Dissertation declaration form

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHUMBRIA AT NEWCASTLE

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENT

An investigation into negative perceptions of offsite production from past failings and its effect on industry uptake: A UK study

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENT IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

Construction Management

By

08028701

March 2013

2

Abstract This study focuses on past failings of offsite production and the effect they have had

on people’s perceptions within the UK construction industry. The topic of offsite

production is one that has been researched greatly in recent times, focusing

predominantly on the general benefits and barriers toward the uptake of offsite

production. This study looks at the barrier of ‘past failings’ in more detail in an

attempt to gauge a deeper understanding of how much these past events have

affected peoples perceptions.

The researcher began by defining offsite production and identifying past failures

regarding the use of offsite production before understanding how offsite production

is generally perceived. The UK government was identified as a supporter toward the

uptake of offsite production and from this the researcher then reviewed the extent in

which the Government is pushing the implementation of offsite production within

UK construction. An assessment of the modern day industry perception toward

offsite production was carried out through the means of a structured questionnaire. A

comparative analysis of certain variables was then carried out to prove/disprove the

researchers hypothesis.

The results highlighted that many industry professionals still gauge their perception

toward offsite production from past failures rather than that of modern day offsite

methods, which are a drastic improvements to that of past methods. The study

revealed that ‘past failures’ is most responsible for the stigma that has been

associated to offsite production even more than cost implications, which the

researcher initially presumed based from previous studies. It was ultimately revealed

that in order for many industry professionals to begin taking offsite production

seriously, their out-dated, negative perceptions must be addressed.

3

Acknowledgement

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who took the time out to complete the

questionnaire. Without this information there would be no study.

I would like to offer my appreciation to Victor Samwinga for his continued support

throughout the year, helping me understand what it is that makes a study successful.

Last but not least, a big thank you to my family for their invaluable support and

patience throughout this challenging time.

4

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Nature of the problem ......................................................................................... 8

1.2 Aim ...................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 9

1.4 Outline research methodology ............................................................................ 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction to chapter ...................................................................................... 11 2.2 Offsite Production (OSP): A definition ............................................................ 11

2.3 A Background to the use of OSP ...................................................................... 13 2.4 Barriers affecting the uptake of OSP ................................................................ 14

2.5 Historical failings with the use of OSP within the UK ..................................... 16 2.6 Modern day negative perception toward OSP .................................................. 17 2.7 Government involvement towards improving the image of OSP in the UK .... 18

2.8 Summary of chapter .......................................................................................... 19 Chapter 3: Research Methodology 3.1 Introduction to chapter ...................................................................................... 20 3.2 Statement of aim ............................................................................................... 20

3.3 Objectives .......................................................................................................... 20 3.4 Relating theory to research ............................................................................... 21

3.5 Research approach & rationale ......................................................................... 22 3.7 Questionnaire design ......................................................................................... 23

3.8 Research Sampling ............................................................................................ 24 3.9 Pilot study ......................................................................................................... 25

3.10 Method of analysis .......................................................................................... 25 Chapter 4: Analysis of results 4.1 Scope of chapter ................................................................................................ 28 4.2 Descriptive analysis of results ........................................................................... 28

4.3 Inferential statistical testing (Chi-squared test) ................................................ 44 Chapter 5: Conclusion References

5

List of illustrations Figure 3.1: 5 steps to consider before carrying out Bivariate Analysis 26 Figure 3.2: Chi-squared formula 27 Figure 4.1: Industry experience against knowledge of past failings 30 Figure 4.2: Response to Question 4 31 Figure 4.3: Response to Question 5 33 Figure 4.4: Response to Question 6 33 Figure 4.5: Response to Question 7 34 Figure 4.6: Response to Question 7 (excluding respondents who have not used 35 offsite production) Figure 4.7: Response to Question 8 37 Figure 4.8: Response to Question 9 38 Figure 4.9: Response to Question 10 39 Figure 4.10: Response to Question 11 40 Figure 4.11: Response to Question 12 41 Figure 4.12: Response to Question 14 42 Figure 4.13: Response to Question 15 43 Figure 4.14: Negative perception/consider using offsite production 45

6

List of tables Table 1.1: Levels of MMC 12 Table 3.1: Differences between quantitative and qualitative research strategies 21 Table 4.1: Frequency results of respondents’ age 28 Table 4.2: Frequency results of respondents' profession 29 Table 4.3: Frequency results of respondents' experience 29 Table 4.4: Locality of offsite suppliers within the UK 31 Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics for Section One 32 Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics for Section Two 36 Table 4.7: Chi-square test result 45

7

Abbreviations MMC – Modern Methods of Construction

OSP – Offsite Production

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Nature of the problem With the ever-growing pressure to deliver buildings quicker, cheaper and to a higher

standard, many industry professionals as well as the UK government have begun to

realize that offsite production (OSP) may be the solution. The benefits of OSP have

been one of much interest to the UK government ever since it was highlighted within

the 1998 Egan report as a possible solution to improving the way in which projects

can be delivered. Several pan-industry review groups has been set up by the

government since the 1998 Egan report to gauge further understanding of the general

advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of OSP, with most offering

positive feedback.

It is widely accepted that offsite production (OSP) can, if delivered properly, can

offer levels of quality and accuracy of which traditional methods simply cannot

match (CIC, 2013). As OSP is ultimately a process in which parts, or on rare

occasions all of a building, are manufactured away from the buildings final

destination, some projects have also seen project times reduced by as much as 50%

(Cook, 2006). The OSP industry is one that has had to reinvent itself in recent times

due to numerous failings in the past, occurring mostly during the post-war era.

Unfortunately there are many industry professionals today who still perceive OSP to

be risky and dangerous, which has no doubt stemmed from these past failings, and as

a result OSP has failed to reach the economies of scale it has the potential to be. If

industry professionals with out-dated perceptions are not educated on the fact that

OSP has drastically improved since these past failings, then the uptake of OSP will

continue to suffer as a result.

This study aims to find out the extent of out-dated, negative perceptions toward OSP

that exists within the UK construction industry, and will ultimately reveal whether

negative perceptions from past failings has a direct impact toward the uptake of OSP.

9

1.2 Aim

The aim of this study is to determine whether negative perceptions of OSP from past

failings have a direct impact toward the uptake of the OSP industry.

1.3 Objectives

1. To examine the historical failures that influenced negative perceptions of

offsite construction

2. To find out whether negative perception of offsite construction still exists

3. To assess the governments performance in improving the image of offsite

construction

4. To determine whether negative perceptions of OSP from past failings has

a direct impact toward the uptake of OSP.

1.4 Outline research methodology Stage One: Literature review

The literature review will form the qualitative data of the study supported by

numerous primary sources of research such as published papers, government

publications as well as several industry review reports. The majority of the study’s

aims will be identified within this section and these outcomes will heavily influence

the direction of the study.

Stage Two: Data collection

Quantitative data will be gathered in the form of a questionnaire to strengthen the

researchers initial aims. 32 responses were collated and included only construction

industry professionals including Designers, Contractors, Consultant and Offsite

manufacturers. Of the 15 questions asked, 13 were closed as the researcher required

specific answers and 2 were open to allow researcher the opportunity to explore

additional information from the respondents. A pilot study was conducted prior to

10

the official release of the study to give the researcher an opportunity to remedy any

issues relating to the questions.

Stage Three: Data analysis (including inferential statistical testing)

The data will then be analysed to uncover any similarities between responses as well

as identifying any trends that could offer the researcher answers to support the

conclusion of the study. Inferential tests were also carried out to test the researchers’

hypothesis on whether or not negative perceptions of OSP from past failings have a

direct impact on the uptake of OSP within the UK.

Stage Four: Conclusion and recommendations

A conclusion will summarize the findings of the study and the researcher will then

offer recommendations for future research as well as highlighting the limitations

faced within this particular study.

