-site MMC and he further stated that for private sector large
construction projects cost will not be a barrier for off-site MMC as brick and block
construction cost is higher than off-site manufactured elements with the complexity of
the project.

In additionally Pasquire et al. (2004) has been identified that faster construction and
on-site work reduction bring economic benefits for hybrid and volumetric
constructions. These financial benefits in off-site MMC due to faster construction and
in-site work reduction panelise constructions come in to the most cost-effective
method of construction over traditional constructions. Furthermore, the proportion of
total construction cost that is incurred off-site will significantly increase with the
amount of off-site work. Therefore, volumetric constructions has the highest off-site
cost while other methods have higher on-site construction costs. Due to that reason,
volumetric construction will only be more effective only if off-site element cost
decreases. Hybrid constructions will be more effective if cost of off-site elements or
on-site labour material cost reduces.

24
2.10.6 Flexibility to use

Flexibility to use means possibility of adopting different uses of client with the time.
This is depend on economic circumstances as clients are affected by changes in
economics. Moreover, according to Building Green (2003) building should have
certain degree of flexibility. Because constructions are mostly lasted for more than 40
year. With the long duration society, economy changes. Building constructions should
also have that flexibility (Kometa et al., 1995).

2.10.7 Maintenance /running cost

Building constructions are not cost only in the construction stage but also in the
operational stage. In old day’s client done the project only estimating the initial coast.
But nowadays clients are aware about operation cost (Al-Hajj & Horner,
1998).Therefore client is now considering about minimum total cost, the balance
between first cost and running cost (Kometa et al., 1995).

2.11 Knowledge Gap

From the above mention literature it has been done many researches on off-site MMC
in different view points.Nadim and Goulding (2010) has highlihted the research areas
which have been addressed by different authors in the broad areas of off-site MMC.It
is shown in the below Table 2.2. According to the Table 2.2 authors have forcused on
cost ,dimentional cordination, process,changes, custermers..etc. Therefore, from Table
2.2 it can be taken a clear idea on worldwide concering areas of off-site MMC up to
the year 2010. In additionally, according to literature it can be said that training
requirement , barriers, benefit evaluation …etc are also some of the key reaserch
forcused areas from 2010 to 2015. However it is failed to find such type of researches
done on off-site MMC in Sri Lankan context rather than features of each individual
methods, such as challenges faced in modular building construction, about
prefabricated items. In addressing such a knowledge gap, this research scrutinizes the
most appropriate off-site MMC for Sri Lanka in terms of clients’ fundamental needs.

25
2.12 Summary

In the review it has been used mostly, highlighted topic in the current world MMC
after Initiation of MMC happened in UK, which can be defined as a method, which
provide efficient and effective process of implementing construction activities with the
use of prefabricated item. Categorization of MMC include off-site MMC where
prefabrication happened off-site and on-site MMC where prefabrication happened on-
site

It is pointed out by the literature view, that there are considerable amount of benefits
and barriers in off-site MMC, which can be highlighted as cost, quality, time,
environmental, health and safety, process as benefits and public perception, poor
awareness, poor technology, capacity of the industry as barriers. In the latter part of
the chapter it has been attempted to Figure out classification of off-site MMC as
volumetric construction, hybrid construction, panelised construction, sub-assemblies
and details of each method in terms of satisfaction of clients’’ fundamental needs.
Therefore, this chapter has achieved objective one of the research. In additionally this
chapter elaborated the findings of the literature review necessary in building the
rationale of the research problem of the study.

26
Table 2.2: Areas of Off-site MMC, Addressed By Different Authors

Homein 2006
O’Brien et al
Tindale 1967

Barlow et al.

Goodier and
Gorgolewski

Woods 2006

NHBC 2006
Leabue and
Vinals 2003

Pendlebury

MMCNW -
Baker 2003
Warzawski

And BAA -
Cater 1967

Buidoffsite
Jones 1967

Gann 1996

Egan 1998

NAO 2005
Gibb 1999

Gibb 2001

Gibb 2005
Et.al 2004

Gilkinson

Bill -2008
Gibb and
DTI 2004

HM 2005

Pan Et.al
Venables
1999

2000

2003

2003

2005

2006

2006

2008

2008
Areas addressed by authors

Affordability x X
Business case x
development x
Cash flow x x x
Change x x x
Cost X x x x x x
Customer x x x
Customization x x x
Design for manufacture x x x
Design freeze
Dimensional coordination x X x x x
Economies of scale
Energy efficiency x x
Environmental Performance x x
Flexibility
Funding x x
Health and safety x x x x
Insurance x
Levels of industrialization x x x x
Market analysis x
Mass production x x x
Policy x
Process /organization x X x x x x x x x x x
Procurement x x x x x x x
Production X x x
Quality X x x x x x x
Regulation x x
Risk x x x x x
Standardization x x x x x
Strategy x x
Supply chain x x
Sustainability x x x
Transportation/logistics x
Source: (Nadim & Goulding ,2010)

27
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Previous chapter comprises of a theoretical background of off-site MMC used

worldwide and different viewpoints of authors in that research area, which was carried
out in order to understand the research area and clients’ fundamental needs satisfaction
through off-site MMC. This chapter directs to build up a methodical frame in order to
accomplish aim and objectives.

Similarly, this chapter describes real importance of research methodology in first and
subsequently describes about the research process that was used in this research and
the research approach. In additionally it describes the research method included with
data collection techniques and data analysing techniques that has been used. Finally,
it is given a chapter summary.

3.2 Research Methodology

Research methodology can be defined as an approach to orderly unravel the research

problem and it is a process of scientifically studying the way of doing research (Flick,
2011). Under methodology, distinct steps can be followed rationally in order to
understand and accomplish research objectives. At the time of doing research practical
knowledge about calculation methods of mean, mode and median, indices and test
development methods, way to use different research techniques are not sufficient. It is
required to recognize the appropriate and inappropriate research methods, reasons to
appropriate, and inappropriateness. Moreover, assumptions, selection criteria for each
techniques under each technique are also required to be understood. Accordingly, there
are many norms for methodology (Kothari , 2004).

3.3 Research Process

Research process normally consisted of elements such as defining the research

problem, reviewing literature, planning the methodology, collecting data, analysing

28
data and disseminating findings. Even though the research process seems to be
rational, it consisted of dynamic, which are collaborating with one another (Anderson
& Arsenault, 2005). Research process of this research is illustrated below Figure 3.1.
Research process started from background study on off-site MMC and identification
of the research problem, what are the most appropriate off-site MMC in terms of
clients’ fundamental needs? After identifying the research problem, aim and objectives
were established and scope and limits were defined. As the next step, adequate
literature review has been done on off-site MMC and construction clients’ fundamental
needs. With the details of all above methodology was planned. According to the
planned methodology, two questionnaire surveys (questionnaire survey I &
questionnaire survey II) were conducted. Questionnaire II that was an open-ended case
study base questionnaire, was used to the purpose of validating the part of
questionnaire survey I. Kumar (2009) defined it as extent of which the findings are
valid. Here all the collected data through above techniques analysed through a
statistical analysis. Weighted mean rating, percentages, and mode values were used in
statistical analysis. In additionally with analysed data, interpretations were done and
findings were reported. As the final step of the research process, conclusions and
recommendations were developed.

3.3.1 Research approach

According to Kothari (2004) mainly there are two research approaches quantitative
approach and qualitative approach. Data production of quantitative approach happens
in quantitative form and it can be used to do critical quantitative analysis in a typical
and inflexible way. Further quantitative approach can be categorized in to survey
approach and experimental approach.

Qualitative approach in a research will be a subjective assessment of attitudes opinions

and behaviour. This type of approach creates non-quantitative or form which is not
vigorously quantitative. Qualitative research further be categorized in to case study
approach, ethnography, action research, grounded theory approach.

29
 To Understand off-site MMC and clients’ fundamental needs
Background study and research Problem
Identification
What are the most appropriate off-site MMC in terms of clients’
fundamental needs? Aim: To identify
Aims and Objective Establishment the most
appropriate off-
site MMC in
Off-site MMC used projects in Sri Lanka terms of clients’
Defining Scope and Limitation
fundamental
Objective 1

Reviewing Literature Off-site MMC and Clients’ fundamental needs satisfaction

Planning Methodology
Objective 2,3,4,5 & 6

Questionnaire Applications of off-site MMC in Sri Lanka, Barriers in using each off-site MMC, Clients’ fundamental
Survey I needs, most appropriate off-site MMC in terms of clients’ needs
Case Study Base
Questionnaire
Survey II Most appropriate off-site MMC in terms of clients’ needs (cost and time)

Statistical Data Analysis Questionnaire I Analysis: Percentages, Weighted Mean Rating,

Mode

Interpretation and Reporting the Findings

Validation of findings Validation of cost and time wise clients’ satisfaction by using questionnaire I & II

Recommendation: If clients’ primary need is quality, it is recommended to use panelised

Conclusion & Recommendation construction

Figure 3.1: Research process

30
As per Esteves and Pastor (2004) if a research contain more than one approach it is
identified as multiple approach. Multiple method can be further caterogoried in to
mixed method , muiltmethod and mix model research according to the way of mixing.
Qualitative and qauntitative approaches can be mixed in different ways, Accoding to
the mixing method there are slight changes in each method which are identified as
multiple approach.Tashakkori and Teddlie (as cited in Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009)
defined a third method as mixed method ,which is defined as “a type of research design
in which qualitative and quantitative approaches are used in types of question ,research
methods, data collection and analysis procedures, and / or inferences”( p.7).

According to Niglas (2000) reserch can have one or more research approaches and
those approaches can use different method/methods and different data to accomplish
the reseach obejctives and aim.Further there can be quntitaive data collection method
for both qualitative and quantitative approach used researches.

Since this research data was collected through off-site MMC used building projects as
well as from professionals who experienced in off-site MMC used projects.Therefore
in the research contain case study approach and survey approach, research has both
quantitative and qualitative appraoches which can be identified as multiple method
approach.

3.4 Research Methods

The research methods consisted of data collection and data analysis methods. (Tan,
2002). Collection of adequate data is required because most researchers fails in their
research due to inadequacy of data. (Kothari , 2004). Further data analysis method
will perform as the source to infer the data collected and attain a corollary and data
analysis methods mainly be influenced by the methods of data collection (Fellows &
Liu, 2008).

3.4.1 Data collection methods

According to Adams, Khan, Raeside, and White (2007) there are different ways of
collecting data, such as observation, interviews, experiments, survey, documentation,
archival records, and physical artefacts.

31
In this research, data was collected through two questionnaire surveys. Questionnaire
survey I is included both open-ended and closed ended questions and questionnaire
survey II, which is a case study base questionnaire survey is included only open ended
questions.

Questionnaire survey I
Through questionnaire survey, I data was collected on available off-site MMC, applied
sector and building types in Sri Lanka, barriers affected to each off-site MMC
implementation in Sri Lanka, fundamental needs of Sri Lankan construction industry
client and most applicable off-site MMC in terms of each fundamental need of the
client. Through this questionnaire survey I, data was collected toward achievement of
objective 2, 3, 4 and part of objective 5.

Questionnaire survey I was carried out as a mixed type questionnaire, which consisted
of both open ended and close-ended questions 1 to 5 ranging likert scale was used in
fixed type of questions, which is used to measure different responses of respondents.

Selection of sample
According to Tan (2002), general idea on phenomena of interest of population is taken
from personalities or bodies concerned in sample. Sample frame is the most critical
element in a sample. As off-site MMC, subject area is not well established and not all
are aware about it, data was collected non-probability convenience sampling method.
Respondents were civil engineers, quantity surveyors and project managers who have
worked in off-site MMC used projects. Questionnaire survey was distributed among
48 individuals as representatives of the whole population of off-site MMC experienced
professionals due to time constrains and finding difficulties.

Questionnaire survey II
Through questionnaire survey, II data was collected on most applicable off-site MMC
in terms of cost of the building project and duration of the building project. Through
this questionnaire survey, II data was collected toward achievement remaining part of
objective 5.

32
Questionnaire survey I was carried out as an open-ended type questionnaire, which has
been prepared base on case studies. Questionnaire was circulated among quantity
surveyor or Engineer of the selected project.

Case study design

According to Yin (2009) case studies, authorize new hypothetical analyses and can
gain more in-depth knowledge compared to existing theoretical understanding. Design
of the case study affects the generalization of the study. Therefore, more consideration
in designing the case study is important.

Identification of unit of analysis of case study

Through the unit of analysis scope, limits of the research can be accurately identified
through. In additionally unit of analysis is linked with research problem (Yin, 2009).
This research focuses on finding the most appropriate MMC in terms of clients’
fundamental needs, case study selected as below in Figure 3.2.

As per Figure 3.2 case studies were selected from Sri Lankan construction industry
building project, which were used off-site MMC.

Sri Lankan
Construction Industry

Building Projects

Off-site MMC used

building projects

Figure 3.2: Unit Analysis of Case Study

33
Defining number of cases
According to Yin (2009) case studies can be categorized in to

 Single case study: use to verify or challenge a theory linking to an extreme case
 Multiple case studies: use to increase reliability and validity of the finding.

This research was carried out to identify a very rare concept used in Sri Lanka
construction industry, with the available information. Therefore according to the
availability and permission to access to the data 1, 2 and 3 number of case studies have
been selected from each off-site MMC.

3.4.2 Data analysis methods

Collected data through the questionnaire I (APPENDIX A) was analysed with

statistical data analysis techniques. It was done through MS-Excel. Mean weighted
rating percentages and mode values were used to analyse quantitative data. Meanwhile
questionnaire survey II was consisted of open-ended questions they were in the format
of quantitative data. Therefore, quantitative formulas were used to come in to
conclusion.

Mean weighted rating

Questionnaire I, (APPENDIX A) was asked respondents to evaluate the clients’
fundamental needs and most appropriate off-site method in terms of each fundamental
need with the use of 1 to 5 likert scale. Mean weighted rating, which was calculated
using following equation construed the credit values incorporate with responses.

Mean Weighted Rating 

 (V xF )
i i

Where,
Vi - Rating given by the respondent
Fi - Frequency of responses
n - Total number of responses

34
As the next step, rated responses were prioritized and found out the most considered
fundamental needs of client and appropriate off-site MMC in terms of those
fundamental needs taking mean weighed rating as a base.

Percentages

Under questionnaire survey I, to determine applications of off-site MMC in different

sectors and different building types and to determine the barriers acting on each off-
site MMC percentage calculations were used.

Mode

Under questionnaire survey I, to determine cost and time components percentage

ranges mode values were used.

Unit cost formula

Project costs collected through case studies were made in to cost per square meter
values (shown in below equation) in order to compare and draw conclusions.

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡(𝑅𝑠. )

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 =
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑚2)

Unit time formula

Project durations collected through case studies were made in to days per square meter
values (shown in below equation) in order to compare and draw conclusions.

