Content uploaded by Dyaa Hassan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dyaa Hassan on May 15, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2021, 11(1): 19-28
DOI: 10.5923/j.jce.20211101.03
Effectiveness of the Modern Methods of Construction in
Terms of Cost and Time: A Case Study of the United
Kingdom
Abdussalam Shibani*, Araz Agha*, Dyaa Hassan, Yaseen Al-Hadeethi, Mou Choudhury
School of Energy, Construction and Environment, Coventry University, Coventry, CV1 5FB, United Kingdom
Abstract In the past few years, the housing sector has witnessed an increase in the application of modern methods of
construction (MMC) in the construction processes to address the existing housing shortage and improve the quality of
buildings. However, despite the widely reported benefits of such methods, their uptake within the industry has been limited.
This paper reports the findings made from a research that sought to investigate the effectiveness of MMC in terms of cost and
time. A questionnaire survey was applied whereby five of the top construction companies in the country and 30 academicians
it the field of construction were interviewed. The results obtained indicate that the current utilisation of MMC in the large and
medium-sized housing companies is insufficient, but the level is expected to increase due to the growing pressure to improve
on cost, time, quality, productivity, wastages, and health and safety of the workers. However, the perceived higher capital
cost compared to the traditional method has been a major hindrance to the adoption of MMC. Despite this, as for a revolution
in the construction industry of using modern construction methods, off-site MMC is not every company choice of
construction form due to its higher capital and initial costs. This paper recommends a set of strategies that can be used to
address the uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness of MMC and improve its usage among the construction companies.
Keywords Modern Methods of Construction (MMC), Construction, House builders, Offsite manufacturing, UK
1. Introduction
The use of MMC has consistently gained popularity since
the end of the World War I and II. Alternative forms of
construction are said to have been introduced after the world
wars, with a variety of innovative house building systems
popping up and continuing to grow up to date. For instance,
prefabrication, which is one of the classifications of MMC,
has been in use in the UK for many years, particularly after
the demand for housing surged after the two wars [1].
Although about a million homes were prefabricated in the
20th century, the quality of materials and artistry used raised
controversy, which resulted in a negative perception
currently associated with MMC [2].
In recent years, the use of MMC for housing has increased
considerably, though not at a desirable rate. Although the
majority of contractors in the construction industry are still
applying the traditional methods, the need for sustainability,
quicker processes, and the existing skill shortages have
increased the need for modern methods, which are
* Corresponding author:
ab1732@coventry.ac.uk (Abdussalam Shibani)
ab4146@coventry.ac.uk (Araz Agha)
Received: Mar. 16, 2021; Accepted: Apr. 23, 2021; Published: May 15, 2021
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/jce
anticipated to sustainable and cost-effective [3]. MMC is
often associated with an enhanced speed of construction,
minimal defects in structures, and reduced wastes and
energy consumption due to their application of off-site
manufacturing [4]. Although the construction sector is yet to
come up with a universal definition of MMC, there seems to
be a general agreement among the researchers in describing
the term as a composition of all construction approaches that
seek to promote sustainability, construction efficiency, and
quality of structures. The approaches that are presently being
used in the UK and other parts of the globe differ
significantly from the conventional methods used in the
building sector. Many of them (referred to as MMC)
incorporate off-site manufacturing and prefabrication of
materials [4]. Current debates, however, revolve around
the classification of modern methods of constructions.
Nonetheless, MMC can be classi-fied into five categories,
that is, panelised frames, volumetric system, hybrid system,
sub-assemblies and components, and modular system [5] [6].
Kamar et al., (2011) [3] define panels as two-dimensional
structures whose infill elements are assembled on site. They
include pre-assembled floor, roof panels, and walls. Frames,
on the other hand, refer to the factory-assembled structures
that provide the necessary structural support during the
construction processes. Kamar and his colleagues observed
that these structures are supplied promptly to the site, which
20 Abdussalam Shibani et al.: Effectiveness of the Modern Methods of Construction
in Terms of Cost and Time: A Case Study of the United Kingdom
increases the speed of construction and reduces the
inaccuracies associated with on-site cutting. Steel frame
modules are the most commonly used frames, with the UK
being one of the leading countries in steel usage. The feature
of steel as an element that can be mould into any shape or
form is said to be one of the main reasons to why it is widely
used in off-site manufacturing [7].