11

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction to chapter This chapter critically analyses existing literature on the use of offsite production

(OSP) in the UK. The chapter is structured into several key sections. The first of

which will define what is meant by OSP. From limited resources, the study will then

identify the history of OSP, before discussing instances of past failings of OSP use

within the UK. The following section discusses the modern day negative perception

of OSP within the industry before finally discussing the influence UK Government

has toward the uptake of OSP.

Although the subject of OSP has been one of great interest in recent times, most

research has aimed to identify a generalisation of advantages and disadvantages of

OSP. As well as an increase in academic literature, there has been several pan-

industry review groups set up by UK Government over recent years to look into the

potential of OSP, however these initiatives have again produced a more general

insight into the benefits and constraints of offsite use. Whilst these researches may

have provided useful information of the pros and cons with regards to the

implementation of OSP, there appears to be a need to investigate each benefit and/or

barrier in much more detail to fully understand the level of influence each has on the

industry. Due to limitations of this particular research, only the barrier of negative

perceptions from past failings will be looked at in more detail in an attempt to fill the

void that has been left by previous, generalised researches.

2.2 Offsite Production (OSP): A definition

As far back as the 19th Century, the term ‘offsite production’, or as was more

commonly referred to as ‘prefabrication’, has divided many with regards to its

specific meaning (White, 1965). One of the most accurate earlier definitions is

referenced within Burnham Kelly’s’ The prefabrication of Houses (1951, p. 2)

whereby “a prefabricated home is one having walls, partitions, floors, ceilings and/or

roof composed of sections of panels varying in size which have been fabricated in a

factory prior to erection on the building foundation”. Further definitions mentioned

12

within White (1965) share similar views and it is generally accepted that

prefabrication is ultimately a process in which parts, or on rare occasions all of a

building, are manufactured away from the buildings final destination.

In more recent times, the definition of ‘offsite’ has not changed dramatically.

Buildoffsite (2007, p.10) emphasizes offsite as a coming together of groups and

businesses with a common goal of creating the elements of the built environment

under factory conditions as opposed to on site. According to Nadim and Goulding

(2011, p.137), Offsite Production (OSP) falls under the overarching umbrella of

Modern Methods of Construction (MMC), which is a term coined by UK

Government to describe a number of innovations of which most are offsite

technologies, moving work from the construction site to the factory’.

Cook (2006, p.51) identifies five levels of MMC. The most basic level of MMC is

the sub-assembly of components for particular building modules such as the roof,

moving all the way up to full volumetric units that can be delivered to site fully

finished and serviced. For the purpose of this study, the author aims to focus

primarily on Level 3 and Level 4 MMC.

Level of MMC Extent Description

Level 0 Basic materials With no pre-installation assembly aspects

Level 1 Component sub-assembly Small sub-assemblies that are habitually assembled prior to installation.

Level 2 Non-volumetric pre-

assembly

Planar, skeletal or complex units made from several individual components – and that are sometimes still assembled on-site in traditional construction.

Level 3 Volumetric pre-assembly Pre-assembled units that enclose useable space – can be walked into – installed within or onto other structures – usually fully finished internally.

13

Level 4 Modular building Pre-manufactured buildings – volumetric units that enclose useable space but also form the structure of the building itself – usually fully finished internally, but may have external finishes added on site.

Table 1.1: Levels of MMC (Cook, 2006)

2.3 A Background to the use of OSP

Whilst it may appear OSP is a relatively new process, there are numerous evidences

to suggest otherwise. According to Gibb (1999, p.8) OSP is not that new in itself and

that specialist books dealing with timber buildings date off-site production to the

twelfth century (Hewitt, 1980). Another early use of OSP occurred in New South

Wales, Australia, between 1827 and 1829, which consisted of “well-made wooden

houses, built in sections in England and packed especially for import” (Herbert,

1978). Several readings, including Herbert (1979) and Herbert (1984) refer to an

1830 advertising pamphlet that advertised a ‘comfortable dwelling that can be

erected in a few hours after landing’.

The first real surge of OSP within the United States of America surfaced in 1941 as a

result of two Architects’ dream of the “Packaged House” (Herbert, 1984). According

to Herbert (1984, p.xi), both Walter Gropius and Konrad Wachsmann began to

collaborate on a project for industrialized modular housing. Unfortunately the

projects success was short lived and Herbert (1984, p.xii) goes on to explain that the

ambitious project had effectively collapsed by the 1950’s.

With regards to the introduction of OSP in the UK, there is evidence to suggest that

it did not pick up seriously until the end of the 19th Century (White, 1965; Herbert,

1984; Gibb, 1999). External influences around this time were Henry Ford’s

advancement with the use of assembly lines in car manufacturing as well as the

provision to standardize in mass production heavily influenced by World War One

(White, 1965). The greatest interest in OSP within the UK came at the turn of world

war two. As mentioned by Hillbrandt (1944, p.8) ‘the National Builder devoted

14

considerable attention to housing, both long term and short term, and reported

developments in the design and production of prefabricated housing as well as the

overall needs at the end of the war’.

OSP took a further step forward by mid-1950s. As highlighted by Cook (2007, p.

67), the introduction of a consortium of Local Authority, pre-fabricated systems in

1957, including CLASP (Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme),

SCOLA (Second Consortium of Local Authorities) and MACE (Metropolitan

Architectural Consortium for Education) was seen as a breakthrough moment of

prefabrication in the UK. According to Ford (1992, p. 256) these systems, especially

CLASP, gained worldwide attention due to their innovative designs, and there were

even reports that the Mexican government tried to emulate them (Ford, 1992).

Although the initial idea of using OSP has always been one that holds many

advantages over traditional methods, recent studies reveal a plethora of issues

identified by industry professionals that they feel have hindered the uptake of OSP,

specifically within the UK.

2.4 Barriers affecting the uptake of OSP Since the revival of UK offsite construction in the 1990’s, there has been an increase

in academic literature aimed towards the potential of OSP within the UK, such as

Blismas et al (2007), Goodier & Gibb (2007), Pan et al (2007) and Nadim and

Goulding (2008). In support of this, there has also been several government led

reviews that sought to identify the advantages towards implementing OSP within the

UK. Most notable publications include Latham (1994), Egan (1998), BRE (2003)

Barker (2003), CABE (2004), Venebles and Courtney (2004) & BURA (2005). In

researching the advantages of offsite production, the majority of research naturally

identifies common barriers that have historically affected the uptake of OSP. There is

comprehensive agreement between most literatures that in order for OSP to be taken

seriously within the UK several barriers must be addressed. This is best summarised

by BURA (2005) who identifies cost, demand, rate of delivery, design

considerations, lenders and insurance as the key barriers that must be overcome. The

most common barrier identified within the literature researched for this study was the

initial costs associated with the use of OSP.

15

A survey of the top 100 house builders in the UK carried out by Pan et al. (2007)

uncovered ‘higher capital costs’ as the single biggest barrier to the use of MMC. This

opinion is echoed in a study carried out by Nadim & Goulding (2008) in which 92

per cent of respondents agreed ‘increased initial costs’ to be the single biggest

inhibitor to the uptake of OSP. Further studies carried out by Goodier & Gibb

(2007), Blismas et al. (2007) and Pan et al. (2007) all identify issues relating to cost

as the key barrier to address. Since these studies, there has been a high response in

literature attempting to address the concerns surrounding the cost barriers associated

with OSP, none more so than Pan and Sidwell (2011, p. 109) who revealed from

their study on 20 medium to high rise residential buildings during a five-year period

from 2004-2008 that the myth of high capital cost could be proved unfounded as

long as there was ‘long-term commitment from organisations’ and ‘continuous

exploration of the offsite technology in collaboration with their supply chains’.

With the exclusion of cost related barriers of OSP, studies become more varied in

responses as to what barrier is of greatest influence in the uptake of OSP. A study

carried out by Nadim and Goulding (2008) found that ‘design flexibility’ was the

most important non-cost related inhibitor for the use of OSP, whilst Pan et al.