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠)

𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 =
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑚2)

3.5 Summary

This chapter discusses about the procedure of doing the research. The research process
included a sequential process of background study, identification of research problem,
establishment of aim and objectives, defining scope and limitation, identifying the
research methodology, reviewing literature, data collection through 2 questionnaire
surveys, data analysis, interpretation of data and recommendations. It was used
multiple method approach as it has both qualitative and quantitative approaches are
mixed in the research. As the data collection method, two questionnaire surveys were

35
used one is an open ended and lose ended mixed questionnaire and other one is a case
study base open-ended questionnaire, which was collected statistical data. Therefore,
qualitative method was used in data collection. Through the questionnaire survey I
objective 2, 3, 4 and part of objective 5 were accomplished .Questionnaire survey II
was used to accomplish the remaining part of objective 5. Questionnaire survey data
was analysed through statistical analysis using weighted mean rating, percentages,
mode values and unit cost and time equations. The chapter is a graphical interpretation
of how research is to be carried out.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 DATA COLLECTION, DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

Chapter three discussed about research methodology used for this research study. The
aim of this chapter is to explicate the research findings and analyse them properly in
order to conclude on the research. This chapter presents statistical analysis of
applicability of off-site MMC in present Sri Lankan construction industry sector,
barriers in implementing off-site MMC in Sri Lanka and up to which extent clients’
fundamental needs are satisfied through off-site MMC. Moreover, clients’ satisfaction
in cost and time have been identified through open-ended, case study based
questionnaire survey and analysed with statistical analysis techniques.

4.2 Questionnaire Survey

Data was gathered through questionnaire surveys, which were provided the following
details for the analysis.

 Applicability of off-site MMC in Sri Lankan construction industry

 Barriers faced by each off-site MMC
 Fundamental needs of the construction client
 Evaluation of clients’ fundamental needs satisfaction through off-site MMC

4.2.1 Questionnaire survey I: profile of participants

Even though professionals in construction industry is included high, knowledgeable

professionals, professionals who have experience in pre-fabricated sector was difficult
to find. Therefore, data was corrected from quantity surveyors, engineers, project
managers who have involved in at least one of the off-site MMC used projects. In
proper recording of constructions companies, which are using off-site MMC and
limited practice, resulted difficulties in identifying the population size. Therefore, 37
number of professionals who had different professional backgrounds were selected as
sample, through non-probability convince sampling technique. Data was collected
directly as well as via electronic mail.

37
Rate of response

Out of the 48 approached, only thirty-seven responded to the questionnaire. This

yielded 77% response rate.

Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents

The respondents could be categorized as follows based on their professional

background as well as their experience on off-site MMC projects.

Professional Background

Table 4.1 presents the participants’ professional background and demonstrate that the
largest group of respondents were Engineers while others include only 7 quantity
surveyors and 8 project Managers

Table 4.1: Professional Background

Number of Respondents
Professional Background
Nr. (%)

Quantity Surveyors 7 19

Engineers 22 59

Project Managers 8 22

Total 37 100

Experience on off-site MMC used projects

Respondents were asked about their experience on off-site MMC used projects based
on the number of years they had worked in pre-fabricated building sector. The findings
are shown in Figure 4.1. Many (60 percent) of respondents had 5-10 years’ experience
while 35% had less than 5 years’ experience and 5% have more than 10 years’
experience.

38
 More than 10
experience
5%
Nr= 2
Less than 5 years
experience
35%
Nr=13

5-10 years
experience
60%
Nr=22

Figure 4.1: Experience of Respondents

4.2.2 Questionnaire survey II: profile of cases

Table 4.2: Details of Selected Cases

Nr of
Case Type of Modern Method Description
Cases
1 Case A Volumetric construction Two storied residential building
Case B Single storey residential building
2 Hybrid construction
Case C Single storey residential building
Case D Two storied chalets
3 Case E Panelised construction Single storey house
Case F Single storey house
Case G Single storey house

3 Case H Sub-assemblies construction Four storey residential building

Case I Two storey residential building

Case J Two storey residential building

3 Case K Traditional constructions Single storey house

Case L Single storey house

39
Open-ended, case study based questionnaire survey was conducted in order to gather
the information on actual off-site MMC applied cases and compare them with above
mentioned closed ended questionnaire survey findings.

Twelve questionnaires were distributed among quantity surveyors and engineers one
per each case. Twelve cases were selected, as shown in Table 4.2. With the limitations
in different organizations, only single case study has been selected from volumetric
constructions. In addition, from other methods two and three number of cases has been
taken. Table 4.2 shows details of selected cases.

4.3 Applicability of Off-Site MMC in Sri Lankan Construction Industry

Views of professionals regarding the applicability of off-site MMC in Sri Lanka was
gathered through questionnaire survey I (APPENDIX A). The respondents were asked
to mark the practice of each off-site MMC and their applicability in different sectors
(residential, commercial, industrial, offices, other building) and scales of buildings
(single storey, 2-12 storey, more than 12 storey) in which each off-site MMC are
practiced. Total responses for each sector and scale were analysed and following
explanations were made.

4.3.1 Practice of off-site MMC in Sri Lanka

According to the Figure 4.2 below, all the respondents have mentioned that sub-
assemblies constructions and panelised constructions are practising in Sri Lankan
construction industry. Moreover, 95% of the respondents have mentioned that hybrid
constructions and volumetric constructions are practising in Sri Lankan construction

Sub-assemblies
construtions
Off-site MMC

Panelized
constructions

Hybrid
constructions

Volumetric
constructions

0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 4.2: Practice of Off-site
Respondents MMC
Percentage %

40
industry. Therefore, all four off-site MMC are practicing in current Sri Lankan
construction industry.

4.3.2 Applicability of off-site MMC in building sectors: overall

OB
Sub-assemblies
Constructions

Off
Ind
Com
Res
Panelized Constructions

OB
Building Sector and Off-site MMC

Off
Ind
Com
Res
Hybrid Constructions

OB
Off
Ind
Com
Res

OB
Constructions
Volumetric

Off
Ind
Com
Res

0 20 40 60 80 100
Resposes percentage %

Res- Residential building sector Com-Commercial building sector Ind- Industrial building sector
Off-Office building sector OB- Other Building sector

Figure 4.3: Applicability of Off-Site MMC in Different Building Sectors in

Figure 4.3 depicts sectors each off-site MMC are mostly applied in according to the
responses given by respondents. As per Figure 4.3, more than 70% of the respondents
have mentioned that volumetric constructions are used in other buildings, residential
buildings, and commercial buildings sectors. More than 60% of the respondents have

41
responded that volumetric constructions are used in industrial and office building
sectors. The responses given by the respondents conclude that volumetric
constructions are mostly used in other buildings sector, residential buildings sector and
commercial buildings sector.

Table 4.3: Applications of Volumetric Constructions

Frequency Of Percentage of Responses

Sector Scale of Building
Responses %

Single storey 29 78

Residential 2-12 storey 8 22

More than 12 storey 0 0

Single storey 28 76

Commercial 2-12 storey 7 19

More than 12 storey 0 0

Single storey 24 65

Industrial 2-12 storey 13 35

More than 12 storey 0 0

Single storey 23 62

Offices 2-12 storey 8 22

More than 12 storey 0 0

Single storey 31 84
Other
2-12 storey 4 11
buildings
More than 12 storey 1 3

According to the collected data shown in Table 4.3, 78 % of respondents have stated
that volumetric constructions are used in single storey residential buildings. 22% of
respondents have responded that they are used in 2-12 storey buildings. In commercial
sector, 76% of respondents have mentioned that volumetric constructions are used in
single storey commercial buildings, 19% have responded that they are used in 2-12
storey buildings. Moreover 65% of the respondents have mentioned that volumetric
constructions are used in single storey industrial buildings and 35% of respondents

42
have mentioned they are used in 2-12 storey industrial buildings also. Further 62% of
respondents have mentioned volumetric constructions are used in single storey, office
building sector and 21% have responded that they are used in 2-12 storey office
building sector. In additional in other building sector volumetric constructions are used
to build single storey building and 2-12 storey buildings. 84% of the respondents out
of 37 respondents have mentioned that volumetric constructions are used in single
storey other building sector and 11% of the respondents have stated that they are also
used in 2-12 storey buildings. Even though the category is 2-12, they are not used in
more than three storey buildings.

According to the Figure 4.3, more than 75% of the respondents have responded that
hybrid constructions are used in other buildings, office buildings, industrial,
commercial buildings and residential buildings sectors. In Figure 4.3 it is clearly
depicted hybrid constructions are mostly used in other building and office buildings
sectors. According to Table 4.4, in residential buildings, hybrid constructions are
currently practicing in single storey as well as 2-12 storey buildings. 78% respondents
were mentioned that hybrid constructions are used in single storey residential buildings
and 24% have mentioned that hybrid constructions are used in 2-12 storey buildings
in residential sector. In commercial buildings, usage of hybrid constructions have been
marked by 81% for single storey buildings and 49% for 2-12 storey buildings.
Moreover, in industrial building sector majority (76%) of respondents have mentioned
hybrid constructions are used in single storey industrial buildings and 46% have
mentioned hybrid constructions are used in 2-12 storey industrial buildings. In offices
and other buildings hybrid constructions are currently practiced in single storey as well
as 2-12 storey buildings. According to the responses, 88% have responded that hybrid
constructions are used in single storey offices and single storey other buildings. Further
49% and 16% respondents have responded that hybrid constructions are used in 2-12
storey buildings in office and other buildings respectively. It concludes that hybrid
constructions are also used mostly in single storey building sectors.

As per the Figure 4.3, responses have been proved that panelised constructions are
mostly used in industrial and other building sectors. All of the respondents have said
that panelised constructions are used in industrial and other building sector. More than

43
85% of the respondents have mentioned that panelised constructions are used in
commercial, office building sectors. Therefore, panelised constructions are mostly
practiced in industry building sector and other buildings sector. Reason for this higher
usage is that most of the factories and warehouses are constructed with steel panels.
Because of the easiness in usage.

Table 4.4: Applications of Hybrid Constructions

Frequency Of Percentage of Responses

Sector Scale of Building
Responses %
Single storey 29 78%

Residential 2-12 storey 9 24%

More than 12 storey 1 3%

Single storey 30 81%

Commercial 2-12 storey 18 49%

More than 12 storey 0 0%

Single storey 28 76%

Industrial 2-12 storey 17 46%

More than 12 storey 0 0%

Single storey 31 84%

Offices 2-12 storey 18 49%

More than 12 storey 0 0%

Single storey 31 84%

Other
2-12 storey 6 16%
buildings
More than 12 storey 0 0%

Further as per responses given by the respondents, shown in Table 4.5, 89% of
respondents have mentioned that residential sector panelised constructions are used in
single storey buildings. 62% have mentioned they are used in 2-12 storey residential
buildings. Moreover, 89.189% of respondents have mentioned that panelised
constructions are used in single storey commercial buildings and 43.243% have
mentioned that they are used in 2-12 storey commercial buildings. It has been found

44
that all the respondents answered that in industrial buildings panelised constructions
are used in single storey buildings 62.162% respondents have said that it is also used
in 2-12 storey buildings. 16% responses have been got for more than 12 storey
buildings.

Table 4.5: Applications of Panelised Constructions

Frequency of Percentage of Responses

Sector Scale of Building
Responses %

Single storey 33 89

Residential 2-12 storey 23 62

More than 12 storey 3 8

Single storey 33 89

Commercial 2-12 storey 16 43

More than 12 storey 2 5

Single storey 37 100

Industrial 2-12 storey 23 62

More than 12 storey 6 16

Single storey 36 97

Offices 2-12 storey 27 73

More than 12 storey 1 3

Single storey 37 100

Other
2-12 storey 12 32
buildings
More than 12 storey 0 0

According to the responses, 97% of respondents have mentioned that office building
sector panelised constructions are used in single storey buildings. 73% have mentioned
they are used in 2-12 storey office buildings and 2.703% of the respondents have
mentioned panelised constructions are used in more than 12 storey office buildings. In
other buildings, all the respondents have given that it is used in single storey building
and 32.432% respondents stated that those are used in 2-12 storey as well. Responses

45
implied that panelised constructions could be used to build more than two storey
buildings than other off-site MMC.

Table 4.6: Applications of Sub-assemblies Constructions

Frequency of Percentage of Responses

Sector Scale of Building
Responses %

Single storey 36 97

Residential 2-12 storey 23 65

More than 12 storey 10 27

Single storey 37 100

Commercial 2-12 storey 28 76

More than 12 storey 7 19

Single storey 34 92

Industrial 2-12 storey 20 54

More than 12 storey 7 19

Single storey 37 100

Offices 2-12 storey 12 32

More than 12 storey 6 16

Single storey 14 38
Other
2-12 storey 6 16
buildings
More than 12 storey 0 0

According to Figure 4.3 sub-assemblies are mostly used in commercial and offices
equally which is mentioned by 100% of the respondents. Over 90% of the respondents
have responded that sub-assemblies are used in residential and industrial building
sectors. On the other hand, 38% of respondents have mentions sub-assemblies are used
in other building sector. As shown in Table 4.6 in commercial sector and office
buildings all the respondents have given that, they are used in single storey buildings.
76% respondents have answered that in commercial sector sub-assemblies are used in
2-12 stored buildings, 18.919% respondents have answered that they are used in more

46
than 12 stored buildings in the commercial sector. Moreover, 32.432% respondents
have answered that for 2-12 story office buildings are also construct with sub-
assemblies constructions. 16% respondents stated that they are also used in more than
12 storey buildings. Over 90% of the respondents have mentioned that sub-assemblies
are used in single storey residential and industrial buildings while over 50% have
stated in 2-12 storey residential and industrial buildings. Over 15% of the respondents
have mentioned that sub-assemblies are used in more than 12 storey residential and
industrial buildings. Withal 38%, 16% have mentioned sub-assemblies are used in
single storey and 2-12 storey other buildings respectively. According to responses,
sub-assemblies are used in Sri Lankan construction industry than other off-site MMC
because of the easy transportation.

4.3.3 Current practice of each off-site MMC in various building types

Through literature and questionnaire, it has been found that off-site MMC are limited
in Sri Lankan construction industry. Therefore, respondents were asked to comment
on buildings type under each sector of each off-site MMC.
As shown in Table 4.7 below over 40 % of the respondents have mentioned that
volumetric constructions are used in houses in residential sector. Moreover, more than
20% of the respondents have mentioned that they are used in holiday bungalows in
residential sector. Additionally less than 20% of respondents have commented that in
residential sector volumetric constructions are used in chalets, villas, and apartment’s
.Further in residential sector hybrid constructions usage is commented as over 50% for
houses, over 20% for apartments and less than 20 % for resorts, housing schemes,
resorts, chalets, holiday bungalows, and villas. Usage of panelised constructions in
residential sector is mentioned over 50% for houses and less than 20% for apartments,
bungalows, chalets, villas, cabanas and resorts .Withal sub-assemblies are used in
residential sector for houses which is commented by more than 60% of the respondents
also less than 40% of respondents have commented that sub-assemblies are used in
apartments, villas, condominiums, chalets, kit houses ad bungalows.
According to Table 4.7 above, over 20% of the respondents have mentioned shops,
supermarkets are built in commercial sector using volumetric construction. Less than
20% of the respondents have counted that volumetric constructions are used in

47
commercial sector for hotels, showrooms, studios, restaurants, shopping malls,
promotional centres, advertising centres, office complexes, and mega malls. Further
under hybrid constructions over 30% of the respondents were commented that they are
used in super markets and shops .additionally more than 10% of the respondents have
commented hybrid constructions are used to build showrooms and restaurants. Less
than 10% of the respondents have commented that they are used in supercentres,
hotels, Studios, Promotional centres, advertising centres, broadcasting/telecasting
stations and tuition institutes. As depicted in Table 4.7 over 10% of the respondents
commented that in commercial sector panelised constructions are used to build shops,
restaurants, shopping malls , super markets and less than 10% of the respondents have
mentioned that panelised constructions are used in showrooms , stores , cinema halls ,
promotional centres and advertising centres .in additionally over 20% of the
respondents have mentioned that sub-assemblies are used in shopping malls,
restaurants, shops, and supermarket. Less than 20% of the respondents have stated
usage is also distributed in bank, car parks, and showrooms also.