Volumetric systems refer to the materials assembled in a
factory and then mounted onto or within a structure [8]. For
instance, the internal structures of items such as washroom
pods and plant rooms are completed off-site and then
brought to the site for installation. In this case, the materials
used are often timber, steel and concrete [9]. Modular
systems and volumetric systems are similar in their
functionalities, but the former is much bigger than the latter.
Moreover, both the internal and external parts of a modular
system are manufactured offsite. One of the main strengths
of modular systems is the fact that they are said to be easily
customisable using the modern techniques to suit the needs
of the clients [8]. Moreover they noted plant rooms are
labour intensive and therefore their off-site production may
provide significant economic benefits in terms of cheap
labour. Off-site production of plant rooms is also associated
with reduced completion time for projects and improved
efficiency. The sub-assemblies, on the other hand, are
mainly used to cater for the methods that do not fit the
description of off-site manufacturing (OSM) systems [10].
Therefore, the term refers to basic components that are
produced in factories such as the doors, block floors
foundation systems, windows, concrete beams, and stairs.
He defines the term as building components that are built
off-site but are not critical to the main structure of a building.
He, therefore, considered sub-assemblies as the most
conventional and commonly used system in OSM [10].
1.1. The Development of MMC
The prefabrication of building components is believed to
have begun in the early 20th century. However, there have
also been examples of previous use, such as the construction
of the first iron bridge in the United Kingdom in 1779. The
most significant push for OSM in the housing sector is said
to have started after the First and Second World Wars, with
the need for new buildings and reconstructions of those that
were destroyed during the wars being the primary reasons [2].
Since then, other factors that have contributed to the push
include skills shortage, quality enhancement, development in
building regulations, sustainability, and environmental
performance, and accuracy in buildings.
The construction industry has always been associated with
the shortage of skills, which in turn has had an adverse
impact on quality and pace of projects [11]. For this reason,
there has been an increased need for modern methods of
construction, where much of the construction process is
carried out in a factory-controlled environment, thus
reducing the requirement for skills on-site. According to
Kamar et al., (2011) [3] the off-site production of building
components enhances quality and helps in reducing the risks
attributed to on-site quality management. Kamar and his
colleagues observed that, though quality management is still
critical on the construction site, it could be improved by
having some of the site-based work performed off-site.
Although the situation regarding the reduction of quality is
difficult to measure, the construction sector has on various
occasions suffered from quality assurance challenges.
However, as Rahman (2013) [12] pointed out, the current
problem relating to quality is centred on improvement rather
than assurance. The sector has always sought to enhance
the quality of structure through modern technologies and
approaches, while at the same time ensuring that
productivity and sustainability are improved. In addition, the
changes in customer expectations, especially in the housing
industry, have heightened the need for continuous
enhancement of quality [13]. For this reason, MMC has been
viewed as an efficient solution to the quality problems
associated with the traditional methods of construction.
For many years, the building regulations and related
frameworks have been evolving at an alarming rate not only
in the UK but also in other parts of the word [13]. As a result,
there has been a growing need for increased adoption of
MMC in the construction industry. For instance, the need for
a threshold performance concerning thermal and sound
insulation and energy consumption requires a construction
method that is measurable and predictable. Furthermore, the
possibility of performance evaluation after the completion of
a building places a much more significant need for a reliable
and verifiable method than it was previously required [4].
Therefore, the use of off-site manufacturing methods is seen
as a better way of achieving reliability and compliance with
the regulations than the conventional site-based techniques.
The increased attention to the environmental impact of
construction processes has also enhanced the need for
sustainability of structures and construction methods
(Lehmann, 2013). In this case, the application of MMC using
off-site production, efficient components, and supply chain
management is seen as one of the best approaches that can be
used to reduce wastage and the associated environmental
impact. As Nadim and Goulding, (2010) [13] argue, the
quality control mechanisms employed in MMC can enhance
airtightness, thus improving the thermal performance of the
structure. The study observed that off-site manufacturing
plays a critical role in reducing the environmental
disturbances around the construction sites [13].