(2007a) and Pan et al. (2007b) uncovered ‘the difficulty to achieve economies of

scale’. Interestingly, Blismas and Wakefield’s’ (2009) study identified the ‘lack of

industry knowledge’ as being just as influential as ‘initial costs’.

It is clear from recent studies and academic literature researched that there is a

collective agreement of the barriers affecting the uptake of OSP. Whilst it is clear

cost barriers are at the top of most studies regarding the uptake of OSP, what is

difficult to identify is which non-cost related barrier is most influential. One

particular barrier that is continually referenced in the majority of literature that does

not appear to have been independently addressed is the negative, out-dated

perceptions of offsite production through past historical failures.

16

2.5 Historical failings with the use of OSP within the UK

Whilst prefabrication was initially deemed to be a technological development of

great potential and forward thinking, several incidents began to raise questions over

the future of the industry. Due to poor workmanship and erection of most fabricated

buildings in the late 1950s, CLASP eventually fell out of favour within the UK, and

critics subsequently began referring to the system as ‘a collection of loosely

assembled steel parts’ (Cole, 2011). According to Langford and Murray (2003,

p.199) the prefabrication techniques adopted in the 1940s and 1950’s used to house

those returning from World War II were also adopted in the high-rise buildings

during the 1960s. It was with this that in 1968 a gas explosion at a 23-storey

residential tower block, now known as the Ronan Point Disaster, resulted in the

building to partially collapse, killing five people. The responsibility of the collapse

pointed to the use of the Larsen-Nielsen system - a form of offsite production in

which loadbearing, reinforced concrete walls panels are slotted together like a pack

of cards with no structural underpinning. Parkinson-Bailey (2000, p.193) goes on to

suggest that the Ronan Point disaster effectively put an end to high-density housing

using offsite techniques, and in 1968 the Ministry of Housing and Local Government

began to focus on refurbishment schemes rather than demolition and rebuilding.

Beanland (2013) strengthens the point of poor use of OSP by highlighting that

concrete panels were not always cast correctly and the workers did not always screw

the panel’s together right. Beanland (2013) also goes on to suggest that the wholesale

flogging of these offsite systems (including occasional bribery) by construction

contractors, rather than by architects with reputations to preserve, damned many

system-built blocks. Despite the relatively poor track record of OSP within the UK,

the market continued into the 1980s with the development of steel, timber and

concrete framed housing, so much so that by the mid-1980s timber framed grew to

around 30% of the new build market (HSE, 2009). However the success of timber

frame was short lived in part due to a 1983 TV documentary by Granada television

which exposed timber framed housing in the UK, alleging that defects in

workmanship made timber framed homes more vulnerable to fire and rot (Inside

Housing, 2009). Naturally the market plummeted as a result.

17

Whilst Langford and Murray (2003) highlight a revival of prefabrication in the

1990’s, it can be argued that not everyone has moved on from the incidents in the

past, and that prefabrication, or ‘offsite construction’, remains to be perceived as

‘dangerous’ and ‘risky’. A study by CIC (2013) highlights instances of poor use of

offsite production whereby in the late 1960s, construction defects led to buildings

suffering from cold-bridging, damp penetration and mould growth as well as poor

mould growth due to badly designed space heating systems.

2.6 Modern day negative perception toward OSP

The existence of negative perception toward OSP is evident within many recent

academic studies including Blismas et al (2007) Goodier and Gibb, 2007 Pan et al

(2007) and Nadim & Goulding (2008). In addition, Na (2007, p.21) highlights that in

both the United States and the United Kingdom, negative perception from

construction industry practitioners has always been considered a major challenge to

the industry. Within all of these studies the barrier of negative perception is not

deemed to be as influential as issues regarding cost concerns, although it is certainly

a barrier that many see as a hindrance to the industry’s uptake. A review by Edge et

al. (2002, p.5) found that house buyers are so strongly influenced by negative

perceptions of the post-war ‘prefab’ that they will resist any innovations in house

construction that affect what a ‘traditional’ house looks like. Pan et al. (2004,

pp.184) goes on to suggest that through historic failures of offsite practice, the

human perception barrier also exists among architects and other designers. A later

study by Pan et al. (2007) highlights the need that peoples’ perception should be

challenged, and revealed that ‘attitudinal barriers due to historic failure’ rated ‘fairly

significant’ in terms of barriers to the use of offsite MMC. Nadim and Goulding

(2008) reinforce this perception by suggesting within their study that past

experiences of OSP failures may have overshadowed the potential benefits of OSP.

Buildoffsite (2007, p.6) highlight their own in-house work programme that has been

created ‘to promote the use of offsite solutions, to increase understanding amongst

clients and suppliers and to engage with obstacles and outmoded perceptions’. The

study outlines that whilst OSP has existed for a long time, many still regard offsite

construction as something new and potentially risky, and should be best avoided if at

all possible (2007, p.11). Furthermore, Schoenborn (2012, p.8) recognizes that there

18

is a stigma of poor building quality associated with OSP due to a history of cheap

manufactured buildings that has limited the involvement of architects in the modular

construction industry. There is also evidence that suggests even using terminology

such as ‘modular’ and ‘pods’ can also affect client perception regarding OSP.

Schoenborn (2012, p.124) highlights a particular example in which, when a client

realised their building would be constructed using modular methods, ‘everyone on

the board developed a preconceived notion that they were going to get trailers, and

the project got shot down’.

In support of the these studies, UK Government publications regarding the use of

OSP have also highlighted negative perception as one of several key barriers to

overcome within the offsite industry. BURA (2005, p.12) states that ‘In terms of

confidence, a patchy track record dating back to the 1960’s of ‘pre-fab’ and system-

built approaches will need to be overcome’ and continues by stating that modelling

MMC as a best practice method of construction could in fact help overcome the

stigma associated with factory-based construction methods.

2.7 Government involvement towards improving the image of OSP in the UK The Government is the UKs single biggest construction client (BURA, 2005). The

construction industry itself represents around £140bn of expenditure per year in the

UK with the Government, or public sector, contributing 40% of this (Great Britain,

Cabinet Office, 2011). In recent times, the Government has sought action to improve

the construction industry, and one particular focus has been to increase the use of

offsite construction methods (Nadim & Goulding, 2008). With this, several

independent professionals as well as pan-industry review groups have assisted the

Government in providing a clearer scope with regards to the potential of OSP within

the UK, including Latham (1994), Egan (1998), Barker (2003), CABE (2004) and

BURA (2005).

For 2013 the UK government has set up yet another pan-industry review group to

look further into the offsite sector (Construction Manager, 2012). Hayman (2012)

references a statement by communities’ secretary Eric Pickles, in which the new off-

site construction group would look “in detail at the barriers holding back the growth

19

of this part of the sector and how increased use of such techniques can be

incentivized” (Hayman, 2012). According to Hayman (2012) offsite construction has

long been promoted by the government as a means to streamline the construction

process for new homes and was a major part of the previous Labour government’s

strategy following the 1998 Egan Review. As an example of government

involvement, in 2013 Main Contractor Skanska were successful in securing a

£750,000 government grant to trial mobile workshops, which will be used to

assemble offsite technologies and then be reused from site to site. (Construction

Enquirer, 2013). From research it appears the Government is listening to the positive

advice from these reviews. In 2005, a competition was launched by Design for

Manufacture (DfM) aimed at ‘building upon the recommendations of the Egan and

Latham reports and stimulate fresh thinking within the house building and

construction industries’ (Designed for Manufacture, 2010).

2.8 Summary of chapter From this research, the author identifies that whilst offsite production is an industry

of great potential, there are numerous barriers affecting its uptake within the UK.