Furthermore, 60% of the respondents have stated factories are built out of volumetric
constrictions and less than 20 % of respondents have mentioned that warehouses,
garments, and research centres are used to build with volumetric constructions in Sri
Lankan construction industry in industrial sector. More than 40% of respondents have
mentioned that hybrid constructions are used to build factories and less than 10% of
respondents have mentioned they are used to build warehouses ,garment and research
centres.

48
Table 4.7: Off-site MMC Applications in Buildings

Volumetric Constructions Hybrid Constructions Panelized Constructions Sub-assemblies Constructions

Resorts Resorts
Bangalows
Villas Housing schemes Cabanas
kit houses
Residential Sector

Resorts Villas
Apartments Chalets
Chalets
Chalets Condominiums
Chalets Apartments
banglows Villas
Holiday banglows Holiday banglows
Apartments Apartments
Villas
Houses Houses Houses
Houses
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60
Responces Percentage % Responces Percentage % Responses Percentage % Responses Percentage %

mega malls Tution institutes Advertising centres

carparks
office complex Broadcasting/telecasting stations Promotional centres
advertision centers Advertising centres supermarkets
Commercial Building Sector

Super markets
Promotional centers promotional centres
Showrooms showrooms
shopping malls Supermarkects
restuarents banks
restuarents Restuarents
Cinama halls
supermarkets Studios shops
Studios Showrooms Shops
Restuarents
show rooms Shops Stores

shpos Supercentres Shopping malls Shopping malls

hotels Hotels 0 20 0 20 40 60
0 20 40 0 20 40 60 Responses Percentage % Responses Percentage %
Responses Percentage % Responses Percentage %

reserch centers research centers Research centres

Research centres
Industrial Building Sector

germents Germents Germents

Warehouses

warehouses Warehouses Factory

Factory
factories Warehouses
Factories

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40
0 20 40 60
Responses Percentage % Responses Percentage % Responses Percentage %
Resposes Percentage %

49
 Volumetric Constructions Hybrid Constructions Panelized Constructions Sub-assemblies Constructions

broad casting and

Office complexes
telecommunicaton offices Research centres Office complex
banks Product offices

Office complex
Office Building Sector

check points Research centres

Project offices
reserch centers Communication centers
Regulatory offices
communication centers Regulatory offices
Banks
regulatory offices Administration offices Administration offices

office buildings Banks

Government office
Banks
adminstration offices Outlets buildings

0 20 0 20 40 0 20 40
0 20 40 60
Responses Percentage % Responses Percentage % Responses Percentage % Responses Percentage %

Check points Check points Check pints

sheds
Exibition stalls Entertainment centres
Mobile entertainment centres
Other Building Sector

Exibition stalls
Miltory buildings Militory buildigns labour accomodations
Militory buildings
Stores Stoles
Temporary sheds site offices
Labour units
accomadations Mobile tiolets
Labour accomodation
Site accomodation
Accomodation buildings Site office Temporary accomodation
Site offices
Site offices Transit houses
0 20 40
0 20 40 60
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 Responses Percerntage %
Responses Percentage %
Responses Percentage % Responses Percentage %

50
More than 50% of the respondents have mentioned that panelised constructions are
used to build factories and less than 20% have mentioned panelised constructions are
also used to build warehouses and research centres. Moreover, over 30% of
respondents have mentioned sub-assemblies constructions are used in factories and
less than 20% of respondents have mentioned sub-assemblies are also used to build
research centres, garments and warehouses.

Furthermore, 60% of the respondents have stated factories are built out of volumetric
constrictions and less than 20 % of respondents have mentioned that warehouses,
garments, and research centres are used to build with volumetric constructions in Sri
Lankan construction industry in industrial sector. More than 40% of respondents have
mentioned that hybrid constructions are used to build factories and less than 10% of
respondents have mentioned they are used to build warehouses ,garment and research
centres. Withal more than 50% of the respondents have mentioned that panelised
constructions are used to build factories and less than 20% have mentioned panelised
constructions are also used to build warehouses and research centres. Moreover, over
30% of respondents have mentioned sub-assemblies constructions are used in factories
and less than 20% of respondents have mentioned sub-assemblies are also used to build
research centres, garments and warehouses.

In additionally Table 4.7 illustrates that under office building sector volumetric
constructions are used in bank and administration offices which was mentioned over
15% of the respondents and less than 10% of the respondents have mentioned that
volumetric constructions are used in broadcasting and telecommunication offices,
checkpoints, research centres, communication centres, and regulatory offices. More
than 20% of the responses contain that hybrid constructions are used to build
administration offices and banks. Less than 20% of the respondents have mentioned
that they are used in office complexes, product offices, research centres,
communication centres, regulatory offices, and outlets. Further more than 15% of the
respondents have commented panelised constructions are used in banks,
administration offices, office complexes and less than 10% of the respondents
mentioned that panelised constructions are also used in regulatory offices and research
centres. Withal over 40% of the respondents have mentioned sub-assemblies are used

51
to build banks and less than 30% of the respondents have stated that sub-assemblies
are used to build office complexes, project offices, and government offices under
office building sector.

In other building sector, volumetric constructions are used to build site offices, site
accommodations, labour unit accommodations, stores, military buildings, exhibition
stalls and check points. Over 50% of the respondents were mentioned that site offices
are build out of volumetric construction and less than 20% of respondents have
mentioned the other types of building listed above. Same as in volumetric
constructions, hybrid constructions can used to build site offices as per over 50%
respondents and according to less than 20% respondents hybrid constructions are also
used in checkpoints, mobile entertainment centres, military buildings, stoles, mobile
toilets and accommodation building. Further over 50% of the respondents have
commented that panelised constructions are used to build site office in other building
sector. Moreover, less than 20% of respondents have mentioned panelised
constructions are used in checkpoints, entertainment centres, exhibition stalls, military
buildings, other sheds, labour accommodation, and transit houses. Similarly over 20%
respondents have mentioned sub-assemblies are used to build site offices and labour
accommodation and less than 10% of respondents have mentioned that sub-assemblies
are also used in sheds and other accommodation under other building sector.

4.4 Key Barriers in Implementing Off-Site MMC in Sri Lanka

According to the above mentioned sectors in Sri Lankan industry which off-site MMC
are used, it is identified that off-site MMC are not used in all the sectors. Therefore, it
has limited in Sri Lankan construction industry. Limitations or the barriers of using
each off-site MMC is identified. In order to fulfill the requirement respondents were
requested to mark the barriers in each sector and using MS excel following graphical
representations have been formed.

4.4.1 Barriers to use volumetric constructions

The professionals’ responses on barriers to implement volumetric constructions in Sri

Lankan industry is depicted in the following Figure 4.4.

52
 Transportation difficulities
Capacity of the industry
Poor technology
Poor awareness
Public perception
Cost

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Responses Percentage %

Figure 4.4: Barriers of Implementing Volumetric Constructions

As per the responses, 100% of the professionals have identified poor awareness as a
barrier in implementation of volumetric constructions in Sri Lankan industry. In
addition, 92%, 89%, 59%, 46%, and 18% of professionals have identified those
barriers for using volumetric constructions in Sri Lankan industry as public perception,
transportation difficulties, poor technology, cost, and capacity of the industry
respectively.

4.4.2 Barriers to use hybrid constructions

Responses on barriers to less usage of hybrid constructions in Sri Lankan industry is

depicted in the following Figure 4.5.

Transportation difficulities

Capacity of the industry

Poor technology

Poor awareness

Public perception

Cost

0 20 40 60 80 100
Responses Percentage %

Figure 4.5: Barriers of Implementing Hybrid Constructions

According to the bar chart above 100% of respondents have identified that poor
awareness of hybrid constructions as a barrier to use hybrid constructions in Sri
Lankan construction industry. 89% of the respondents have identified that public

53
perception is a barrier and 65%, 32%, 22% and 11% have identified transportation
difficulties, poor technology, cost, and capacity of the industry respectively as barriers
identified in hybrid constructions,

4.4.3 Barriers to use panelised constructions

The responses of the professionals on barriers of using panelised constructions, is

depicted in following Figure 4.6.

Transportation difficulities

Capacity of the industry

Poor technology

Poor awareness

Public perception

Cost

0 20 40 60 80 100
Responses Percenage %

Figure 4.6: Barriers of Implementing Panelised Constructions

According to bar chart above 95% of the respondents have identified that poor
awareness on panelised constructions as a barrier limited usage of panelised
constructions in Sri Lankan construction industry. 81% of the respondents have
identified that public perception as barrier and 27%, 19%, 11%, and 5% have identified
poor technology, transportation difficulties, cost, and capacity of the industry
respectively as barriers in using panelised constructions in Sri Lanka.

4.4.4 Barriers to use sub-assemblies constructions

The professionals’ responses on barriers to use sub-assemblies constructions in Sri

Lankan industry is depicted in the following Figure 4.7.

As per the responses, 86% of the professionals have identified public perception as a
barrier in using sub-assemblies constructions in Sri Lankan industry. In addition, 76%,
14%, 14%, 14%, and 11% of professionals have identified those barriers to use

54
volumetric constructions in Sri Lankan industry as poor awareness, transportation
difficulties, poor technology, cost, and capacity of the industry respectively.

Transportation difficulities

Capacity of the industry

Poor technology

Poor awareness

Public perception

Cost

0 20 40 60 80 100
Responses Percenge %

Figure 4.7: Barriers of Implementing Sub-Assemblies Constructions

4.5 Fundamental Needs of Clients

Table 4.8: Fundamental Needs of Client

Responses Percentage (%) Weighted

Fundamental Need Mean
5 4 3 2 1 Rating

Quality 86 14 0 0 0 4.865

Functionality 78 22 0 0 0 4.784

Time 59 30 11 0 0 4.486

Safety 51 43 4 0 0 4.459

Economy (Cost) 30 51 19 0 0 4.108

Running /maintenance cost 19 41 41 0 0 3.784

Flexibility to use 11 38 41 11 0 3.486

Questionnaire I further explores views of professionals regarding fundamental needs

of the construction client, which have been identified through the literature. Under this
question of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to rank the identified Sri
Lankan construction clients’ fundamental need considering their importance based on
a five point Likert scale where “1” indicated “bottom mark” and “5” indicated “top

55
mark”. Thus, the mean rating value of these were analysed and the following
explanations have been made.

It is apparent from the above Table 4.8 there are five needs, which are having weighted
mean rating over 4.000. Those needs are quality, functionality, time, safety, and
economy. Moreover, the highest weighted mean rating is in quality need, which is
4.865. It was rated as “5” by more than 80% of the respondents and it is not rated as
“3”, “2”, or “1” by any of the respondents. Weighted mean rating is lower than 4.000
in running/ maintenance cost and need of flexibility to use. They are rated over 40%
of the respondents as rate as “4”. Therefore, fundamental needs can rank in priority
order as quality, functionality, time, safety, economy, running / maintenance cost and
flexibility to use.

4.6 Most Appropriate Off-Site MMC in Terms Clients’ Fundamental Needs

Latter part of the questionnaire, declared the most preferred off-site MMC in terms of
clients’ fundamental needs. This is the final objective of the research. Literature survey
has identified factors, which can further used to measure each fundamental need of the
construction client. They were used to determine the clients’ needs in detail.

Under this particular questionnaire section, respondents were asked to rate their
opinion on fundamental needs and further detailed factors. Each need and factor was
rated on a five-point Likert Scale. The scale ranged from ‘Very Low’ (1) to ‘Very
High’ (5).

4.6.1 Quality of building

Under the above heading 4.4, it has been found that quality is the major concern of a
client. Respondents answered to each of the quality component as well as the overall
quality of each off-site MMC. Data, which have been gathered, were used to calculate
the weighted mean rating.

Overall quality of different construction methods

Given responses percentages under each scale of 37 respondents and weighted mean
rating of overall quality are presented in following Table 4.9.

56
It is apparent from the Table 4.9 above that panelised constructions have the highest
quality and traditional constructions have the lowest quality, as the weighted mean
rating of panelised constructions is the highest and traditional construction is the
lowest. Hybrid constructions, volumetric construction and panelised constructions
have their mean values above 3.000. Other two methods have less than 3.000 of
weighted mean rating. In additionally major percentage (41%) of the respondents have
rated panelised constructions quality as “very high”. In the lowest quality method,
traditional constructions, higher percentage of respondents have mentioned rate “2” as
quality rate. Hence, the order of quality ranging from panelised constructions,
volumetric constructions, hybrid constructions, sub-assemblies construction to
traditional building constructions descending order.

Table 4.9: Overall Quality of Different Construction Methods

Response percentages % Weighted

Construction Method Mean
5 4 3 2 1 Rating

Panelised constructions 41 22 22 19 0 3.838

Volumetric constructions 27 38 27 9 0 3.811

Hybrid constructions 32 32 19 16 0 3.919

Sub-assemblies
5 16 32 27 19 2.622
constructions
Traditional constructions 5 11 22 38 24 2.351

Quality components of different construction methods

Quality was measured under two main sections under the questionnaire I, as during
construction and after construction. During construction, quality was measured
through defects, health and safety, and environmental efficiency. After construction,
quality was measured through workmanship, client’s satisfaction, and environmental
impact. Quality performance of each construction method in terms of above mentioned
categories are illustrated in following Table 4.10.

57
Table 4.10: Quality Components of Different Construction Methods

Responses percentage (%) Weighted

Quality
Method of
Mean
Construction
5 4 3 2 1 Rating

Volumetric
5 2 11 46 35 2.212
constructions
Defects (During Constructions)

Hybrid
5 5 16 49 24 2.455
constructions

Panelised
11 8 27 41 14 2.939
constructions

Sub-assemblies
19 27 30 14 11 3.697
constructions

Traditional
38 32 22 5 3 4.455
constructions

Panelised
43 41 11 5 0 4.727
constructions
Health & safety (During

Hybrid
5 41 46 8 0 3.848
constructions
Construction)

Sub-assemblies
5 30 51 14 0 3.667
constructions

Traditional
8 14 43 35 0 3.303
constructions

Volumetric
5 14 38 38 5 3.091
constructions

Volumetric
30 59 8 3 0 4.666
Environmental efficiency (During

constructions

Hybrid
3 68 27 3 0 4.151
constructions
Constructions)

Panelised
0 46 49 5 0 3.818
constructions

Sub-assemblies
5 8 43 43 0 3.090
constructions

Traditional
3 3 16 49 30 2.242
constructions

58
 Responses percentage (%) Weighted

Quality
Method of
Mean
Construction 5 4 3 2 1 Rating
Volumetric
51 43 3 3 0 4.970
constructions
Hybrid
Workmanship (After

24 49 19 8 0 4.364
constructions
Construction)

Panelised
8 41 35 16 0 3.818
constructions
Sub-assemblies
8 46 32 11 3 3.879
constructions
Traditional
22 32 16 22 8 3.788
constructions
Traditional
68 24 8 0 0 4.595
constructions
Customer satisfaction (After

Sub-assemblies
57 38 5 0 0 4.514
constructions
Construction)

Panelised
30 54 16 0 0 4.135
constructions
Hybrid
8 49 38 5 0 3.595
constructions
Volumetric
14 24 35 24 3 3.216
constructions
Panelised
5 8 57 24 5 1.621
constructions
Environmental impact ( After

Hybrid
19 41 41 0 0 2.027
constructions
Construction)

Volumetric
8 51 35 5 0 3.783
constructions
Sub-assemblies
19 43 38 0 0 3.810
constructions
Traditional
49 24 24 3 0 4.189
constructions

From the above Table 4.10 during construction defects are highest in traditional
constructions as it has the highest weighted mean rating of 4.455 where over 30% of
the respondents have given the ranking “5” and “4”. Least defects were in volumetric

59
constructions, which have 2.212 weighted mean rating where, over 35% of the
respondents have mentioned the rating as “1” and “2”. In additionally panelised
constructions and hybrid constructions have, lesser weighted mean ratings for the
defects .Those were less than 3.000. Sub-assemblies also have a weighted mean rating
of 3.697, which is significantly high. Hence, ascending sequence of quality of
construction in terms of defects can give as volumetric constructions, hybrid
constructions, panelised constructions, sub-assemblies, and traditional constructions.