1.2. Advantages and Disadvantages of MMC
The use of MMC such as prefabrication is associated with
numerous advantages, for instance, noted that MMC could
provide an opportunity through which the benefits offered by
off-site manufacturing can be capitalised on. One of these
benefits is the increased pace of construction process, with
the eight days' completion of the 32 self-contained flats in
London by the modular building contractors being a perfect
example [13]. The Peabody Trust's Murray Grove scheme is
Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2021, 11(1): 19-28 21
also said to have saved close to five months in comparison to
the traditional methods [14]. As previously indicated, quality
of the product is enhanced when building components are
produced at the factory conditions. On-site production is said
to have an adverse impact on the quality of construction
materials such as the concrete, especially when weather
conditions are not favourable. For instance, at sweltering
conditions, too much water is usually wasted through
evaporation when concrete is curing. On the other hand,
when the temperature is below the required level, there are
slow chemical reactions during the curing process. Therefore,
both extremes have adverse impacts on the compressive
strength of the concrete [13].
The use of MMC such as the prefabrication is also
associated with improved health and safety of the personnel
around the site. For example, Nadim and Goulding (2010)
[13] noted that, the prefabrication eliminates the congestion
within the site area and the amount of work required there
since much of the work is done under factory conditions. In
support of this, a report presented by the Health and Safety
Executive indicated that deadly accidents are more than five
times likely to occur in the construction sites than in the
factory settings [15]. Off-site manufacturing also ensures
that standardised materials can be applied in a controlled
environment, where minimum tolerance can be achieved
through proper supervision. Another benefit associated with
MMC is its ability to reduce the amount of waste during the
construction process. For instance, Boyd et al, (2012) [16]
term the lean processes employed in off-site manufacturing
as critical to efficient utilisation of resources. He noted that
the prefabrication of building components provide an
opportunity through which materials can be re-used and
recycled, thus reducing wastage. Moreover, the modern
OSM systems are said to have been built using a lightweight
steel frame, which consumes less energy than other
components such as the concrete [16].
Despite the numerous benefits associated with MMC or
offsite manufacturing, several barriers such as the issue of
cost limit its adoption in the sector. Some scholars claim that
the prefabrication process is more expensive than the
traditional method. For instance, a study conducted by Davis
Langdon revealed that off-site manufacturing has a cost
premium of 12 between 10 and 25 percent [15], other
scholars argue that, though there is a premium in cost, the
enhanced speed of construction and increased quality
compensate for the loss of money (Pan and Sidwell, 2011)
[17]. They also observe that most prefabricated components
are designed in a manner that they can quickly be repaired
and maintained, thus offering long-term benefits in terms of
maintenance cost. Nonetheless, there has not been a
universally accepted method for quantifying the amount
regained through such benefits. Other challenges associated
with MMC include the high set up cost with which they are
associated. According to Rahman (2013) [12], much of the
construction work in the UK is carried out using the
conventional methods, which has aggravated the shortage of
a competent skill base that can be used to perform off-site
manufacturing. Similarly, Nadim (2012) [13] observed that
the cost of starting prefabrication plants is considerably high,
which may be the primary reason to why the technique is
not widely applied. Moreover, some of the past systems are
negatively perceived due to the designs and aesthetics, thus
implying that they are not suitable to everyone's taste and
preference. The introduction should provide a clear
statement of the problem, the relevant literature on the
subject, and the proposed approach or solution. It should be
understandable to the colleagues from a broad range of
scientific disciplines.
According to MTech Consult Limited (2009) [29], MMC
require developers to purchase all relevant materials before
kick starting a project, which necessitates high initialization
costs. In particular, increments in cost of employing MMC
have been associated with increase in execution time, which
are the two most cited challenges of OSM systems.
Apparently, MMCs have been marred with inconsistencies
concerning the experiences held by different households.
In particular, while some individuals find the methods
challenging to adapt because of factors such as
implementation feed, others consider them as high quality
and cost-efficient. In other words, although some OSM
components from different suppliers might be benefits to
some users, other components could be adversely affecting
users. This necessitates an empirical research for
investigating the effectiveness of MMC in terms of cost, time,
and quality.
Unfortunately, there is little literature explicating the
degree of effectiveness of MMCs in the construction of
house, particularly in terms of time and cost. Literature
inadequacy in this field occurs at a time when housing has
become a challenge not only in the UK but also in other
places of the world, which can be better solved with
functionally and cost-efficient construction methods.
Frankly, tradition methods of construction are yet to prove
reliable with regard to solving the housing inadequacies
despite having been applied for more than centuries. As such,
although modern methods of construction are negatively
perceived, they could be the solution to the housing problem,
which forms the background for measuring their
effectiveness. In particular, a study of this nature might be
crucial in determining whether MMCs are worthwhile or
whether onsite methods are the future of construction in the
UK.