Costs, economies of scale and negative perceptions formed from historical failures

are all mentioned in the majority of researched literature as being associated with the

slow uptake of offsite within the UK. Whilst the majority of key barriers have been

researched further from general studies, such as Pan and Sidwells’ 2011

Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite construction in the UK, the barrier of

negative perception seems to have had limited individual attention. From this, the

author has based the focus of this study around addressing negative perceptions with

regards to OSP. The author identifies the historical background of offsite production,

specifically within the UK, and also identifies key historical failures of offsite

production that has formulated a so-called negative perception. Government schemes

and initiatives relating to the uptake of OSP have been critically reviewed with the

intention of formulating an appropriate strategy going forward which aims to address

the issue of negative perception. The next chapter outlines how the study is

engineered with reference to the chosen data collection methods.

20

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction to chapter

This chapter explains the rationale behind the chosen research method and how the

data was collected. As an essential part of the research it is important that the author

understands all possible methods of data collection with the intention of adopting the

most suitable to the research. The author will discuss a range of theoretical

approaches attributed to research methodology before justifying the chosen data

collection method for this study and subsequently how the data was gathered.

From the literature review, the author has identified that negative perception toward

offsite production based from past historical failings still exists within the UK

construction industry. From this, the researcher will attempt to identify a connection

between negative perception of offsite production and level of industry experience.

This theory will be tested through quantitative research, which will now be discussed

in more detail.

3.2 Statement of aim The aim of this study is to determine whether negative perceptions of OSP from past

failings have a direct impact toward the uptake of the OSP industry.

3.3 Objectives

1. To assess the historical failures that has influenced the negative

perceptions of offsite construction

2. To find out whether negative perception of offsite construction still exists

3. To assess the governments performance in improving the image of offsite

construction

4. To determine whether negative perceptions of OSP from past failings has

a direct impact toward the uptake of OSP.

21

3.4 Relating theory to research

For many years now, social ‘scientists’ have engaged in research without any links to

theory whereas social ‘theorists’ have theorized without research (O’Leary, 2010).

As put by O’Leary (2010, p.74), “this tendency to dichotomize, however, is

diminishing and we are beginning to recognize the value of exploring quite tangible

issues relating to theory”. Bryman (2012, p.20) expands on this by identifying two

standout issues regarding the link between theory and research. Firstly, it is

important to understand the form of theory that one is talking about, and secondly,

deciding whether the data will be collected either to test or to build theories.

Two popular theories aimed toward the philosophical understanding of social

behaviour are positivism and interpretivism. In reference to Bryman (2008, p.28)

positivism is “an epistemological position that advocates the application of the

methods of the natural sciences to the study of social reality and beyond”. In

contrast, Fellows and Liu (2008, p.69) identifies interpretivism as act of

interpretation that “implies the existence of a conceptual schema or model on the part

of in interpreter such that what is being observed and interpreted is assumed to

conform logically to the facts and explanations inherent in the model”. Through the

paradigms of both positivism and interpretivism come different methodological

approaches, namely deductive (positivism) and inductive (interpretivism) theory.

Quantitative Qualitative

Principal orientation to the

role in relation to research

Deductive; testing of

theory

Inductive; generation of

theory

Epistemological orientation Natural science model,

in particular positivism

Interpretivism

Ontological orientation Objectivism Constructionism

Figure 3.1: Fundamental differences between quantitative and qualitative research

strategies (Bryman, 2008)

22

One of the most common views regarding the nature of the relationships between

theory and social research is deductive theory (Bryman, 2012). Sometimes called the

hypothetico-deductive method, deductive reasoning will, in an experimental

research, require the researcher to initially outline a hypothesis based on a theory,

and then introduce empirical methods to see whether it is confirmed (Davies, 2007).

Oppositely, when theory is the outcome of research it is known as inductive theory

(Bryman, 2012). In other words, inductive theory starts not with a predetermined

truth or belief but instead with an observation (Leedy and Ormrod, 2010).

Quantitative research is a strategy that focuses on looking and measuring variables

by using commonly accepted measures of the physical world (Leedy and Ormrod,

2010). The purpose of using quantitative is to establish or validate possible

relationships and developing generalizations that may contribute to existing theories

(Leedy and Ormrod, 2010). Qualitative research is, as best described by Bryman

(2012, p. 380), “a research strategy that usually emphasizes words rather than

quantification in the collection and analysis of data”. A qualitative research will use

collected data and create theoretical ideas in comparison to experimental research

that begins with a theoretical position and amasses data to test its validity (Davies,

2007).

3.5 Research approach & rationale

Due to the lack of similar research on the study aim, it was necessary to obtain both

qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data was achieved through a literature

review. This method of collecting qualitative data is supported within Davies (2007,

p.151), whereby qualitative data can be obtained through “interviewing and

observation to the use of artefacts, documents and records from the past”. This

particular way of data collection is deductive in its nature, as it required the

researcher to evaluate relevant primary and secondary sources of information

including reports, journals, government publications, textbooks and magazines. The

researcher also used a second method of data collection through a quantitative

approach. Formulated from the initial literature review, the quantitative approach of

the study is aimed toward UK construction professionals to identify a connection

between negative perception toward offsite production and level of industry

experience. This method of data collection is inductive in its nature and, as

23

highlighted by Bryman (2012), the process of induction involves drawings

generalizable inferences out of observation.

After careful consideration, it was decided by the researcher that a survey would be

distributed as the primary data collection. This was heavily influenced by the 2006

study of Goodier and Gibb that sought to understand the future opportunities for

offsite in the UK. One particular issue this study suffered was the lack of available

information, and as a result a qualitative literature review was undertaken before

formulating and distributing an industry-specific survey. The results from the

literature review were influential toward the structure and content of the subsequent

questionnaire that was aimed purely toward UK industry professionals. From the

questionnaire responses within Goodier and Gibb, a steering committee was then

formed to delve further into the study issues, however with regards to this particular

study, time and resource limitations prevented the researcher from looking at this

source of data collection.

3.7 Questionnaire design

The questionnaire was broken down into four key sections and in total consisted

fifteen questions. Section one of the survey sought to identify industry experience,

professional background and geographical information. Section two aimed to

identify the interviewee’s knowledge and experience with the use of offsite

production. The third section sought to uncover general perceptions toward offsite

production before concluding the survey with the fourth and final section that

focused on the future of offsite production. In total there were thirteen closed

questions and two open questions. The focus on asking closed questions was to limit

the scope of answers in order to define the research. As highlighted by O’Leary

(2010, p.191), closed questions incorporate predetermined responses that are simple

to code and statistically analyse. Two open questions were included in the survey to

offer additional qualitative data to the study. With an open question, a respondent

can answer without guidelines or limitation. Bryman (2012, p.247) suggests the use

of open questions can be used to tap into the respondent’s knowledge and are useful

at exploring areas in which the researcher has limited knowledge. For the purpose of

this study, open questions were asked by the researcher to uncover any specific

24

event/events regarding poor use of offsite production that they felt could have

influenced people’s perception toward the industry in a negative way.

3.8 Research Sampling

All targets respondents of the study were from a construction related background

with experience in the UK. The method of sampling was non-random as the

researcher identified a selected group of individuals before conducting the

questionnaire. The survey was produced through an internet-based survey provider

and was conducted through the period of February 15 2013 until Friday 1 March

2013. In total, four key categories of industry professionals were targeted:

Contractors, Consultants, Designers and Modular Suppliers/Manufacturers. Whilst

the perceptions of these four categories of professionals were of most importance to

the study, it would have been inappropriate to restrict the study to just these

categories, and as such the study expanded to Engineers, Technologists, Developers,

Quantity Surveyors and any other relevant construction profession within the UK. As

the initial literature review suggests, there is still somewhat a lack of understanding

regarding offsite production and, together with the intention of understanding the

industry’s perception toward offsite production, the researcher deemed it

unnecessary and ineffective to limit the data collection to just one particular

profession. It was also decided by the researcher that Client perception would not be

part of the study as it is unlikely that they would have enough understanding of the

offsite production industry for it to be worthwhile approaching.

The survey was distributed to a national Architectural practice, a Main Contractor

and a Consultancy company, all of which the researcher has past experiences with.

The researcher targeted particular individuals within these companies with varied

experience within the construction industry. This type of sampling is identified

within O’Leary (2010) as ‘hand-picked’ sampling, which involves selecting a sample

with a particular purpose in mind.