Quality factor during construction, health and safety acts in a very different way than
defects in construction. It is apparent from the Table 4.10 panelised constructions has
the highest level of health and safety during construction which have a weighted mean
rating of 4.727 with more than 40% of “5” and “4” ratings. All the construction method
have more than 3.000 of weighted mean rating. Nevertheless, traditional construction
has the lowest value of 3.091, which is rated over 35% of the respondents as “3” and
“2”. Therefore it is quite revealing that panelised constructions has the highest health
and safety and hybrid construction and sub-assemblies constructions is in next ranks
and after that traditional construction is in the fourth place and the lowest health and
safety is in volumetric constructions.

Moreover, quality can be measured through environmental efficiency. In terms of

environmental efficiency volumetric constructions have, a weighted mean rating of
4.666, which signifies volumetric constructions, has the highest environmental
efficiency during constructions. Over 50% of the respondents have rated “4” for
volumetric construction and 30% for rate of “5”. Hybrid constructions, panelised
constructions, sub-assemblies constructions and traditional constructions have a
weighted mean rating of 4.151, 3.818, 3.090, and 2.242 respectively. Therefore, hybrid
constructions and volumetric constructions has over 4.000 of weighted mean rating
while other three have scored less than 4.000. The lowest environmental efficiency is
in traditional constructions, which have rated as “2” by 49% of respondents and “1” as
30% of respondents.

After construction, quality can be further measured through workmanship. According

to the responses volumetric constructions have 4.970 weighted Mean rating and hybrid

60
constructions, panelised constructions, sub-assemblies constructions and traditional
constructions have weighted mean rating of 4.364, 3.818, 3.879, and 3.788
respectively. Therefore, highest workmanship is in volumetric construction, which is
rated over 40% of respondents as “4” and “5”. Withal lowest workman ship is in
traditional constructions according to the responses which is rated as “5” ,”4” and “2”
over 20% of the respondents out of 37 number of all respondents. The ascending order
of workmanship can be given as traditional constructions, sub-assemblies
constructions, panelised constructions, hybrid construction, and volumetric
constructions.

In additionally respondents were questioned about quality of construction in terms of

customer satisfaction also. As per the responses weighted means ratings were
calculated and they are shown in Table 4.10. Weighted mean rating depicts that the
highest customer satisfaction is gained by traditional constructions as it has a rating of
4.595, which consisted over 67% response for rate “5”. Withal over 4.000 weighted
mean rating is taken by sub-assemblies and panelised construction where sub-
assemblies has a higher customer satisfaction than panelised construction. Other two
methods, hybrid constructions, and volumetric constructions have less than 3.000
weighted mean rating and over 20% of responses percentages for “4” and “3”. As per
the responses it is clear that traditional constructions has the highest customer
satisfaction where volumetric construction is in the lowest place.

Additionally in terms of environmental impact respondents were asked to rate the

construction methods. Their responses summarized in above Table 4.10. It is apparent
from the Table 4.10 that penalized constructions and hybrid constructions has
weighted mean ratings less than 2.000. More than 50% of the respondent have rated it
as “3” and more than 20% of respondents have rated it as “2”. Volumetric
constructions and sub-assemblies constructions have weighted mean value over 3.000
where over 50% of the respondents have rated volumetric construction “4” and over
35 % of the respondents’ rated sub-assemblies construction “4” and “3”. In traditional
construction, weighted mean rating is over 4.000 and most of the responses (48%) are
in rate “5”. Therefore in terms of environmental influence lowest is panelised
constructions and highest is traditional construction while hybrid constructions,

61
volumetric constructions, sub-assemblies constructions are in 2, 3 and 4 ranks
respectively in descending order.

4.6.2 Functionality of the building

Functionality is the second most important need of the construction client.

Professionals have responded for the most appropriate method in terms of functionality
according to the likert scale Very Low’ (1) to ‘Very High’ (5). According to the likert
scale weighted mean ratings were calculated and they are shown in Table 4.11 with
percentages of responses for each rate.

Table 4.11: Functionality of Different Construction Methods

Functionality

Responses percentage (%) Weighted

Method of
Mean
Construction
5 4 3 2 1 Rating

Traditional
73 19 8 0 0 4.649
constructions
Sub-assemblies
46 49 5 0 0 4.405
constructions
Functionality

Panelised
32 57 11 0 0 4.216
constructions
Hybrid
22 54 24 0 0 3.973
constructions
Volumetric
27 35 38 0 0 3.892
constructions

As illustrated in Table 4.11 penalized constructions, sub-assemblies constructions and

traditional constructions have its’ weighted mean rating more the 4.000 with over 70%
of responses for “5” in volumetric constructions and over 45% of “4” and “5” for sub-
assemblies constructions. Panelised construction has over 50% of rate “4” and over
30% of rate “5”. Hybrid construction and volumetric constructions have weighted
mean ratings lower than 3.000. Over 30% responses were given as rating “5” and “4”.
Therefore, it is clear that the rank order is traditional construction, sub-assemblies
constructions, panelised construction, hybrid construction and volumetric
constructions in 1,2,3,4 and 5 ranks respectively.

62
4.6.3 Time /construction duration

Respondents has ranked time as the third most important fundamental need. Total
construction duration of projects, which have been, used off-site MMC and traditional
constructions are marked by the respondents in a likert scale as Very Low’ (1) to ‘Very
High’ (5). Moreover, they were asked to respond on the percentage time components
of total construction duration in a 10-point scale where it start from 0-10% and end in
90-100%.

Total construction duration

With the given responses weighted mean average and parentages of responses for each
rate has been calculated and those weighted mean rating of responses and response
percentages are in below Table 4.12.

Table 4.12: Overall Construction Duration of Different Construction Methods

Construction

Responses percentage (%) Weighted

Duration

Method of
Mean
Construction
5 4 3 2 1 Rating

Volumetric
11 0 3 24 62 1.730
constructions
Construction duration

Hybrid
3 3 27 51 16 2.243
constructions
Panelised
8 0 57 32 3 2.784
constructions
Sub-assemblies
5 54 35 5 0 3.595
constructions
Traditional
70 24 5 0 0 4.649
constructions

When comparing the weighted mean ratings and response percentages volumetric
constructions, hybrid constructions and panelised constructions have weighted mean
ratings below 3.000. Simultaneously traditional construction and sub-assemblies
construction have those values over 3.000. Volumetric constructions were rated as “1”
by 62% of total number of 39 respondents. Hybrid constructions were mostly rated as
“2” by over 50% of the respondents. Moreover panelised constructions were mostly

63
rated (over 50%) as “3”. Sub-assemblies were mostly (over 50%) rated as “4” and
traditional constructions were mostly rated (over 70%) as “5”. Therefore, construction
duration can be rank as volumetric constructions, hybrid constructions, panelised
constructions, sub-assemblies constructions, and traditional constructions.

Time component comparison of off-site MMC

Respondents were marked the component time of each construction methods under
percentage scale of 10 point. Mode values of these percentage rating were calculated
in analysing of the given responses. Those were illustrated in the following Table 4.13.
When considering about the off-site duration lowest off-site duration (0-10%) is in
traditional constructions and 100% of the respondents have mentioned it. Sub-
assemblies constructions and panelised constructions have a mode value of 40-50%,
which was rated over 50 % of the respondents. Hybrid constructions and volumetric
constructions have the highest off-site duration 60-70% that is rated over 60% of the
respondents. Therefore, it is clear that lowest off-site duration is owned by traditional
constructions and next sub-assemblies and panelised constructions have their off-site
duration. Highest duration is taken by volumetric and hybrid constructions.
Further, it is apparent from the Table 4.13 that highest on-site durations are in
traditional construction, sub-assemblies constructions and panelised construction with
a 90-100%, which is mentioned over 75% of total 37 respondents. Hybrid
constructions and volumetric constructions have mode values of on-site duration as
40-50%, which is the lowest and rated by over 80% of the respondents.

Over-lapping duration of of-site and on-site work is highest in panelised and sub-
assemblies constructions with a mode value of 40-50% .over 70% of the respondents
have mentioned it. Volumetric constructions and hybrid construction have over-
lapping time of 10-20% and tradition construction have 0-10% over-lapping duration,
which is rated by all respondents. Therefore over-lapping is highest in sub-assemblies
and panelised where it is lowest in traditional constructions.

64
Table 4.13: Component Construction Duration of Different Construction Methods

Frequency of
Construction mode values Mode
Method of Construction
Duration Percentage (%)
(%)
Volumetric constructions 78 60-70

Hybrid constructions 65 60-70

Off-site duration Panelised constructions 57 40-50

Sub-assemblies constructions 62 40-50

Traditional constructions 100 0-10

Volumetric constructions 81 40-50

Hybrid constructions 84 40-50

On-site duration Panelised constructions 41 90-100

Sub-assemblies constructions 86 90-100
Traditional constructions 100 90-100
Volumetric constructions 76 10-20

Over-lapping Hybrid constructions 84 10-20

duration of on-site Panelised constructions 70 40-50

and off-site work Sub-assemblies constructions 81 40-50
Traditional constructions 100 0-10

4.6.4 Safety

As found in previous heading 4.4 fourth rank of clients’ fundamental need was safety.
Respondents were ranked safety as overall safety and components of safety according
to the likert scale of “1”-Very Low and “5”-Very High.

Overall safety

Above Table 4.14 is quite revealing overall safety ranking of different construction
methods with weighted mean rating and response percentages. According to the Table
4.14 panelised constructions, hybrid construction and volumetric constructions has the

65
weighted mean rating over 4.000 and other two method have it less than 3.500. Among
them volumetric constructions has the highest weighted mean value with over 40% of
responses rate for “5”. Moreover, lowest weighted mean rating is with traditional
construction. Over 20% responses out of 37 responses for “2”, “3”, and “4”. Therefore,
ranking can be identified as volumetric construction at the highest place and after that
hybrid constructions, panelised constructions, sub-assemblies construction, and
traditional construction in 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

Table 4.14 : Overall Safety Of Different Construction Methods

Responses percentage (%) Weighted

Method of
Safety Mean
Construction
5 4 3 2 1 Rating

Volumetric
49 32 11 8 0 4.216
constructions
Hybrid
38 35 22 5 0 4.054
constructions
Panelised
Safety

35 32 30 5 0 4.054
constructions
Sub-assemblies
11 30 38 22 0 3.297
constructions
Traditional
16 22 30 24 8 3.135
constructions

Safety component comparison of off-site MMC

Components of safety were asked to mention under two main aspects, during
construction safety and after construction safety. During construction, safety was
included number of on-site accidents and number of off-site accidents during
constrictions. After construction, safety is measured by measuring safety of occupants.
Responses are marked by the respondents in a likert scale of “1”-Very Low and “5”-
Very High. The responses were used to calculate the weighted mean rating and
percentages of responses. They are given in the following Table 4.15.

66
Table 4.15: Component Safety of Different Construction Methods

Responses percentage (%) Weighted

Method of

Safety
Mean
Construction
5 4 3 2 1 Rating

Volumetric
46 27 16 3 8 4.000
Safety during construction (Nr of

constructions
Hybrid
16 43 19 6 5 3.486
off-site accidents)

constructions
Panelised
0 32 27 32 8 2.838
constructions
Sub-
assemblies 3 14 32 49 3 2.649
constructions
Traditional
3 3 3 22 70 1.459
constructions
Volumetric
16 8 16 11 49 2.324
Safety during construction (Nr of

constructions
Hybrid
3 19 24 38 16 2.541
on-site accidents)

constructions
Panelised
8 11 41 41 0 2.865
constructions
Sub-
assemblies 14 59 27 0 0 3.865
constructions
Traditional
30 41 22 3 5 3.865
constructions
Volumetric
construction (Safety of occupants)

49 38 14 0 0 4.351
constructions
Safety during operation

Hybrid
27 62 11 0 0 4.162
constructions
Panelised
30 57 14 0 0 4.162
constructions
Sub-
assemblies 38 19 41 3 0 3.919
constructions
Traditional
43 19 11 27 0 3.784
constructions

67
Respondents were opined on safety during construction under two heading number of
off-site accidents and number of on-site accidents. As shown in Table 4.15 number of
off-site accidents are highest in volumetric constructions where it has a weighted mean
rating of 4.000. Hybrid construction has the next highest weighted mean rate for off-
site accidents during construction. Moreover, panelised construction and sub-
assemblies construction has weighted mean ratings less than 3.000. Lowest rate is there
in traditional construction where over 70% has respond this methods number of off-
site accidents as in rate of “1”.

From the weighted mean ratings in the Table 4.15 number of on-site accidents, it is
apparent that traditional construction and sub-assemblies construction has the same
weighted mean rating of 3.865, which can be identified, as the highest level of number
of on-site accidents. All other three methods have weighted mean rating higher than
3.000. Nevertheless, volumetric construction has the lowest number of on-site
accidents rating of 2.324. Withal it can be seen through the Table 4.15 that over 40%
of the respondents were rated nr of on-site accidents as “1”. More than 35% of the
respondents have rated on-site accidents in hybrid construction as “2”. Over 40% of
the respondents have rated nr of on-site accidents as “4” and “3”. Similarly over 50%
and 40% of the respondents have rated sub-assemblies construction and traditional
construction as “2” respectively. Hence, on-site accidents are lowest in volumetric
construction and highest in traditional constructions.

The results ,as shown in Table 4.15 weighted mean rating of safety during operation ,
safety of occupants are highest in volumetric constructions where it has a weighted
rating of 4.351 and panelised and hybrid constructions also have more than 4.000
weighted mean rating. Which were rated as “4” over 55% of the respondents out of 37
respondents. Lowest safety of occupants are in sub-assemblies and traditional
constructions where they have less than 4.000 of weighted mean rating. Therefore
volumetric construction, hybrid construction, panelised constructions, sub-assemblies
construction, and traditional constructions can be ranked as 1, 2, 2, 4 and 5 respectively
in descending order.

68
4.6.5 Economy (cost) of the building

Under the ranked fundamental needs of client, economy or the cost of construction
was in the fifth place. Respondents have responded for the most appropriate method
in terms of economy according to the likert scale Very Low’ (1) to ‘Very High’ (5)
also for each cost component in 10-point percentage scale.