In light of the literature gap and research problem
elucidated above, this project seeks to assess the
effectiveness in terms of cost and time of the adoption of
MMC in the UK’s construction industry. the following is
research objectives:
Investigating the utilisation of MMC in positively
impacting the housing segment in the United Kingdom;
To analyse costs efficiency in the utilisation of MMC in
the UK building industry in comparison to traditional
methods of construction; and
Evaluate the efficiency in time for the utilisation of
MMC in the UK building sector, as compared to
22 Abdussalam Shibani et al.: Effectiveness of the Modern Methods of Construction
in Terms of Cost and Time: A Case Study of the United Kingdom
conventional methods of building.
2. Methods
The term research design refers to a framework or a
detailed plan used when conducting research. It is also
referred to as a strategy employed by researchers when
searching for solutions to an established research problem
[18]. It, therefore, involves a comprehensive and logical
integration of elements such as data collection methods,
research approach, and data analysis and presentation. The
research design employed is said to be a critical factor in the
determination of authority, trustworthiness, and authenticity
of the data obtained and the research findings [19].
According to Lewis (2015) [19], the choice of a research
design to be used in a study is heavily dependent on several
factors. First, the choice depends on the context of the
research problem, paradigms, perspectives, and the
assumptions made during the research. Secondly, the choice
on the feasibility of the available options as well as on the
nature of the research aims and objectives. Lastly, the choice
depends on the nature of information that the research seeks
to establish. Similarly, Fellows and Liu (2015) [18] observed
that the choice of research design is significantly influenced
by the phenomenon being explored and the proficiency of
the research.
2.1. Data Collection
The study used both primary and secondary methods of
data gathering, which allowed the data obtained to
complement each other. The primary methods of data
collection took the form of survey whereby the
questionnaires were sent out to the academicians and the
practitioners in the construction industry. The selected
sample included 5 construction firms in the UK and 30
academicians in the field of construction, based in the same
country. Convenience sampling was applied because the
sample had to be in the building industry and aware of the
application of MMC. The questionnaires used incorporated
both open-ended and close-ended questions. Secondary
sources, on the other hand, took the form of literature from
various sources discussing MMC. They included books,
journals, and online articles. Besides, the study used a mixed
research approaches where both qualitative and quantitative
techniques were applied. The use of a mixed research design
ensured that the shortcomings of one technique were
overcome by the other [20]. Quantitative methods adopt
approaches that are scientific, and in which the study of
theories and that of the existing literature, leads to precise
aims and objectives. Additionally, quantitative methods
result in a hypothesis that can be tested and explained [18].
On the other hand, qualitative research entails the
exploration of the topic being investigated and, in some
instances takes place without prior formulations. This is
typically done with the aim of collecting and understanding
data collected. Qualitative research thus tends to be
exploratory [21], [22].
2.2. Interview
A semi-structured interview offers structure, while also
being flexible to allow for unanticipated ideas to emerge [23].
Likewise, another advantage is that data can be recorded and
reviewed several times by the researcher to help produce an
accurate interview [24]. Therefore, semi structured interview
is a more balanced form of qualitative data compared to
using unstructured interviews, where there are no set
questions prior to attending the interview. In contrary, Rubin
& Rubin 2005 [23] criticised interviews as being ‘time
consuming for data collection and analysis’ which is a
disadvantage for this method as [24] also agrees as well.
Nonetheless, interviews enable a greater level of detailed
response because it facilities interviewees to ‘speak in their
own voice and express their own thoughts and feelings’ [24].
Observational and experimental will not be used in this
research due to this paper being a mostly researched based
study.
2.3. Data Analysis
Since the research sought to establish the time- and
cost-effectiveness of MMC in the UK housing sector,
questionnaires and review of literature were used as the
primary data collection methods. The literature review
ensured that the results obtained were of high quality and
could be generalised. In this case, due to the incorporation of
both qualitative and quantitative approaches, the data was
analysed by first being converted into textual and statistical
forms, which allowed the researcher to understand the
information and make inferences. Some of the data obtained
were presented mathematically to allow statistical
conversions to be carried out [25-26].