As the researcher did not personally know of any Modular suppliers, a hand picked

sample could not be used to reach these professionals. Instead the survey was posted

onto several offsite/modular-related groups within the professional network LinkedIn

25

in order to attract the attention of group members with, but not limited to, a modular

background.

3.9 Pilot study

Prior to the survey being conducted, it was important to undertake a pilot study. By

doing this, the researcher was able to identify any issues or concerns regarding the

questions within the survey. To carry this out, the researcher invited construction-

related university peers to complete the survey. The results were that the majority of

questions made sense although there were instances where the wording of some

questions proved challenging to understand and answer. After careful consideration

to the issues, the researcher identified the error and restructured the question with

successful results. This was an important step for the researcher to understand the

importance of how a survey should be structured, worded, and grouped effectively.

3.10 Method of analysis The data for this research was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Science

(SPSS). One of the reasons the researcher has chosen to use SPSS is to formulate a

set of frequency tables. The frequency table will identify each variable within a given

question and how often a particular variable within a question was chosen out of all

completed surveys within the study. Descriptive statistics such as standard deviation

will also be shown that will aim to identify how much variance there is from the

mean of the frequencies, which will also be shown. The majority of answers will also

be shown in the form of tables and charts to give a visual representation of the

results.

In order to assess the relationships between two questions, or variables, a bivariate

analysis has been executed. Also known as the inferential statistical analysis method,

a bivariate analysis is a statistical significance test that aims to test the difference

between proportions (Naoum, 2008). Naoum addresses five key stages that must be

considered before carrying out a bivariate analysis, as shown in fig.2.

26

As the study focuses on testing the association between two sets of data, the bivariate

analysis method chosen for the study was the non-parametric, Pearson chi-squared

test (Naoum, 2008). The chi-squared test will predict the number of subjects in each

group that will fall into certain categories (Naoum, 2008). This will be used to test

the researchers null hypothesis, and the result will provide a solid foundation toward

the conclusion of the study. It is important to understand that a chi-squared test can

only be used for ordinal and nominal data.

Null Hypothesis The respondents were grouped in terms of their perception toward offsite production

and tested against whether or not they would consider using offsite production.

Therefore, the hypothesis of the study is as stated below.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between professionals with

negative perceptions from past failings against whether or not they would use offsite

production.

Alternative Hypothesis - There is significant difference between professionals with

negative perceptions from past failings against whether or not they would use offsite

production.

Step 1: Formulate your research hypothesis

Step 2: State the null hypothesis

Step 3: Decide which test to use

Step 4: Calculate and obtain the test statistics

Step 5: Decide whether the result is significant

Figure 3.1: 5 steps to consider before carrying out Bivariate Analysis (Naoum, 2008)

27

3.11 Summary of chapter

The researcher has identified that the study’s epistemological orientation takes the

form of positivism and by looking to test a predetermined theory is deductive in its

nature. Due to the lack of available research, a qualitative approach in the form of a

literature review has been undertaken by the researcher to formulate the quantitative

method of data collection that has been identified as a questionnaire. This chapter has

also covered that SPSS was the chosen method to analyse the survey data and that

due to the majority of key data being nominal, the Pearson chi-squared test was

identified as the most suitable method going forward. The next chapter will identify

the results of the quantitative data as well as an analysis of key data that will be used

to then conclude the study.

Formula of Pearson chi-squared test (χ²)

χ² = Σ (Observed frequencies – Expected frequencies – 0.05) ² Expected frequencies

χ² = Σ (O-E) ² E

P value (probability) = <0.05 (reject null hypothesis)

P value (probability) = >0.05 (accept null hypothesis)

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.986a 4 .738

Likelihood Ratio 2.035 4 .729

Linear-by-Linear Association .022 1 .883

N of Valid Cases 32

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) = P value

Df = Degrees of freedom (No. of variables – 1) = (n-1)

Figure 3.2: Chi-squared formula (Farrell, 2011)

28

Chapter 4: Analysis of results

4.1 Scope of chapter

This chapter provides a range of visual representations of the results from the study

along with descriptive analysis. The level of respondents’ industry experience has

been chosen as a key variable within the study and will be compared against

numerous factors. The chapter will then identify the results from an inferential

statistical analysis that has been used to prove or disprove the null hypothesis.

4.2 Descriptive analysis of results

A total of 33 respondents were involved in the study. Due to 1 incomplete survey the

final number of respondents used by the researcher was 32. The questionnaire

consisted of 15 questions and was split into 4 sections.

Section One: General information and background

The first question was asked to gauge an understanding of the age of respondents

within the survey, choosing one option from the six categories shown below.

Question 1: How old are you? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Under 18 1 3.1 3.1 3.1

18-29 8 25.0 25.0 28.1

30-39 8 25.0 25.0 53.1

40-49 8 25.0 25.0 78.1

50-59 5 15.6 15.6 93.8

60+ 2 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 32 100.0 100.0 Table 4.1: Frequency results of respondents’ age

As the researcher carried out a selective study, the results of respondent’s age were

relatively similar to that of what the researcher predicted. The results confirmed to

the researcher that the study is comprised of respondents from all age groups, giving

a broad scope to the study.

29

Question 2 aimed to identify the professional background of respondents. As the

researcher specifically targeted only construction related professionals with

experience in the UK, this question would confirm that the study includes just that.

Responses from non-construction related professionals were omitted from the study

for the purpose of validity. Table 4.2 highlights that the study was predominantly

comprised of Consultants (28%) followed by Main Contractors (25%), Designers

(15.6%), Offsite Manufacturers (12.5%), Technicians (6.3%) and Developers (3.1%).

The study benefitted from industry professionals from many background however it

may have been more advantageous if there were a higher number of offsite

manufacturers as it could be argued they are the most knowledgeable professionals

on the topic of offsite production, more specifically, the history of the offsite

industry.

Question 3: Including any previous positions, how much experience do you have

working within the UK construction industry?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Under 5 years 2 6.3 6.3 6.3

5-10 years 10 31.3 31.3 37.5

11-19 years 8 25.0 25.0 62.5

20-29 years 7 21.9 21.9 84.4

30+ years 5 15.6 15.6 100.0

Total 32 100.0 100.0

Table 4.3: Frequency results of respondents' experience

Table 4.2: Frequency results of respondents' profession

Question 2: What is your current profession? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Architect/Designer 5 15.6 15.6 15.6

Main Contractor 8 25.0 25.0 40.6

Subcontractor 3 9.4 9.4 50.0

Consultant 9 28.1 28.1 78.1

Offsite manufacturer 4 12.5 12.5 90.6

Developer 1 3.1 3.1 93.8

Technician 2 6.3 6.3 100.0

Total 32 100.0 100.0

30

Table 4.3 reveals the majority of respondents (31.3%) have between 5-10 years

industry experience followed closely by 11-19 years (25%), 20-29 years (21.9%),

30+ years (15.6%) and less than 5 years (6.3%). This result gave a better

understanding to whether or not professionals with more experience knew more

about past failings than inexperienced professionals.

Figure 4.1: Industry experience against knowledge of past failings

As shown in Figure 4.1, there is no apparent link between ones level of experience

against their knowledge regarding past failings of offsite production. What is of most

surprise to the researcher is that there were more professionals with over 30 years

experience who were not aware of past failings off offsite production than those who

were aware of past failings considering many of the past failures that have been

identified of offsite production occurred not far from 30 years ago.

0"

1"

2"

3"

4"

5"

6"

Yes" No"

Cou

nt"

Aware of any past failings?"

Industry experience against awareness of past failings"

Under 5 years"

5-10 years"

11-19 years"

20-29 years"

30+ years"

31

Figure 4.2: Response to Question 4

Figure 4.1 shows that 62% of respondents were based in the North of England. A

further 21% were based in the South and the remaining 17% based in the Midlands.