Overall cost

According to the likert scale, 1 to 5 weighted mean rating as and response percentage
under each rating is shown in following Table 4.16.

Table 4.16: Overall Construction Cost of Different Construction Methods

Weighted
Method of Responses percentage (%)
Cost

Mean
Construction
5 4 3 2 1 Rating
Volumetric
62 24 5 3 5 4.351
constructions

Hybrid
22 59 8 5 5 3.864
constructions

Panelised
Cost

14 49 19 19 0 3.567
constructions

Sub-assemblies
3 24 49 24 0 3.054
constructions

Traditional
11 8 22 49 11 2.594
constructions

As per the Table 4.16 above volumetric construction have the highest weighted mean
rating of 4.351 with 62 % of responses for rate “5”. Additionally hybrid constructions,
panelized constructions and sub-assemblies constructions have weighted mean rating
over 3.000 and traditional construction have weighted mean rating of 2.594 which is
the lowest with more than 40% rasponses for “2” rate. Therefore cost is lowest in
traditional construction and highest in volumetric constuctions while hybrid
constructions, panelised constructions and sub-assemblies constructions can be ranked
as 2,3 and 4 respectivly in descending order.

69
Cost component comparison of off-site MMC

Respondents were also answered in which percentage cost were allocated in

constructions. As shown in Table 4.17 below the mode value of off-site labour cost
percentage in total construction cost is within same limit in all construction methods.
Frequency of mode value percentage is over 85% in traditional, sub-assemblies and
panelised constructions.in hybrid construction it is 70% and in volumetric construction
it is 48%. Further in terms of on-site labour cost panelised constructions, sub-
assemblies and traditional constructions are in higher percentage range (20-30%) with
more than 60% responses from total responses of 37, while volumetric constructions
and hybrid construction has lower percentage range (0-10%).therefore in terms of on-
site labour cost volumetric and hybrid constructions are better.

In terms of Small plant, tools &equipment costs volumetric constructions, hybrid

constructions and panelised constructions has the lowest cost percentage range which
is between 0-10% which are having over 65% of responses from total responses and
sub-assemblies and traditional construction have the highest range 10-20%.

Strong evidence that has been found from the above Table 4.17 is transport cost,
rectification and rework cost and commissioning and testing cost are 0-10%, and
overhead cost have mode of 10-20% regardless of the construction method. Off-site
material cost is highest in volumetric construction where it is in a percentage range of
50-60% with 35.135% responses. Panelised constructions are holding the second
highest off-site material cost percentage range (20-30%) which has over 50% of
response percentage out of total Reponses. Withal hybrid constructions has it between
10-20%. Moreover, all the other methods have it in between 0-10%. Hence in terms of
off-site material cost traditional and sub-assemblies constructions has the lowest cost
percentage and hybrid constructions are in the second rank. Panelised construction and
volumetric constructions has the highest value, which holds the last ranks.

70
Table 4.17: Component Construction Cost of Different Construction Methods

Frequency of
Mode
Construction Cost Method of Construction Mode Values
(%)
Percentage (%)
Volumetric constructions 49 0-10

Hybrid constructions 70 0-10

Off-site labour cost Panelised constructions 89 0-10

Sub-assemblies constructions 89 0-10

Traditional constructions 89 0-10

Volumetric constructions 81 0-10
Hybrid constructions 43 10-20
On-site labour cost Panelised constructions 62 20-30
Sub-assemblies constructions 62 20-30
Traditional constructions 65 20-30
Sub-assemblies constructions 52 0-10
Traditional constructions 89 0-10
Off-site material
Hybrid constructions 46 10-20
cost
Panelised constructions 51 20-30
Volumetric constructions 35 50-60
Volumetric constructions 76 0-10
Hybrid constructions 35 30-40

On-site material cost Panelised constructions 49 30-40

Sub-assemblies constructions 49 40-50
Traditional constructions 38 50-60
Volumetric constructions 65 0-10
Hybrid constructions 78 0-10
Small plant, tools
Panelised constructions 92 0-10
&equipment costs
Sub-assemblies constructions 92 10-20
Traditional constructions 51 10-20

71
 Frequency of
Mode
Construction Cost Method of Construction Mode Values
(%)
Percentage (%)
Volumetric constructions 65 0-10
Transport, Hybrid constructions 78 0-10
distribution Panelised constructions 92 0-10
&installation cost Sub-assemblies constructions 92 0-10
Traditional constructions 89 0-10
Volumetric constructions 86 0-10
Hybrid constructions 81 0-10
Commission & test
Panelised constructions 89 0-10
costs
Sub-assemblies constructions 89 0-10
Traditional constructions 89 0-10
Volumetric constructions 41 0-10
Hybrid constructions 60 10-20
Overhead cost Panelised constructions 78 10-20
Sub-assemblies constructions 78 10-20
Traditional constructions 65 10-20
Volumetric constructions 86 0-10
Hybrid constructions 81 0-10
Package and storage
Panelised constructions 89 0-10
cost
Sub-assemblies constructions 89 0-10
Traditional constructions 95 0-10
Volumetric constructions 84 0-10
Hybrid constructions 81 0-10
Rectification &
Panelised constructions 86 0-10
rework cost
Sub-assemblies constructions 86 0-10
Traditional constructions 62 0-10

72
4.6.6 Running/maintenance cost

Sixth ranking of clients’ fundamental need was running / maintenance cost.

Running/maintenance cost which have been incurred in off-site MMC and traditional
constructions were marked by the respondents in a likert scale as Very Low’ (1) to
‘Very High’ (5). Weighted mean ratings and percentages of responses given under
each rate are presented in below Table 4.18.

Table 4.18: Running/Maintenance Cost of Different Construction Methods

Running/ Responses percentage (%) Weighted

Method of
Maintenance Mean
Construction
Cost 5 4 3 2 1 Rating

Volumetric
5 3 35 19 38 2.189
constructions
Running/ Maintenance Cost

Hybrid
5 5 49 32 8 2.676
constructions
Panelised
41 27 19 11 3 3.919
constructions
Sub-assemblies
5 41 24 30 0 3.216
constructions
Traditional
22 35 22 22 0 3.568
constructions

What is interesting in the above Table 4.18 weighted mean ratings and response
percentages is maintenance cost is lowest in volumetric constructions which is shown
as 2.189 weighted mean rating. Over 30% of the respondents have mention the rating
as “3” and “1”. Withal hybrid constructions are also have 2.676 weighted mean rate
which shows that it is lesser .Other methods panelised constructions, sub-assemblies
construction and traditional constructions have a high maintenance cost as the
weighted mean rating is higher which are higher than 3.000. However, panelised
constructions have the highest maintenance, cost as it has 3.919 weighted means rating
with over 40% of rate “5” responses. Therefore, the ranking order of construction
methods according to the maintenance cost is volumetric constructions, hybrid
constructions, sub-assemblies constructions, traditional constructions, and panelised
constructions respectively.

73
4.6.7 Flexibility to use

Last rank of clients’ fundamental need was flexibility to use. Respondents were asked
mark Flexibility to use each type of construction method in a likert scale Very Low’
(1) to ‘Very High’ (5). From those responses, weighted mean rating was calculated
and ranked in order to find the beast method in terms of flexibility to use. This is shown
in following Table 4.19 with response percentages of each rate.

Table 4.19: Flexibility to Use of Different Construction Methods

Weighted
Flexibility Method of Responses percentage (%)
Mean
to Use Construction
5 4 3 2 1 Rating
Volumetric
5 14 30 49 3 2.703
constructions
Hybrid
41 30 27 0 3 4.054
constructions
Panelised
Flexibility 46 46 8 0 0 4.378
constructions
to Use
Sub-
assemblies 11 46 38 5 0 3.622
constructions
Traditional
27 49 22 3 0 4.000
constructions

According to the Table 4.19 above panelised constructions, hybrid constructions and
traditional have the weighted mean rating over 4.000 ,which have the highest
flexibility to use which were rated as “4” or “5” over 40% of the respondents.
Additionally sub-assemblies and volumetric construction have weighted mean rating
lesser than 3.700 where volumetric constructions have the lowest flexibility to use with
over 45% of response percentage for “2”. Therefore, flexibility to use can be rank as
panelised constructions, hybrid constructions, traditional constructions, sub-
assemblies constructions and volumetric construction from rank 1 to 5 in descending
order.

74
4.7 Cost Comparison of Off-Site MMC with Actual Project Data

Under questionnaire II (APPENDIX B), former part respondents were asked to

mention the cost and time details of the selected projects, where they are occupied in.

4.7.1 Overall Cost comparison of off-site MMC

Table 4.20 depicts unit cost of the construction projects, which have used different
MMC and traditional construction methods. According to the Table 4.20, hybrid
constructions have the highest unit cost and volumetric constructions got the next
highest unit cost. The lowest unit cost is in panelised constructions. Traditional
constructions are in a middle point. Therefore, this concludes that in terms of cost
panelised constructions are better than all other off-site MMC and traditional
constructions.

4.7.2 Cost component comparison of off-site MMC

When considering about cost components (shown in Table 4.21) off-site material cost
is highest in Case A, volumetric constructions, which lays between 50%-60%, range.
Traditional constructions do not have off-site material cost. Off-site labour cost also
highest in Case A, volumetric constructions. It is between 0%-10% .The lowest off-
site labour cost is in traditional constructions which is 0%. On-site material cost is
highest in case J traditional constructions, which is between 50%-60%. The lowest on-
site material cost is in Case A, volumetric constructions which is in between 0%-5%.
Moreover, all other methods have on-site material cost between 30%-40%.

When considering about on-site labour, highest on-site labour cost is in Case K,
traditional constructions. Traditional constructions on-site cost is between 20%-30%
in all three cases. Lowest on-site cost percentage is in Case A, volumetric
constructions, which is between 0%-10 %. All other methods are having 0-10% on-
site labour cost, but the sub-assemblies on-site labour cost is 10%-20%.

In terms of plant and equipment cost all methods are having 0-10% but Case A, have
the highest plant and equipment cost percentage and traditional constructions have the
lowest. Moreover, all the construction methods are having less than 2% of cost for
commissioning and testing when total construction cost is taken as 100%. However,

75
Case E, panelised constructions have the highest value and Case J, traditional
constructions have the lowest value.

In additionally, cost percentage for package and storage, cost is also laid in between
0-10% in all construction methods but Case D and Case E, panelised constructions
have the highest value and Case J and Case L, traditional constructions have the lowest
value. Overhead cost percentage also varied in construction method Case I, K and L,
have the highest overhead cost, which are belong to traditional constructions and sub-
assemblies constructions. Moreover, lowest percentage is in Case A, volumetric
constructions. Furthermore, rework and rectification cost is 0% in most of the case in
Case A panelised construction it has come as 5%, which is the highest and Case G and
Case K have 1% and 0.4% respectively.

76
Table 4.20: Project Cost and Unit Costs of Selected Cases

Volumetric
Hybrid Construction Panelised constructions Sub-assemblies Constructions Traditional constructions
Construction
Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E Case F Case G Case H Case I Case J Case K Case L
cost (Rs.)
project
Total

15,515,387.00 5,000,000.00 3,100,000.00 15,584,465.46 1,907,403.96 6,427,580.00 2,543,225.16 38,678,793.55 28,200,000.00 37,435,810.03 8,965,278.33 11,000,000.00
floor area
Gross

(m2)

312 88.18 59.45 468 145 375 53.88 713.48 627 1031 265.7 278.7
Unit cost
(Rs./m2)

49728.80 56702.20 52144.66 33300.14 13154.51 17140.21 47201.65 54211.46 44976.08 36310.19 33742.11 39468.96

Table 4.21: Cost components comparison of selected cases

Volumetric Sub-assemblies
Hybrid Construction Panelised constructions Traditional constructions
Construction Constructions

Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E Case F Case G Case H Case I Case J Case K Case L
Off-site material cost 57.00% 29.50% 29% 25% 28% 28% 21% 21.51% 20.20% 0.00% 0% 0%

Off-site Labour cost 9.00% 5.40% 5% 4% 4% 5% 4% 1.26% 3% 0.00% 0% 0%

On-site material cost 5.00% 34.00% 36.60% 35% 38% 30% 38.50% 38.26% 36.70% 55.70% 51.30% 52%

On-site labour cost 7.00% 9.00% 9.80% 8% 10% 10% 14.10% 18.63% 16.30% 25.50% 28.60% 27.90%

Plant & equipment Cost 9.00% 8.00% 7% 8% 3% 5% 6.90% 5.20% 4.90% 2.60% 3% 3.40%

Transport & installation Cost 5.00% 4.60% 5.20% 3% 5% 10% 3% 3.14% 2.60% 0.90% 0.60% 1%

Commission & test Cost 1.00% 1.00% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0.50% 0.40% 1% 0.50%

Package & storage cost 1.00% 0.50% 0.40% 1% 2% 2% 0.50% 1% 0.80% 0.20% 0.10% 0.20%

Overhead cost 6.00% 8.00% 6% 10% 8% 9% 10% 10% 15% 14.80% 15% 15%

Rectification & rework cost 0.00% 0.00% 0% 5% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0.00% 0.40% 0%

77
Table 4.22: Project Duration and Unit Duration of Selected Cases
Volumetric
Hybrid Construction Panelised Constructions Sub-assemblies Constructions Traditional constructions
Construction
Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E Case F Case G Case H Case I Case J Case K Case L
Total project
60 30 21 120 30 75 21 240 247 420 120.00 120.00
duration (Days)
Gross floor area
312 88.18 59.45 468 145 375 53.88 713.48 627 1031 265.7 278.7
(m2)
Unit time
0.19230769 0.34021 0.35324 0.25641 0.2069 0.20 0.38976 0.33638 0.39394 0.40737 0.45164 0.43057
(Days./m2)

Table 4.23: Time Component Comparison of Selected Cases

Volumetric
Hybrid Construction Panelised constructions Sub-assemblies Constructions Traditional constructions
Construction
Case A Case B Case C Case D Case E Case F Case G Case H Case I Case J Case K Case L
Total project
60 30 21 120 30 75 21 240 247 420 120.00 120.00
duration (Days)
Off-site construction
58.33% 70.00% 66.67% 40.83% 46.67% 40.00% 47.62% 41.67% 48.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
duration
On-site construction
50.00% 46.67% 47.62% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
duration
Over-lapping
duration of on-site 8.33% 16.67% 14.29% 40.83% 46.67% 40.00% 47.62% 41.67% 48.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
and off-site work

78
4.8 Time Comparison of Off-Site MMC with Actual Project Data

Under questionnaire II (APPENDIX B), latter part respondents were asked to mention
the time details of the selected projects, where they are occupied in.

4.8.1 Overall time comparison of off-site MMC

According to the cases as shown in Table 4.22, Case A has the lowest (Days /m2) ratio.
It means the quickest method is volumetric constructions. Whereas the highest (Days
/m2) ratio is carried by Case K, traditional constructions. By analysing the above cases
it can be said that volumetric constructions has the lowest construction duration and
panelised and hybrid constructions are come next to the volumetric constructions
respectively. Moreover, Traditional constructions got the highest time consumption
and sub-assemblies as bit lesser than traditional constructions.

4.8.2 Overall time component comparison of off-site MMC

According to the Table 4.23, off-site duration is highest in Case C hybrid

constructions. The percentage is in between 60-70, in both the cases in hybrid
constructions. Moreover, lowest in Case J, K, L which are traditional constructions. It
is 0%. In Case A, volumetric constructions it is in between 50%-60%. As per Case D,
E and F, panelised construction and Case G, H, I, sub-assemblies constructions have
its off-site duration in between 40%-50%.

In additionally when considering about on-site construction duration it is 100% in all

panelised constructions, sub-assemblies constructions and traditional constructions, it
is lowest in hybrid constructions, Case B. Moreover, it is in between 40%-50% in
volumetric and hybrid constructions.

As identified in literature review one of the benefit of off-site MMC is less time
consumption due to high over-lapping time of off-site work and on-site work.
According to the Table 4.23, it clearly shows that all off-site MMC have over-lapping
duration. Case I, sub-assemblies constructions has the highest overlapping duration
(40-50%) and traditional constructions have the lowest overlapping duration (0%).

79
4.9 Comparison Questionnaire I and Questionnaire II Findings: Cost and Time

According to two outcomes came from questionnaire I and Questionnaire II it can be

identify some significant fact as described below.

Total project cost

According to questionnaire, I volumetric constructions have the highest cost while

traditional constructions have the lowest cost. Hybrid constructions panelised
constructions and sub-assemblies constructions are in 2, 3, 4, ranks respectively from
highest to lowest. One unanticipated finding was that in questionnaire II ,in actual
project scenarios it has found that hybrid constructions has the highest cost and
panelised constructions has the lowest cost while volumetric constructions, sub-
assemblies constructions and traditional constructions are in 2, 3,4 ranks.

Cost component comparison

According to the questionnaire I, it has been found that off-site labour cost is in the
same percentage range in all 5 construction methods that were compared. The range is
0-10%. In questionnaire II, it has found that off-site labour cost is highest in volumetric
construction which is in between 0-10% range of total construction cost and lowest
off-site labour cost is in traditional constructions which is 0% which also lays in 0-
10% range.

On-site labour cost is highest in traditional constructions, which is in between 20-30%

according to questionnaire survey I. Moreover lowest on-site cost is in volumetric and
hybrid constructions, which is in between 0-10% range. As found in questionnaire II
highest on –site labour cost is in traditional constructions which is in between 20-30%
same as in questionnaire I. Lowest construction cost is in volumetric constructions,
hybrid, and panelised construction, which is in between 0-10%. Therefore,
questionnaire I and II gives similar findings.

In additionally off-site material cost is highest in volumetric constructions, which is in

a range of 50-60%. Further, lowest off-site material cost is in between 0-10% in sub-
assemblies constructions, traditional constructions. As per questionnaire II, off-site
material cost is highest in volumetric constructions, which is in between 50-60% range,

80
same as in questionnaire I. Lowest is in traditional constructions, which is in between
0-10% range.

In terms of plant, tool & equipment costs questionnaire I has found that volumetric
constructions, hybrid constructions and panelised constructions have in between 0-
10%. Highest percentage is in sub-assemblies and traditional construction, which is in
between 10-20%. According to questionnaire II this is found to be same range 0-10%
in all construction methods but volumetric construction is in the highest rank. There is
a contradictory finding as questionnaire I and II does not have the same answer.

In questionnaire I, it has identified that commissioning and testing cost, overhead cost,
package and storage and rectification and rework cost all the methods are in same
range. Similarly, in questionnaire II also it has found the same ranges in all methods.

Total project duration

Under questionnaire I, it has found volumetric constructions have the lowest

construction duration while traditional constructions have the highest construction
duration. According to questionnaire survey II, volumetric constructions have the
lowest construction duration same as in questionnaire I. In additionally traditional
construction has the highest construction duration.

Time component comparison

According to questionnaire I, Off-site duration is lowest in traditional construction,

which is in 0-10% range and highest in volumetric constructions and hybrid
constructions, which is in 60-70% range. Through questionnaire, II it has found off-
site construction duration is highest in hybrid construction where it is 60-70%. In
addition, it is found to be lowest in traditional constructions, which can be, identified
as 0-10%. Therefore, both questionnaire I and questionnaire II have similar findings.

Further as per questionnaire I, on-site duration is highest in traditional constructions,

sub-assemblies and panelised constructions, which is in 90-100% range. On-site
duration is lowest in hybrid and volumetric constructions, which is in 40-50% range.
According to questionnaire II on –site, duration is highest in panelised sub-assemblies
and traditional constructions, which is 100% (90-100% range). In addition, it is lowest

81
in volumetric and hybrid construction, which is identified as 40-50%. Hence, results
of questionnaire I and II are tallying each other.

According to questionnaire I, over-lapping duration is highest in sub-assemblies and

panelised constructions, which is in 40-50% range and lowest in traditional
constructions, which is 0-10%. As per questionnaire II, sub-assemblies have the
highest over-lapping duration while traditional constructions has the lowest over-
lapping duration, which is tallying with questionnaire I findings.

4.10 Summary

This chapter provides a detailed finding, which have been gathered throughout the
research. According to questionnaire survey I results it has found in Sri Lankan
construction industry all four off-site MMC are been using. Further, all the
construction methods are used in every sector but the level of usage is different
according to the construction method. Moreover, barriers such as poor awareness,
public perception, affect all the off-site construction methods mostly. Further clients’
fundamental needs can be ranked in priority order as quality, functionality, time,
safety, economy, running/ maintenance cost and flexibility to use. Withal, in terms of
quality, panelised construction has the highest rank and in terms of functionality sub-
assemblies found to be the most preferred off-site modern method. When considering
time volumetric constructions are found to be in the first rank and this validated from
questionnaire II findings. In additionally, in terms of safety volumetric constructions
are found to be the first rank. In terms of construction cost, it is found sub-assemblies
constructions are most appropriate but from the findings of questionnaire survey II it
has found hybrid construction as the most economical off-site MMC rather than
traditional constructions. With the limitation and questionnaire survey II, and because
of has higher number of respondents in questionnaire II, sub-assemblies constructions
is preferred to use. Furthermore, in terms of running / maintenance, cost volumetric
constructions are most preferred and in terms of need of flexibility to use, it is highest
in panelised constructions.

82
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Introduction

Preceding chapter is about data analysis and findings. This chapter directs on
generating conclusions from findings and analysis of the anterior chapter.
Furthermore, this chapter focuses to provide recommendation for the most applicable
off-site MMC for Sri Lankan context in terms of construction clients’ fundamental
needs. Under the conclusion, it provides how each objective was achieved and what
were the findings on each objective. Recommendations propose the best and
appropriate off-site MMC to be used according to each clients’ fundamental need. In
addition, it outlines the limitations of the research as well as the directions for further
research.

5.2 Conclusions

In conclusion, methodology and findings under each objective can be presented as

follows.

Objective 1 - To review the off-site modern methods of construction used

worldwide and their performance in satisfying clients’ needs

First objective of this study has been achieved through the literature survey, chapter
two of this research. It has been found that there are mainly four off-site MMC, which
are used worldwide in construction industry. Those can be named as volumetric
constructions, hybrid constructions, panelised constructions and sub-assemblies
constructions. It has been found that those four methods of off-site MMC are practicing
in all building sectors throughout the world. Further barriers such as poor awareness,
public perception, logistical issues, cost, poor technology, and capacity of the industry
are affecting off-site MMC when using it in construction industry. In additionally
through literature it has been identified the clients’ fundamental needs as functionality,
completion time, economy (cost of project), safety of construction,

83
running/maintenance cost and flexibility in use which can be satisfied more
efficaciously through at least one of those off-site MMC which have been identified.

Objective 2 - To identify off-site modern methods of construction used in current

Sri Lankan construction industry and to ascertain the available applications of
off-site MMC among different sectors and different building types

Second objective of the reach has been accomplished through finding of questionnaire
survey I (refer pages 40-52). Identification of off-site MMC currently practicing in Sri
Lanka and applicability of each method is analysed through statistical analysis using
percentages. Under literature survey, it has been found that there are four major off-
site MMC are practicing throughout the world. Under chapter four findings, it
emphases that all the four methods which have been found through the literature
survey are also used in Sri Lankan construction industry. They can be listed as
volumetric constructions, hybrid constructions, panelised constructions and sub-
assemblies constructions. Moreover, it has been identified that the applicability is
limited to certain sectors of the industry. Volumetric constructions are mostly applied
in other buildings sector and significantly used in residential and commercial building
sectors. Applicability can be seen in single storey as well as 2-12 storey buildings. In
other building sector, volumetric constructions have been used for site offices, site
accommodation, labour units accommodations, stores, military buildings, exhibition
stalls, and checkpoints. Hybrid constructions are mostly practiced in other buildings
and office building sector and it has a significant applicability in commercial and
residential building sector. Hybrid constructions are used in single storey and 2-12
storey buildings in commercial, residential, and other buildings. In other building
sector, hybrid constructions are used in site offices, accommodation buildings, mobile
toilets, stoles, military buildings, mobile entertainment centres and check points.
Moreover, panelised constructions are highly used in industrial and other building
sectors and it has a significant usage in commercial and office building sectors. In
additionally, panelised constructions are practising in single story, 2-12 storey, as well
as 12 and more than 12 storey buildings. Nevertheless, the applicability in other
building sector is limited to single and 2-12 storey buildings. In industrial building
sector, panelised constructions are used in factory, warehouses and research centres.

84
Panelised other buildings are used in transit houses, site office, labour accommodation,
temporary sheds, military buildings, exhibition stalls, check pints and entertainment
centres. Sub-assemblies constructions are mostly used in commercial and office
building sector while having a significant applicability in residential and industrial
building sectors. Sub-assemblies are currently practicing in single storey, 2-12 storey
and more than 12 storey commercial and office buildings. In office, building sector
sub-assemblies are used in banks, office complex, project offices, and government
office buildings.
Objective 3 -To explore barriers and challenges of off-site MMC applied in Sri
Lankan context

Third objective of the research was accomplished through questionnaire survey I

findings, which were stated in chapter four (refer pages 52-55). Using statistical
analysis, percentages analysis has been done. It has been found out the barriers acting
on each off-site MMC. Key barriers in implementing volumetric construction were
identified as public perception and poor awareness on the construction method. Major
barriers in implementing hybrid constructions was found as poor awareness and public
perception. Moreover, panelised constructions were also limited because of poor
awareness among Sri Lankans and public perception. Sub-assemblies constructions
were also limited in Sri Lankan construction industry due to the reason of poor
awareness and public perception. Therefore, the major challenges in off-site MMC
implementation was poor awareness among the Sri Lankans and public perception
about modern construction methods.

Objective 4 - To identify construction client’s fundamental needs

Forth objective of this study has been achieved through the questionnaire survey I
finding which are in chapter, four (refer pages 55-56) of this research. Data was
analysed by using statistical analysis techniques such as weighted mean rating,
percentages, and mode values. It has been found that clients’ main fundamental need
as quality of the building project and in descending order functionality, time, safety,
economy, running/maintenance cost, and flexibility to use are the fundamental needs

85
Objective 5 -To evaluate off-site MMC used in Sri Lanka based on satisfaction of
clients’ fundamental needs.

Third objective of the research was accomplished through questionnaire survey I and
II findings, which were stated in chapter four (refer pages 56-80). Finding of
questionnaire I was statically analysed using weighted mean values, mode, and
percentages. It was found that in terms of overall quality panelised constructions,
volumetric constructions, hybrid constructions, sub-assemblies, and traditional
constructions got the ascending ranks. Moreover, in terms of during construction
defects, during construction environmental efficiency and after construction
workmanship is highest in volumetric construction while health and safety, and
environmental impact after construction is higher in panelised constructions.
Traditional constructions have a higher customer satisfaction. In additionally, when
functionality of the building is considered traditional, construction have a higher
functionality than off-site MMC. From off-site MMC sub-assemblies has the highest
functionality. Lowest functionality is in volumetric constructions. In terms of off-site
safety volumetric is in the heist satisfaction position and after that hybrid constructions
and panelised constructions has the highest safety satisfaction. The lowest safety is in
traditional constructions and sub-assemblies are in the fourth position. In terms of
safety components nr of off-site accidents are lowest in traditional constructions, while
nr of on-site accidents are lowest in volumetric constructions. Simultaneously safety
of occupants is heist in volumetric constructions. When considering about
maintenance/ running cost lowest cost, it is lowest in volumetric constructions and it
is highest in traditional constructions. Hybrid constructions, panelised constructions,
and sub-assemblies are in 2, 3, 4, ranks respectively. In terms of flexibility to use, it is
highest in panelised constructions while lowest in traditional constructions.

Finding of questionnaire survey II is statistically analysed by using unit cost and unit
time equations. In terms of overall cost panelised constructions has got the lowest unit
cost but according to questionnaire I, it has found sub –assemblies are the lowest cost
off-site MMC. Two results are not tallying. Even though case study is giving real
situations, number of cases are less. Sub-assemblies is more considerable as it has a
higher response rate in questionnaire survey I. In terms of time, questionnaire I and II

86
has the same answer, which make highly validate. Volumetric constructions have the
lowest time and traditional constructions requires highest time to complete the
projects.

Accordingly, the aim of the research, identifying the most appropriate off-site MMC
in terms of clients’ needs was achieved through the accomplishment of each objective.

5.3 Recommendations

This research has made visible the fact off-site MMC can be used in Sri Lankan
construction industry in terms of fulfilling clients’ fundamental needs totally, as
construction industry client is mostly affected with the barriers of traditional
constructions. For that problem in line with the conclusion, this research propose the
following:

General construction client, who’s primarily concern about quality of the building
construction, shall be provided with panelised construction for his/her construction
work and he/she shall be avoided from traditional constructions, as it will made the
client unsatisfied.

In exceptional case if, a construction client concerned functionality most he/she should
be provided with traditional constructions or sub-assemblies if the client is to avoid
traditional constructions’ demerits. Meanwhile the client shall be avoided from using
volumetric constructions. If a client is concerning time as his first choice then it is
recommended to use volumetric constructions and avoid from using traditional
constructions. Moreover, in a case where client is concerning safety as his/her primary
concern using volumetric construction is the best option. If a client concern about
economy mostly then the client shall be provided with traditional construction.
Nevertheless, if is concern about barriers in traditional constructions then as an off-
site MMC sub-assemblies is the best method to use. Withal client should be avoided
from using volumetric constructions. If there, is an exceptional case as clients primary
need is running /maintenance cost it is recommended to use volumetric constructions
and avoided from using panelised constructions. In additionally if the client is
concerning more on flexibility to use then he should be provided with panelised
constructions and avoided from using volumetric constructions.

87
5.4 Limitations of the study

While carrying out the research it has found that cost and time data of actually
completed off-site MMC used projects (specially volumetric and hybrid construction
projects) are not exposed by certain companies as there are only limited number of
companies in Sri Lanka who are involving in this construction methods. Therefore,
single case was found from volumetric constructions and two cases from hybrid
constructions. This made difficulties in validating the research findings in
questionnaire I. Moreover, before data collection stage this research was focused to
collect case study data through documentary survey. Nevertheless, with the practical
difficulties such as not providing documents for our review made the research to
replace the document survey with open-ended questionnaire survey (questionnaire
survey II).Similarly limited time and lack of professionals who have worked in off-
site MMC used projects made the sample size limited.

5.5 Further Research Directions

 Similar study can be carried out in detailed only by considering completed off-
site MMC used projects with actual data.
 Finding a suitable method to overcome barriers and challenges face by each
off-site MMC.
 In depth, study can be carried out with off-site MMC on its quality performance
using practical scenarios.