This was predictable as the companies that were ‘hand-picked’ by the researcher

were mainly based in the North of the England however the unbalance of locations

does not affect the objective of the study. As the major UK offsite production

companies are based in the North of England, as shown in table 4.4, it can be argued

that professionals from the North may be more aware of offsite production, which in

turn would benefit this study considering the large number of respondents from the

North.

Offsite Suppliers Locality within the UK

Yorkon North (Yorkshire)

Britspace North (Yorkshire)

Waco North (Yorkshire)

Portakabin North (York)

Table 4.4: Locality of offsite suppliers within the UK

62% 21%

17%

Question 4: What is your locality within the UK?

North South Midlands

32

N Mean Median Mode Std.

deviation

Question 1: How old are you? 32 3.44 3.00 2a 1.294

Question 2: What is your current

profession?

32 3.53 3.50 4 2.048

Question 3: Including any previous

positions, how much experience do

you have working within the UK

construction industry?

32 3.09 3.00 2 1.201

Question 4: What is your locality

within the UK?

32 1.59 1.00 1 .798

Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics for Section One

Section Two: Knowledge and experience of OSP

Section two of the survey included questions aimed at gaining a basic understanding

of the respondent’s knowledge of OSP and whether they have experience working on

projects that included OSP techniques. The research identified that the majority of

respondents associate the term ‘offsite production’ as being ‘factory made’ (20%)

followed closely by ‘modular construction’ (18%) and ‘Standardisation’ (17%). The

results then become more varied and as shown, ‘containers’ (3%), ‘bathroom pods’

and ‘panellised construction’ are the terms that respondents found most unrelated to

‘offsite production’. This is surprising as, according to Goodier and Gibb (2007),

bathroom pod construction is one of the most common forms of offsite production

and is used widely around the UK mainly on new build residential and

accommodation projects.

33

Figure 4.3: Response to Question 5

Additionally, the results also contradict that of reality, as non-volumetric pre-

assembled construction account for £1.3bn of the UK offsite market whilst modular

construction only accounts for £640m and volumetric £290m (Goodier and Gibb,

2005). From the results, compared to other studies as well as up-to-date offsite

valuations, it appears the respondents may be confused as to the differences between

these terms, or more so, unaware that these terms differ in any way from one another

altogether.

Figure 4.4: Response to Question 6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Volumetric construction

Modular construction

Panellised construction

Factory made

Pre-assembled construction

Bathroom pods

Temporary buildings

Containers

Standardisation

Not aware of the term

Other (please specify)

Question 5: Which of the following terms would you best associate with 'offsite production'? (Please select more than

one if applicable)

59%

41%

Question 6: Have you ever been involved in a project that included any 'offsite production' techniques mentioned in Q5?

Yes No

34

The study benefitted from an almost equal amount of respondents who have both

worked with offsite techniques and those who have not. It was particularly

interesting to find out that the majority of professionals involved in the study have

experience using offsite techniques as the researcher assumed from past studies that

offsite production has not yet reached the economies of scale to the extent of what

the results indicate, especially in the study of Nadim and Goulding (2007), where is

was revealed that the offsite construction industry is responsible for only 2% of the

total UK construction market.

Several studies including that of Blismas et al (2007) outline the difficulty the UK

offsite construction market has had reaching economies of scale large enough to be

considered a serious construction method. The results reveal a somewhat different

scenario. It appears that offsite construction has moved on since these initial studies,

and regardless of how well these offsite experiences went, it could be said that

professionals have at least taken a chance with using offsite construction, which is

contrary to what the researcher initially presumed. Further questions in the study

were asked to gauge an understanding of how well these experiences with offsite

production went and whether professionals believe it to be a serious method of

construction.

41%

31%

9%

13%

6%

Question 7: Would you consider using offsite production? If you have used offsite production previously, would you

consider using it again?

Absolutely

Possibly

Not sure

Unlikely

Definitly not

Figure 4.5: Response to Question 7

35

Over 70% of the respondents identified that they would generally consider using

offsite production on future projects. Out of the 32 respondents only 2 (6%)

identified that they would definitely not consider using offsite production, with a

further 4 (13%) respondents unlikely to use offsite production and 3 (9%)

respondants not sure if they would.

The way in which question 7 was put together by the researcher meant that the

question included responses from both sets of individuals who have and who have

not used offsite production. As the researcher was interested in viewing only the

responses from professionals who have used offsite techniques before, question 7

was revised to show just that, as shown in figure 4.5. The results reveal that 74% of

respondents who have previously used offsite production would consider using it

again. This result is significantly different to the results witin the study of Pan et al.

(2008), where only 24% of respondents were satisfied with their experience using

offsite production, with 60% of respondents having a neutral opion toward using

offsite production again.

53%

21%

5%

16%

5%

Question 7 (excludings respondents who have never used offsite production)

Absolutely

Possibly

Not sure

Unlikely

Definitly not

Figure 4.6: Response to Question 7 (excluding respondents who have not used offsite production)

36

N Mean Median Mode Std.

deviation

Question 5: Which of the

following terms would you best

associate with 'offsite

production'? (Please select more

than one if applicable)

32 3.44 3.00 2a 1.294

Question 6: Have you ever been

involved in a project that

included any 'offsite production'

techniques mentioned in Q5?

32 1.41 1.00 1 .499

Question 7: Would you consider

using offsite production? If you

have used offsite production

previously, would you consider

using it again?

32 2.12 2.00 1 1.246

Table 4.6: Descriptive statistics for Section Two

37

Section Three: Perception of OSP

Section three of the survey included questions relating to the respondents’ perception

of offsite production.

Question 8 revealed that ‘past failings’ was the single biggest factor that respondents

felt was responsible for the so-called stigma that is associated with offsite

production. The results from this question offer clarity to the study topic, as from the

outset the researcher has aimed to identify that past failings of offsite production is a

critical factor that affects the uptake of the industry and that it is factor that needs to

be studied independently in order to gauge its impact on the offsite industry.

Despite this, the results differ to that of several earlier studies that asked similar

questions, none more so than that of Pan et al. (2007) that revealed only 11% of

respondents viewed ‘attitudinal barriers due to historic failures’ as a barrier against

the use of offsite production. This was one of the lowest factors chosen in this

particular question within the study, falling way below that of ‘higher capital costs’

(68%), ‘design limitations’ (29%) and ‘difficulty to achieve economies of scale’

(43%).

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Higher initial costs Design limitations

Increased risk Past failings

Aesthetics Longer lead-in times

Lack of skills Reluctance to change

Obtaining financial support Building lifespan Reduced quality

Lack of information regarding offsite Difficuly managing change

I do not think there is a stigma

Question 8: Some studies suggest that there is stigma associated with the use of offsite production. Which 3 factors would you say are most

responsible for this?

Figure 4.7: Response to Question 8

38

Question 9 was paramount to the study as it aimed to uncover how many respondents

were actually aware of any past failings or poor use of offsite production within the

UK. Just over half of respondents (17) were aware of past failings of offsite

production. This result was expected by the researcher as in the previous question

(Q8) there were 17 responses of ‘past failings’ when asked what factors are

responsible for the stigma associated with offsite production.

The following 4 questions (Q10-13) focus on only those respondents who are aware

of past failings of offsite production. This was done so the researcher to delve further

into what specific events these were, whether the respondents initial perceptions of

offsite production was in any way affected by these events, and whether their

perception has remained since these events or changed due to learning about the

newer methods of offsite production.

53%

47%

Question 9: Are you aware of any past failings/poor use of offsite production within the UK? (if No, skip to

Question 14)

Yes No

Figure 4.8: Response to Question 9

39

Figure 4.9: Response to Question 10

Question 10 was left open to provide answers that were not limited by the study. This

was done so that the researcher could identify any past failings that had not been

previously understood or alternatively to assess the level of knowledge on past

failings that had previously been identified. Six separate past events were uncovered

from the 17 respondents who were aware of past failing with the use of offsite

production within the UK. The most common event was failures of high-rise

structures built in the 1960’s (35%) followed by projects built by the Consortium of

Local Authorities Special Programme, or CLASP (18%) and collapse and fire issues

(18%). Respondents also identified the Ronan Point collapse as a key failing as well

as poor aesthetic results from using offsite production (12%). 1 respondent (6%)

highlighted poor workmanship from past projects as a key failure.