88
REFERENCES
Adams, J., Khan, H. T., Raeside, R., & White, D. (2007). Research methods for
graduate bussiness and social science strudents (1st ed.). New Delhi: Vivek
Mehra.

Al-Hajj , A., & Horner, M. W. (1998). Modelling the running costs of buildings.
Construction Management and Economics, 14(4), 459-470. doi:10.1080
/014461998372231

Anderson , G., & Arsenault, N. (2005). Fundamentals of educational research (2nd

ed.). Penncilvenia: The falmer press. Retrieved from https://books.google
.lk/books?isbn=0750708573

Blismas, N. (2007). Off-site manufacture in Australia: Current state and future

directions (1st ed.). Qld: Cooperative Research Centre for Construction
Innovation for Icon.Net Pty Ltd. Retrieved from https://researchbank.
rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:2879/Off-site_manufacture_in_Australia_1_.pdf

Blismas, N., Pasquire , C., & Gibb, A. (2006). Benefit evaluation for off‐site
production in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 24(2),
121-130. doi:10.1080/01446190500184444

Bourn, J. (2004). Improving health and safety in the construction industry. London:
National Audit Office. Retrieved from http://www.nao.org.uk

Bowen, P., Hall, K., Edwards, P., Pearl, R., & Cattell, K. (2010). Perception of
time,cost and quaility mangement on building projects. The Austrailian
Journal Of Construction Economics and Building, 2(2), 48-56. Retrieved from
http://www.icoste.org/ICMJ%20Papers/AJCEBVol2No2Bowen.pdf

Boyd, N., Khalfan, M. M., & Maqsood, T. (2013). Off-site construction of apartment
buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 19(1), 51-57. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000091

89
Building Green. (2003, February 1). Future-proofing your building: designing for
flexibility and adaptive reuse. Environmental building news, 12(2). Retrieved
from https://www2.buildinggreen.com/article/future-proofing-your-building-
designing-flexibility-and-adaptive-reuse

Burwood, S., & Jess, P. (2005). Modern methods of construction :evolution or

revolution ? Retrieved from British Urban Regeneration Association:
http://www.buildicf.co.uk/pdfs/1%20mmc%20evolution%20or%20revolution
%20%20paper.pdf

Chan , A. P., & Chan, A. P. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring
construction success. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(2), 203 -
221. doi:org/10.1108/14637150410559225

Chiang , Y., Chan, E., & Leung, K. (2004). Prefabrication and barriers to entry—a
case study of public housing andinstitutional buildings in Hong Kong. Habitat
International, 30(3), 482-499. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.12.004

Chinyio, E. A., Olomolaiye , P. O., & Corbett, P. (1998). An evaluation of the project
needs of UK building clients. International Journal of Project Management ,
16(6), 385-391. Retrieved from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0263786398000015/1-
s2.0-S0263786398000015-main.pdf?_tid=7eac977c-9d8c-11e5-9e2e-00000a
acb360&acdnat=1449566425_fa36f3da15cc067a796449b3d7b01adc

Chlnylo, E. A., Olomolalye, P. O., & Corbett, P. (1998). QUANTIRCATION OF

CONSTRUCTION CLIENTS' NEEDS THROUGH PAIRED
COMPARISONS. Journal of Management in Engineering, 14(1), 87-92. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X

Doherty, T. (2011). Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) & Eco- Building.

Lenders' house building confrence , (pp. 1-33). London.

Dursun, O., & Stoy, C. (2011). Time–cost relationship of building projects: statistical
adequacy of categorization with respect to project location. Construction
management and economics, 29(1), 97-106. doi:10.1080/01446193
.2010.528437

90
Esteves, J., & Pastor, J. (2004). Using a Multimethod Approach to Research Enterprise
Systems Implementations. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods
Volume 2 Issue 2 2004 (69-82), 2(2), 69-82. Retrieved from http://www
.ejbrm.com

Fawcett, R., & Allison, K. (2005). Using modern methods of construction to build
homes more quickly and efficiently. London: National Audit Office.

Fawcett, R., & Revill, H. (2007). Homebuilding: Measuring Construction

Performance. London: National Audit Office. Retrieved from http://www.
nao.org.uk

Fellows, R., & Liu, A. (2008). Research methods for construction (3rd ed.). United
Kingdom: Wiley.

Flick, U. (2011). Introdicing Research Methodology (1st ed.). London : SAGE

publications . Retrieved from https://books.google.lk/books?id=-EeXiLAi4Tg
C&printsec=frontcover&dq=what+is+research+methodology&hl=en&sa=X
&ved=0ahUKEwi61pndqMnJAhUOBY4KHRASBqIQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepa
ge&q=what%20is%20research%20methodology&f=false

Gibb, A. G. (1999). Off-site fabrication: prefabrication, pre-assembly and

modularisation. Whittles, Caithness: John Wiley & Sons publishers. Retrieved
from https://books.google.lk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uTiN_aGtXzwC&oi=f
nd&pg=PR13&ots=QQrFXMGZnm&sig=mSi8zJsetWle0UwK7zPu93CSfwc
&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Gibb, A., & Isack, F. (2003). Re-engineering through pre-assembly: client

expectations and drivers. Building Research and Information, 31(2), 146-160.
doi:10.1080/09613210302000

Goodier, C. I., & Gibb, A. G. (2005). Barriers and opportunities for offsite in the UK.
Systematic Innovation in the Management of Project and Processes, 12(2),
148-158. Retrieved from tps://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/5451

91
Goodier, C., Gibb, A., & Pendlebury, M. (2013). Buildoffsite glossary and terms.
London: Construction Industry Research & Information Association (CIRIA).
Retrieved from http://www.buildoffsite.com/content/uploads/2015/03/BoS-
Glossary-of-terms-2013-web.pdf

Goulding , J., Nadim , W., Petridis , P., & Alshawi, M. (2012). Construction industry
offsite production:A vitual reality interactive training environment prototype.
Advanced Engineering Information, 26(1), 103-116. doi:10.1080
/01446190903002797

Gouldinga , J., Rahimiana, F. P., Arifb , M., & Sharp, M. (2014). New offsite
production and business models in construction: priorities for the future
research agenda. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 11(3),
163-184. doi:10.1080/17452007.2014.891501

Gruneberg, S. (1997). Construction economics: an introduction (1st ed.). London:

Macmillan Press.

Hampson , K., & Brandon, P. (2004). Construction 2020: a vision for Australia's
property and construction industry . Brisbarn : Coperative research centre for
construction innovation . Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.
au/40762/1/40762.pdf

Hook, M. (2008). Lean culture in industrialized housing. Retrieved from

http://www.hallbarahus.se/download/18.6d96946b127b1c6010c80007139/13
61893766226/Lean+Culture.pdf

Jaillona , L., & Poona, C. (2008). Sustainable construction aspects of using

prefabrication in dense urban environment: a Hong Kong case study.
Construction Management and Economics, 26(9), 953-966. doi:10.
1080/01446190802259043

Jenkins, N. (2010). A project management primer: basic principles - scope triangle.

Retrieved from projectsmart: http://cdn.projectsmart.co.uk/pdf/project-
management-scope-triangle.pdf

92
Johnsson, H., & Meiling, J. H. (2010, July 27). Defects in offsite construction: timber
module prefabrication. Construction Management and Economics, 27(7), 667–
681. doi:10.1080/01446190903002797

Josephson, P.-E., Larsson , B., & Li, H. (2002). Illustrative benchmarking rework and
rework costs in Swedish construction industry. Journal of Management
Engineering, 12(2), 76-83. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2002)18:2(76)

Kamar, K. A., Alshawi, M., & Hamid , Z. (2009). Barriers to industrialised building
systems: the case of Malaysia. Proceedings of BuHu 9th International
Postgraduate Research Conference (IPGRC 2009) (pp. 1-16). Salford: The
University of Salford. Retrieved from http://www.vertilite.asia/
f/2012/11/Barriers-of-IBS.pdf

Kamara , J., Anumba, C., & Evbuomwan, N. (2002). Capturing client requirements in
construction projects. (1st, Ed.) London: Thomas Teford publishing. Retrieved
from https://books.google.lk/books?id=d95fbGGyhPcC&printsec=frontcover
#v=onepage&q&f=false
Kometa, S. T., Olomolaiye, P. O., & Harris, F. C. (1995). An evaluation of clients'
needs and responsibilities in the construction process. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 2(1), 57-76. doi:10.1108/eb021
003
Kothari , C. (2004). Research methodology methods and tecniques (2nd ed.). Jairpur:
New age international (P) Ltd. Retrieved from https://books.
google.lk/books?id=8c6gkbKi-F4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=research+
methodology&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FDWaVclCzJW4BIiIg9AG&ved=0CBwQ6
AEwAA#v=onepage&q=research%20methodology&f=false

Kumar, R. (2009). Rearch Methodology :A step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd ed.).
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Kyjakova, L., Mandicak , T., & Mesaros , P. (2014). Modern methods of construction
and their components. Journal of Engineering and Architecture, 2(1), 27-35.
Retrieved from www.aripd.org/jea

Lawson , R. M., Ogden , R. G., & Bergin , R. (2012). Application of modular

construction in high-rise buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 148-
154. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000057.

93
Lovell, H. (2012). Modern methods of construction. In Lovell.H, International
encyclopidia of housing and home (pp. 312-316). Edinburgh: Elsevier.
doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-047163-1.00588-9

Mapston , M., & Westbrook, C. (2010). Prefabricated building units and modern
methods of construction (MMC). In Materials for Energy Efficiency and
Thermal Comfort in Buildings (pp. 427-454). United Kingdom : Woodhead
Publishing Limited. doi:10.1533/9781845699277.2.427

Martinez, S., Jardon , A., Navarro , J. M., & Gonzalez, P. (2008). Building
industrialization: robotized assembly of modular products. Assembly
Automation, 28(2), 134 - 142. doi:org/10.1108/01445150810863716

Mostafa, S., Chileshe, N., & Zuo, J. (2014). A synergistic supply chain enhancing
offsite manufacturing uptake in Australian house building. Proceedings of 30th
Annual ARCOM Conference (pp. 1143-1152.). Portsmouth: Association of
Researchers in.

Mujagic, J. U., Dolan, J. D., Ekwueme, G. C., Fanella, D. A., & LaBoube, R. A.
(2012). structural desighn in low-rise buildings (2nd ed.). United State:
McGrave hills companies. Retrieved from https://books.google.lk/books?
id=qUi23qJo3OcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=low+rise+building&hl=en&sa=
X&ved=0ahUKEwiyjOfo6tDJAhXJj44KHRvpBhEQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage
&q=low%20rise%20building&f=false

Nadim, W., & Goulding , J. S. (2010). Offsite production in the UK:the way foward?
a UK construction industry perspective. Construction Innovation, 10(2), 181-
202. doi:org/10.1108/14714171011037183

Nadim, W., & Goulding, J. S. (2009). Offsite production in the UK: the construction
industry and academia. Architectural Engineering and Design Management,
5(3), 136-152. doi:10.3763/aedm.2008.0094

Niglas, K. (2000). Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. European

Conference on Educational Research (pp. 20-23). Edinburgh: Education line .
Retrieved from Education-line : http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents
/00001544.htm

94
NZ Stat. (2014). Implementing classification and other changes to building consent
statistics. Wellington: Statistics House. Retrieved from http://www.stats.
govt.nz/about_us/contact-us.aspx

Ogunisemi, D., & Jagboro, G. (2006). Time-cost model for building projects in
Nigeria. Construction Management and Economics, 24(1), 253–258. doi:
10.1080/01446190500521041

Pan , W., Gibb , A. G., & Dainty, A. R. (2008). Leading UK housebuilders' utilization
of offsite. Building Research & Information, 36(1), 56–67. doi:10.1080
/09613210701204013

Pan , W., Gibb, A. G., & Dainty, A. R. (2007). Perspectives of UK housebuilders on

the use of offsite modern methods of construction. Construction Management
and Economics, 25, 183-194. doi:10.1080/01446190600827058

Pan, W., & Goodier, C. (2012). House-Building Business Models and Off-Site
Construction Take-Up. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 84-93.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000058

Pan, W., Gibb, A. G., & Dainty, A. R. (2012). Strategies for integrating the use of off-
site production technologies in house building. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 138(11), 1331-1340. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0000544

Parlimentary Office of Science and Tecnology (POST). (2003). Modern Methods of

House Building. London: Parliamentary. Retrieved from http://www.
parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn209.pdf

Pasquire, C., Gibb , A., & Blismas, N. (2004). Off-site production: evaluating the
drivers and constraints. In 12th Annual Conference International Group for
Lean Construction,(IGLC12), (pp. 3-5). Helsingor,Denmark .

Piroozfar, P. A., Altan , H., & Larsen, O. P. (2012). Design for sustainability: A
comparative study of a customized modern method of construction versus
conventional methods of construction. Architectural Engineering and Design
Management, 8, 55-75. doi:10.1080/17452007.2012.650935

95
Rahman, M. M. (2014). Barriers of implementing modern methods of construction.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(1), 69-77. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME
.1943-5479.0000173.

Ross, K., Cartwright, P., & Novakovic, O. (2006). A guide to modern methods of
construction. Amersham: IHS BRE Press.

Roy , R., Brown , J., & Gaze , C. (2010). Re-engineering the construction process in
the speculative house-building sector. Construction Management and
Economics, 21, 137–146. doi: 10.1080/0144619032000049674

Sarden , Y., & Engstrom, S. (2010). Modern methods of construction: A solution for
an industry characterized by uncertainity? Proceedings of 26th Annual
ARCOM Conference (pp. 1101-1110.). Egbu: Association of Researchers in
Construction Management. Retrieved from https://pure.ltu.se/portal/files
/33569949/Sarden_and_Engstroem.pdf

Stone, P. (1983). Building economy design, production and organisation: a synoptic

view (3rd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Tan, W. (2002). Practical research methods (1st ed.). Jurong: Prentice Hall.

Taylor, M. D. (2010). A definition and valuation of the UK offsite construction sector.

Construction Management and Economics, 28(2), 885-896. doi:10.1080
/01446193.2010.480976

Technology Strategy Board. (2009). Be aware: Supply chain resource efficiency.

London: Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Retrieved from
http://www.berr.gov.uk/dius/innovation/technologystrategyboard/page40217.
html

Teddlie , C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundation of mixed mthods research (1st ed.).
Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications Ltd.

96
The Modular Building Institute. (2010). Improving construction efficiency &
productivity with modular construction. Charlottesville: The Modular Building
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.modular.org/marketing/documents
/Whitepaper_ImprovingConstructionEfficiency.pdf

Venables, T., Barlow, J., & Gann, D. (2004). Manufacturing excellence:UK capacity
in offsite manufacturing. London: Innovation Studies Centre.
doi:http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/pls/portallive/docs/1/40873.PDF

Ward, S., & Chapman, C. (2003). Transforming project risk management into project.
International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 97–105. doi:10.1016/
S0263-7863(01)00080-1

Warszawski, A. (1999). Industrialized and automated building systems: a managerial

approach (2nd ed.). Oxford: Taylor and francis.

Wood products council. (2014). Putting the Pieces Together. Wood works. Retrieved
from www.zetacommunities.com/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=207742

wrap. (2007). Current practices and future potential in modern methods of

construction. Oxon: Waste & resources action programme. Retrieved from
http://www.modular.org/marketing/documents/WRAP_ModernMethodsCons
truction_Report.pdf

Yin , R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE .

Zhaia , X., Reeda , R., & Millsb, A. (2013). Factors impeding the offsite production of
housing construction in China: an investigation of current practice.
Construction Management and Economics, 32(2), 40-52.
doi:10.1080/01446193.2013.787491

97
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE I
Department of Building Economics,
University of Moratuwa,
Moratuwa.
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
Dear Sir / Madam,
Regarding Dissertation – B.Sc. (Hons) Degree in Quantity Surveying
I am an undergraduate of the Department of Building Economics at University of Moratuwa
following B.Sc. (Hons) in Quantity Surveying degree programme. I am conducting a research
under the supervision on ‘most appropriate off-site Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)
for Sri Lankan context. MMC are construction methods that provide efficient and effective
process of implementing construction activities with the use of pre-fabricated item .and off-site
MMC are components, which are manufactured in a factory and transported to the site to
assembly.

Most Sri Lankans are not aware about this concept. Therefore, this research focuses on finding
the most suitable off-site MMC for Sri Lanka. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could allow
me to obtain your opinion under the attached guidelines. Any confidential information related
to your organization project will be not disclosed in this report or any other document relating
to this study. The information provided will be treated with strict confidence.
Thank you,
Final year undergraduate, Senior Lecturer,
Department of Building Economics, Department of Building Economics,
University of Moratuwa. University of Moratuwa.

98
Guidelines

Please go through the following guideline before attempting to fill-in the questionnaire in
order to assist you and make yourself comfortable to understand.

 It is not compulsory for you to disclose your name and /or the name of the organization you
are attached to .It is at your discretion to give such information.
 Please try to give a genuine opinion when selecting answer for the questions irrespective of
personal biasness.
 In order to clarify ambiguous/less familiar terms relating to this research, a glossary of key
words and their meanings are listed below.
Modern Methods of Constructions

Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) are methods which provide efficient and effective
process of implementing construction activities with the use of prefabricated item.

Off-site modern methods of construction are components which are manufactured in a

factory and transported to the site to assembly.

Volumetric constructions can be categorized in to two categories, modular building and pod
constructions.

Modular construction comprises prefabricated room-sized volumetric units that are normally
fully fitted out in manufacture and are installed on-site as load-bearing “building blocks”

Pods are referred to as small volumetric rooms which are completed of construction using light
steel frame (LSF), timber, concrete or glassed reinforced plastic.

Hybrid constructions are integration of volumetric units and panelized systems.

Panelized constructions are Flat panel units which are built in a factory and transported to site
for assembly into a three- dimensional structure or to fit within an existing structure.

Sub-assemblies and accessories system include larger components that can be incorporated
into either conventionally built or MMC dwellings

Client’s fundamental needs

Function- This refers to the intended use of the project.

99
Safety - This embraces two concepts: safety of the project during construction and safety
during its operating life.

Economy (cost) - The project must be of least cost. Clients want to spend as little as possible
to satisfy their needs.

Running/maintenance cost – This refers to cost during the operating life of the project.

Flexible to use -. This refers to the adaptation of the building to different uses as the need may
arise.

Time - This refers to the time available for the completion of the project

Quality - This refers to conformance of established requirements. A building either does or

does not meet the requirements.

100
Details of the Respondent
1. Name (optional)
2. Name of the organization
employed to (optional)
3. Designation
4. Type of Organization
5. Experience in pre-fabricated
constructions sector
: ………………………………………………………..
: ………………………………………………………..
: ………………………………………………………..
:  Contractor
 Consultant
:  Less than 5 years
 5 to 10 years
 More than 10 years
101
Questionnaire fill-up

1. Please indicate in which sector following off-site MMC are currently practiced in Sri
Lankan construction industry?
[Place a ‘x’ in the check box (Eg:)]

Temporary buildings
Commercial
Residential

Industrial

Offices

Other
Volumetric Constructions

Hybrid constructions

Panelized constructions

Sub-assemblies

2. Please indicate in which scale off-site MMC are mostly practiced in?
Place a ‘x’ in the check box (Eg: )
More than 12 stories
Single Storey

2-12 Storey

Residential
Commercial
Volumetric Constructions Industrial
Offices
Other building

102
 More than 12 stories
Single Storey

2-12 Storey
Residential
Commercial
Hybrid Constructions Industrial
Offices
Other building
Residential
Commercial
Panelized Construction Industrial
Offices
Other building
Residential
Commercial
Sub-assemblies Industrial
Offices
Other building
3. In which type of buildings of each sector off-site MMC are mostly used in?
(Eg: Residential: houses, apartments)

Residential
Volumetric Constructions

Commercial

Industrial

Offices

Other building

103
 Residential

Hybrid Constructions
Commercial

Industrial

Offices

Other building

Residential
Panelized Construction

Commercial

Industrial

Offices

Other building

Residential

Commercial
Sub-assemblies

Industrial

Offices

Other building

104
4. Please indicate what are the key barriers in implementing those off-site MMC methods
in Sri Lanka?
Place a ‘x’ in the check box (Eg:)

Volumetric Constructions

Panelised Construction
Hybrid Constructions

Sub-assemblies
Cost
Public perception
Poor awareness
Poor technology
Capacity of the industry

5. Please indicate the fundamental needs of clients that must be satisfied by all building
projects.
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = bottom mark and 5 = top mark, what level of importance
will you attach to each need.
Functionality 1 2 3 4 5

Safety 1 2 3 4 5

Quality 1 2 3 4 5

Time 1 2 3 4 5

Economy (cost) 1 2 3 4 5

Running/maintenance cost 1 2 3 4 5

Flexibility to use 1 2 3 4 5

105
6. Please indicate the most preferred off-site MMC in terms of following categories.
[1-Very low; 5- Very high]

Functionality
Volumetric constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Hybrid constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Functionality Panelized constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Sub-assemblies 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Flexibility to use
Volumetric constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Hybrid constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Flexibility to use Panelized constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Sub-assemblies 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Running/Maintenance cost
Volumetric constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Hybrid constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Running/Maintenance
Panelized constructions 1 2 3 4 5
cost
Sub-assemblies 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Safety

Volumetric constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Hybrid constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Overall safety
Safety

Panelized constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Sub-assemblies 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional constructions 1 2 3 4 5

106
 Volumetric constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Nr of off-site accidents
Hybrid constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Panelized constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Safety During construction

Sub-assemblies 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Volumetric constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Nr of on-site accidents

Hybrid constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Panelized constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Sub-assemblies 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Volumetric constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Safety during operational

Safety of occupants

Hybrid constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Panelized constructions 1 2 3 4 5
life

Sub-assemblies 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Quality

Volumetric Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Overall Quality

Hybrid Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Quality Panelized Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Sub-assemblies Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Volumetric Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Hybrid Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Defects

During Construction Panelized Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Sub-assemblies Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Traditional Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

107
 Volumetric Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Health and Safety

Hybrid Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Panelized Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Sub-assemblies Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Traditional Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
During Construction
Volumetric Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Environmental
Hybrid Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

efficiency
Panelized Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Sub-assemblies Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Traditional Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Volumetric Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Workmanship

Hybrid Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Panelized Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Sub-assemblies Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Traditional Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Volumetric Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Hybrid Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
satisfaction
Customer

After Construction Panelized Constructions 1 2 3 4 5

Sub-assemblies Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Traditional Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Volumetric Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Environmental

Hybrid Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
performance

Panelized Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Sub-assemblies Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Traditional Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Time
Volumetric constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Hybrid constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Total project duration
Panelized constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Sub-assemblies 1 2 3 4 5
Traditional constructions 1 2 3 4 5

108
Cost
Volumetric Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Hybrid Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Total project cost Panelized Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Sub-assemblies Constructions 1 2 3 4 5
Traditional constructions 1 2 3 4 5

109
7. Please indicate the percentages of following cost categories, taking total construction cost as 100. Place a ‘x’ in the check box (Eg:)

90%-100%
10%-20%

20%-30%

30%-40%

40%-50%

50%-60%

60%-70%

70%-80%

80%-90%
0%-10%
Off-site labour cost
On-site labour cost
Volumetric Constructions

Off-site material cost

On-site material cost
Small plant, tools &equipment cots
Transport, distribution &installation cost
Commission & test costs
Overhead cost
Package and storage cost
Rectification & rework cost
Off-site labour cost
Hybrid Constructions

On-site labour cost

Off-site material cost
On-site material cost
Small plant, tools &equipment cots
Transport, distribution &installation cost

110
 90%-100%
10%-20%

20%-30%

30%-40%

40%-50%

50%-60%

60%-70%

70%-80%

80%-90%
0%-10%
Commission & test costs
Constructions

Overhead cost
Hybrid

Package and storage cost

Rectification & rework cost

Off-site labour cost

On-site labour cost

Off-site material cost

Panelized Constructions

On-site material cost

Small plant, tools &equipment cots

Transport, distribution &installation cost

Commission & test costs

Overhead cost

Package and storage cost

Rectification & rework cost

111
 Off-site labour cost
On-site labour cost
Off-site material cost
On-site material cost
Sub-Assemblies

Small plant, tools &equipment cots

Transport, distribution &installation cost
Commission & test costs
Overhead cost
Package and storage cost
Rectification & rework cost
Off-site labour cost
On-site labour cost
Traditional Constructions

Off-site material cost

On-site material cost
Small plant, tools &equipment cots
Transport, distribution &installation cost
Commission & test costs
Overhead cost
Package and storage cost
Rectification & rework cost

112
8. Please indicate the percentages of following time categories, taking total construction duration as 100. Place a ‘x’ in the check box
(Eg:)

90%-100%
10%-20%

20%-30%

30%-40%

40%-50%

50%-60%

60%-70%

70%-80%

80%-90%
0%-10%
Off-site fabrication duration
Constructions
Volumetric

On-site construction duration

Over-lapping duration of off –site and on-site work

Off-site fabrication duration

Constructions
Hybrid

On-site construction duration

Over-lapping duration of off –site and on-site work

Off-site fabrication duration

Constructions
Panelized

On-site construction duration

Over-lapping duration of off –site and on-site work

Off-site fabrication duration

assemblies
Sub-

On-site construction duration

Over-lapping duration of off –site and on-site work

113
 90%-100%
10%-20%

20%-30%

30%-40%

40%-50%

50%-60%

60%-70%

70%-80%

80%-90%
0%-10%
Off-site fabrication duration
Constructions
Traditional

On-site construction duration

Over-lapping duration of off –site and on-site work

Any other comments

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

114
 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE II

Department of Building Economics,

University of Moratuwa,
Moratuwa.
…………………………………
…………………………………
…………………………………
Dear Sir / Madam,
Regarding Dissertation – B.Sc. (Hons) Degree in Quantity Surveying
I am an undergraduate of the Department of Building Economics at University of Moratuwa
following B.Sc. (Hons) in Quantity Surveying degree programme. I am conducting a research
under the supervision on ‘most appropriate off-site Modern Methods of Construction (MMC)
for Sri Lankan context. MMC are construction methods that provide efficient and effective
process of implementing construction activities with the use of pre-fabricated item .and off-site
MMC are components, which are manufactured in a factory and transported to the site to
assembly.

Most Sri Lankans are not aware about this concept. Therefore, this research focuses on finding
the most suitable off-site MMC for Sri Lanka. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could allow
me to obtain your opinion under the attached guidelines. Any confidential information related
to your organization project will be not disclosed in this report or any other document relating
to this study. The information provided will be treated with strict confidence.
Thank you,
Final year undergraduate, Senior Lecturer,
Department of Building Economics, Department of Building Economics,
University of Moratuwa. University of Moratuwa.

115
Guidelines

Please go through the following guideline before attempting to fill-in the questionnaire in
order to assist you and make yourself comfortable to understand.

 Please try to give a genuine opinion when selecting answer for the questions irrespective of
personal biasness.
 In order to clarify ambiguous/less familiar terms relating to this research, a glossary of key
words and their meanings are listed below.
Modern Methods of Constructions

Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) are methods which provide efficient and effective
process of implementing construction activities with the use of prefabricated item.

Off-site modern methods of construction are components which are manufactured in a

factory and transported to the site to assembly.

Volumetric constructions can be categorized in to two categories, modular building and pod
constructions.

Modular construction comprises prefabricated room-sized volumetric units that are normally
fully fitted out in manufacture and are installed on-site as load-bearing “building blocks”

Pods are referred to as small volumetric rooms which are completed of construction using light
steel frame (LSF), timber, concrete or glassed reinforced plastic.

Hybrid constructions are integration of volumetric units and panelized systems.

Panelized constructions are Flat panel units which are built in a factory and transported to site
for assembly into a three- dimensional structure or to fit within an existing structure.

Sub-assemblies and accessories system include larger components that can be incorporated
into either conventionally built or MMC dwellings

116
Please mention cost and time details in your project in the following format

Volumetric Construction
Total contract price:
Floor area (m2):
Nr of stories:
Cost details

Description Amount /Percentage

Off-site material cost

Off-site Labour cost

On-site material cost

On-site labour cost

Plant & equipment Cost

Transport & installation Cost

Commission & test Cost

Package & Storage Cost

Overhead Cost

Rectification & rework cost

Time details
Total construction duration:
Off-site construction duration (as a percentage):
On-site construction duration (as a percentage):
Over-lapping duration of on-site and off-site construction duration (as a percentage):

117
Hybrid Construction
Total contract price:
Floor area (m2):
Nr of stories:
Cost details

Description Amount /Percentage

Off-site material cost

Off-site Labour cost

On-site material cost

On-site labour cost

Plant & equipment Cost

Transport & installation Cost

Commission & test Cost

Package & Storage Cost

Overhead Cost

Rectification & rework cost

Time details
Total construction duration:
Off-site construction duration (as a percentage):
On-site construction duration (as a percentage):
Over-lapping duration of on-site and off-site construction duration (as a percentage):

118
Panelized Construction
Total contract price:
Floor area (m2):
Nr of stories:
Cost details

Description Amount /Percentage

Off-site material cost

Off-site Labour cost

On-site material cost

On-site labour cost

Plant & equipment Cost

Transport & installation Cost

Commission & test Cost

Package & Storage Cost

Overhead Cost

Rectification & rework cost

Time details
Total construction duration:
Off-site construction duration (as a percentage):
On-site construction duration (as a percentage):
Over-lapping duration of on-site and off-site construction duration (as a percentage):

119
Sub-assemblies and Accessories Construction
Total contract price:
Floor area (m2):
Nr of stories:
Cost details

Description Amount /Percentage

Off-site material cost

Off-site Labour cost

On-site material cost

On-site labour cost

Plant & equipment Cost

Transport & installation Cost

Commission & test Cost

Package & Storage Cost

Overhead Cost

Rectification & rework cost

Time details
Total construction duration:
Off-site construction duration (as a percentage):
On-site construction duration (as a percentage):
Over-lapping duration of on-site and off-site construction duration (as a percentage):

120
Traditional Construction
Total contract price:
Floor area (m2):
Nr of stories:
Cost details

Description Amount /Percentage

Off-site material cost

Off-site Labour cost
On-site material cost
On-site labour cost
Plant & equipment Cost
Transport & installation Cost
Commission & test Cost
Package & Storage Cost
Overhead Cost
Rectification & rework cost

Time details
Total construction duration:
Off-site construction duration (as a percentage):
On-site construction duration (as a percentage):
Over-lapping duration of on-site and off-site construction duration (as a percentage):

121