From the results shown the researcher believes that the majority, if not all of the

failings, occurred between the 1960s and 1970s. This ties in to the researchers’

findings from past studies that are highlighted within the literature review none more

so than the study of CIC (2013), which highlights instances of poor use of offsite

production whereby in the late 1960s, construction defects led to buildings suffering

from cold-bridging, damp penetration and mould growth as well as poor mould

growth due to badly designed space heating systems.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Ronan Point 1960s High rise CLASP Collapse and fire issues

Aesthetics of most offsite

buildings

Poor quality from the past

Question 10: If so, can you please specify any particular event/occurrence?

40

Figure 4.10: Response to Question 11

From the named events highlighted in Question 10, it is apparent that the majority of

respondents’ perceptions were affected as a direct result. When asked how their

perception toward offsite production was affected as a result of these events, 6

respondents (35%) were very much affected, 8 respondents (47%) were somewhat

affected, however only 3 respondents (18%) weren’t affected much. What is

interesting is that there were no respondents who were not affected at all by the

events. This meant that every respondent within the study who were aware of past

failings of offsite production were in some way affected by the events.

This was interesting to the researcher as the whole purpose of the research was to

uncover and understand the level of negative perception that exists. The next

question (Q12) reveals whether or not these perceptions have remained, and if so, it

will prove pivotal in understanding that a lot more must be done to make UK

construction professionals aware that the offsite production industry has moved on

from the past.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Very much Somewhat Not much Not at all

Question 11: To what extent did the event/events affect your perception toward offsite production?

41

Figure 4.11: Response to Question 12

From the 17 responses, 71% (12) still feel the same toward offsite production as they

did when they discovered a past, negative event. As the researcher believes the

majority of negative events occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, it is surprising to find

that 71% of respondents have not moved. This result aids the researchers assumption

that not enough is being done to educate professionals on newer, safer methods of

offsite production, and that the reasons for their negative perception toward offsite

have potentially been removed due to these newer methods. The researcher believes

that if more professionals understood and learnt of the newer offsite techniques

available, the results of Question 12 would be very different.

Question 13 is a direct follow on from Question 12.

Question 13: If No, what would you attribute this change to?

It was important to the study that the researcher also focused on the 29% (5) of

respondents who at one time held a negative perception towards offsite and, for

whatever reason, does not hold the same perception now. Unsurprising to the

researcher, all 5 respondents believed that from learning about newer modern offsite

techniques, their initial negative perception towards offsite production has been

overturned. From this, the researcher believes that if the industry were holistically

71%

29%

Question 12: Do you still have this negative perception toward offsite production?

Yes

No

42

educated on newer methods of offsite production, all previous negative perceptions

toward offsite would be overturned, giving the industry a much better opportunity of

succeeding and reaching the higher economies of scale that it so desperately needs.

Section 4: The future of offsite production within the UK

Questions 14 and 15 bring all 32 respondents back into the study.

Figure 4.12: Response to Question 14

When asked whether they feel enough is being done to improve the image of offsite

production, 47% (15) of those believed not enough is being done. 22% (7) of

respondent’s felt there was enough being done and the same amount were not sure.

Interestingly, 10% (3) of respondents did not see any benefits in using offsite

production. From the researchers own knowledge of offsite production it is difficult

to suggest that a professional who has a basic understanding of offsite production

cannot highlight a single benefit to using offsite production. On this basis, the

researcher believes that professionals who do not see any benefits of using offsite

production may not have an understanding of what offsite production can offer. This

again highlights the lack of education the industry has toward understanding offsite

production as a genuine method of construction.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Yes No Not sure I do not see any benefits

Question 14: Do you think enough is being done to improve the awareness of potential benefits when using offsite production?

43

Figure 4.13: Response to Question 15

When asked on the future of offsite production within the UK, 65% (21) of

respondents believe that the offsite production industry will increase, 17% were not

sure and 9% believed that offsite production would either decrease or stay at the

same level. This result is similar to that of a question asked in the 2008 study of

Nadim and Goulding that, when being asked whether offsite production would be the

future of the UK construction industry, 73% of respondents said “yes”, 15%

answered “no” and 12% were not sure. It appears that there is a holistic agreement

amongst UK construction professionals that offsite production will most certainly be

an integral part of the construction industry. This suggests to the researcher that, to a

certain extent, negative perceptions toward offsite production will not affect the

uptake of offsite production.

65% 9%

9%

17%

Question 15: Looking to the future, do you think the use of offsite production will increase or decrease in the UK?

Increase

Decrease

Stay the same

Not sure

44

4.3 Inferential statistical testing (Chi-squared test)

The descriptive analysis reveals that the majority of industry professionals believe

‘past failings’ to be the most influential factor toward the so-called stigma that is

associated with offsite production. The analysis also reveals that negative

perceptions toward offsite production due to past failings exist in today’s

construction industry however it does not appear to have had a direct impact on

people’s decision to adopt offsite production.

To prove/disprove this assumption a chi-squared test has been carried out. The two

questions that will be compared to one another in the chi-squared test are Question 7

and Question 12.

Question 7: Would you consider using offsite production?

And;

Question 12: Do you still have this negative perception toward offsite production?

These two questions have been compared against one another to reveal whether

professionals with negative perceptions toward offsite production from past failures

would consider using offsite production, which will ultimately reveal whether or not

negative perceptions from past failings have an impact on the uptake of offsite

production.

It must be noted that only 17 of the 32 respondents were involved in this cross

tabulation as it only included respondents who were aware of past failures of offsite

production.

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between professionals with

negative perceptions from past failings against whether or not they would use offsite

production.

45

Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference between professionals with

negative perceptions from past failings against whether or not they would use offsite

production.

Would professionals with negative perceptions (from past failings) consider

using offsite production?

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 8.864a 3 .031

Likelihood Ratio 10.667 3 .014

Linear-by-Linear Association .062 1 .803

N of Valid Cases 15

Table 4.7: Chi-squared test results

Figure 4.14: Negative perceptions/consider using offsite production

As the value of 0.031 is below that of the alpha value of 0.05 the null hypothesis has

been rejected. This means that there is an association between professionals’

perception and whether they would consider using offsite production.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Absolutely Possibly Unlikley Definitely not Would you consider using offsite production?

Would professionals with negative perceptions consider using offsite production?

Yes

No

Do you have a negative perception toward offsite production (from past failings)?

46

Comments on findings (from inferential testing) The finding from the inferential test is somewhat different to what the researcher

initially expected. Information sourced through the literature review gave indication

that professionals with negative perceptions of offsite production due to past failings

would most likely not consider using offsite production. However the inferential test

reveals that in fact professionals with negative perceptions would actually consider

using offsite production. The study has revealed that whilst many professionals still

negative perceive offsite production based on past failings, it has not affected them to

the point where they would not consider adopting offsite production in the future.

Therefore, it can be argued that past failings do not have a direct impact on the

uptake of the offsite production industry.

47

Chapter 5: Conclusion

The study initially set out to understand the extent past failings of offsite production

have had toward the modern day perceptions of UK construction industry

professionals. The literature review revealed that the offsite production industry was

at one stage well known for producing defective buildings. From this, it is

understandable as to why many professionals negatively perceived offsite

production. However, it has also been revealed that the offsite production industry

has greatly improved since these past events, and as a result negative perceptions

based from past failings should have by now been somewhat overturned through the

understanding that the modern day offsite production is now one that can offer many

benefits with far less failings unlike the past. From the literature review, it was

revealed that there needed to be a deeper understanding of professionals with

negative perceptions toward offsite production and whether or not they would

actually consider using offsite production. If professionals with negative perceptions

toward offsite production would generally not consider using offsite production, it

could be argued that past failings have had a direct impact on the uptake of the

offsite production industry.

The initial results revealed ‘past failings’ to be the most common factor amongst

industry professionals that attributes to the so-called stigma that is associated with

modern day offsite production. Prior to this study, cost related issues had always

been of most concern regarding the use of offsite production, however the results

from this study confirms that ‘past failing’ have proved more of an issue. The most

concerning aspect revealed from the study is that many professionals have not moved

on since these past failings, despite great improvements made within the offsite

production industry in recent times. Out of the 32 respondents, only 5 professionals

who negatively perceived offsite as a result of past failings have actually moved on

from this and realised the potential of offsite, all as a result of being re-educated on

modern methods of offsite production.

Although there appears to be a lack of professionals who realise the benefits

associated with the newer methods of offsite production, the study surprisingly

revealed that professionals who negatively perceive offsite production would in fact

48

still consider using offsite production. This went against the researchers initial theory

that professionals with negative perceptions would not consider adopting offsite

production. The result show that whilst past failings of offsite production have

certainly affected many industry professionals, they have in fact not affected

peoples’ decision-making, thus past failings are not responsible for the slow uptake

of offsite production. Further research must be carried out to identify the barriers that

are actually affecting the uptake of the offsite production industry.

Personal recommendations

The UK construction industry is constantly looking for more modern approaches to

building than that of traditional methods. Cost, time and quality benefits have been

associated with offsite production however due to past failings of offsite, that mostly

occurred around the post-war era, a stigma has been associated with the industry ever

since and as a result there are a number of professionals that have a negative, out-

dated perception toward offsite production. There is evidence to suggest that

professionals’ perceptions can be changed for the better if they are educated on

modern day offsite production techniques. In recent years the UK government has

realized the potential of offsite production and has aimed to capitalize on a

weakening construction industry by identifying offsite production as the possible

solution, but it appears to be falling on deaf ears considering the limited amount of

projects that are adopting offsite methods. The researcher believes that more should

be done by the government to raise awareness of the benefits modern day offsite

production methods can offer on projects. By doing this the construction industry

will prevail by constructing building quicker, safer and to a higher standard and as

many UK construction professionals are still forming their perceptions of offsite

production from past failings, re-educating these professionals may overturn their

perceptions for the better.

Study limitations

It can be argued that the lack of survey participants affected the true outcome of the

study. The survey included questions similar to that within Nadim and Goulding

(2008) however the end results varied greatly. One possibility of this is that the study

of Nadim and Goulding included 78 responses, more than double than that of this

49

study. One of the key reasons for the lack of participants was the limited timescale of

the study. With considerations to the completion of other important aspects of the

study such as the literature review, the survey itself was only in circulation for a

period of 3 weeks, which is no doubt the reason for the small survey group. One

other limitation that may have affected the outcome of the study is the limited

knowledge on the topic of ‘past failings of offsite production’. Although the study

included 32 respondents, only half of those were aware of ‘past failings’. The study

may have benefitted more had the industry knowledge of ‘past failings’ been more

widespread.

50

References Beanland, C. (2013) ‘the age of instant architecture: Can a block of flats built in 48

hours really be safe? The Independent, 6 Feb [Online]. Available at:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/the-age-of-instant-

architecture-can-a-block-of-flats-built-in-48-hours-really-be-safe-8483928.html

(Accessed: 8 February 2013).

Blismas, N. and Wakefield, R. (2009) ‘Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite

manufacture in Australia’, Construction Innovation; Information, Process,

Management, 9 (1), pp. 72-83, [Online] DOI: 10.1108/14714170910931552

(Accessed 23 November 2012).

Blismas, N., Pasquire, C. and Gibb, A. (2007) ‘Benefit evaluation for off-site

production in construction’, Construction Management and Economics, 24 (2), pp.

121-130, [Online] DOI: 10.1080/01446190500184444 (Accessed: 23 November

2012).

Bryman, A. (2012) Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buildoffsite. (2007) Offsite Construction Industry Survey 2006. London: Buildoffsite

Burwood, S. and Jess, P. (2005) ‘Modern methods of construction: Evolution or

revolution?’ London: BURA.

CIC. (2013) Offsite Housing Review. London: CIC

Cook, B. (2005) ‘an assessment of the potential contribution of prefabrication to

improve the quality of housing: a Scottish perspective’, Construction Information

Quarterly, 7 (2), pp. 50-55.

Cook, M. (2007) The Design Quality Manual – Improving building performance.

London: Blackwell Publishing.

51

Davies, M.B. (2007) doing a successful research project: using quantitative or

qualitative methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Egan, J. (1998) Rethinking Construction, London: HMSO.

Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2007) Research methods for construction. London:

Blackwell.

Farrell, P (2011) Writing a built environment dissertation: practical guidance and

examples, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gibb, A. (1999) off-site fabrication. Scotland: Whittles Publishing.

Goodier, C. and Gibb, A. (2005) ‘the value of the UK market for offsite,

Loughborough University: Loughborough.

Goodier, C. and Gibb, A. (2007) ‘Future opportunities for offsite in the UK’,

Construction Management and Economics, 25 (6), pp. 585-595, [Online] DOI:

10.1080/01446190601071821 (Accessed 23 November 2012).

Great Britain. Cabinet Office (2011) Government Construction Strategy. London:

The Stationary Office

Hayman, A. (2012) ‘Government looks to boost off-site construction’, Journal of

Building, issue 12, September [Online]. Available at:

http://www.building.co.uk/news/contractors/government-looks-to-boost-off-site-

construction/5042351.article (Accessed: 13 December 2012).

HCA. (2010) ‘Design for Manufacture Lessons Learnt 2’. London: HCA.

Herbert, G. (1978) Pioneers of Prefabrication: The British Contribution in the

Nineteenth Century. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Herbert, G. (1984) The Dream of the Factory-Made House. Massachusetts: The

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

52

Hillebrandt, P. (1944) ‘Placing and Management of Building Contracts: The Simon

Committee Report’, in Langford, D. & Murray, M. Construction Reports 1944-98.

Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Kelly, B. (1951) The Prefabrication of Houses. New York: John Wiley.

Nadim, N. and Goulding, J.S. (2008) ‘Offsite production in the UK: the way

forward? A UK construction industry perspective’, Construction Innovation, 10 (2),

pp. 181-202. [Online] DOI 10.1108/14714171011037183 (Accessed: 27 September

2012).

Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J.E. (2010) Practical research: planning and design.

London: Pearson Education International.

O’Leary, Z. (2010) The essential guide to doing your research project. Los Angeles:

Sage.

Pan, W. and Sidwell, R. (2011) ‘Demystifying the cost barriers to offsite

construction in the UK’, Construction Management and Economics, 29 (11), pp.

1081-1099, [Online] DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2011.637938 (Accessed 23 November

2012).

Pan, W., Gibb, A.G.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2007a) ‘Perspectives of UK housebuilders

on the use of offsite modern methods of construction’, Construction Management

and Economics, 25 (2), pp. 183-194, [Online] DOI: 10.1080/01446190600827058

(Accessed 23 November 2012).

Pan, W., Gibb, A.G.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2007b), ‘Leading UK housebuilders’

utilization of offsite construction methods’, Building Research & Information, 36

(1), pp. 56-57, [Online] DOI: 10.1080/09612310701204013 (Accessed on 25

September 2012).

Prior, G. (2013) ‘Skanksa wins cash for “flying factories” trail, Construction

Enquirer, 11 Feb [Online]. Available at:

53

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2013/02/11/skanska-wins-cash-for-flying-

factory-trial (Accessed: 11 February 2013).

Schoenborn, J. M. (2012). A Case Study Approach to Identifying the Constraints and

Barriers to Design Innovation for Modular Construction (Doctoral dissertation,

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY).

White, R.B. (1965) Prefabrication: A history of its development in Great Britain.

London: HMSO.