2.4. Ethical Considerations
It is generally agreed that there are five broad ethical
considerations that a researcher is supposed to make in the
course of his/her study [27]. They include voluntary
participation, anonymity, and confidentiality, informed
consent, the potential for harm, and communication of the
results. In order to address all these ethical issues, the
respondents were introduced to the subject matter to ensure
that they understood the aims and objectives that the research
sought to achieve. In addition, the respondents were given a
form that asked them to give their consent for participation in
the research. The content matter of the questionnaires was
formulated in line with the aims, as well as the objectives of
the study.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Questionnaire
Evidence from the literature indicates that a significant
number of houses in the UK are still being built using the
Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2021, 11(1): 19-28 23
conventional methods of construction [29]. However, the
utilisation of MMC for housing has increased in the past few
years due to several factors including the growing demand
for faster construction and scarcity of skills. Nonetheless,
there are still uncertainties about the extent of MMC
application in the housing sector [11]. A few large private
organisations are said to have lately invested a significant
number of resources in MMC plants and therefore the
production is expected to increase. For instance, it is
estimated that at least 25,000 homes per year will
constructed using MMC [13].
Figure 1. Types of MMC is used in the company/project
Figure 1 represents the answers to (Q1) on the survey
aimed at finding which types of MMC is used in the
company/project. The results depict over 30% of the 30
participants involved is using on-site MMC. Therefore, this
suggests traditional methods of on-site construction are still
being used compared to off-site MMC. However, modular,
which is an off-site construction, is appeared to be used
frequently across the companies as portrayed from the chart
with a figure of 23% using it. To follow, volumetric is being
used which shows 20% of the respondents using this type of
modern method of construction. Thus, clearly indicates the
growth of off-site MMC is still not apparent in some housing
companies as not many companies are using off-site as
expected in this survey.
Figure 2. Portrays the response of the house builders aimed at finding out
the benefits of using MMC in the housing industry
Figure 2 portrays the response of the house builders aimed
at finding out the benefits of using off-site MMC in the
housing industry. The key benefit from the majority of
respondent’s viewpoint is relayed due a faster construction
process impacted on the project with 20% of 30 participants
agreeing to this. Following on, it is shown the total cost
reduction is agreed with 17% of the respondents, indicating
time savings are more apparent than cost savings. Moreover,
other benefits are considered such as reduced health and
safety risks. However, ‘high quality materials’ were not
deemed to be an advantage as less than 10% respondents
agreed to this benefit of using off-site MMC.
Figure 3. The respondents agreeing to MMC construction
Figure 3 represents majority of the respondents agreeing
to off-site MMC construction being important for the long
term with 60% saying ‘yes’. This high percentage
demonstrates the possible rise off-site methods being used
more in the housing companies due to the benefits. However,
40% of the respondents said ‘no’ out of the 30 results
obtained in this study.
Figure 4. Off-site MMC reducing the overall time of a housing project
Figure 5. The MMC can reduce the overall cost of a housing project
Figure 4 illustrates the respondents’ views of off-site
MMC reducing the overall time of a housing project. Figure
11 shows a value of 53% of the 30 participants surveyed
24 Abdussalam Shibani et al.: Effectiveness of the Modern Methods of Construction
in Terms of Cost and Time: A Case Study of the United Kingdom
that said ‘yes’ to off-site construction reducing the time,
implying time savings are saved. However, 47% agreed to
time savings not being saved using off-site construction.
Figure 5 exemplifies the respondents’ perspective
regarding whether off-site MMC can reduce the overall cost
of a housing project. It shows 63% answered ‘no’ implying
cost savings are not reduced by using this method whereas
37% said ‘yes’.
Table 1. High initial/capital costs
Variable
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Strongly disagree
0
0
Disagree
1
3
Neutral
2
7
Agree
7
23
Strongly agree
19
63
N/A
1
3
Total
30
100
The data in Table 1 suggests there is a high initial and
capital costs as majority of the respondents, 63%, strongly
agree with this. Therefore, indicating off-site is not as
effective as costs are high initially, therefore less is saved on
total project.
Table 2. Reduced overall project time
Variable
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Strongly disagree
2
7
Disagree
6
20
Neutral
4
13
Agree
8
27
Strongly agree
10
33
N/A
0
0
Total
30
100
Table 2 represents the reduced time overall in the projects
with over 50% agree with time savings being reduced in
off-site construction. However, just over 25% disagree with
this.
Table 3. Efficient construction process time
Variable
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Strongly disagree
0
0
Disagree
1
3
Neutral
2
7
Agree
7
23
Strongly agree
19
63
N/A
1
3
Total
30
100
Table 3 indicates majority of the respondents, amongst
63% of 30 people strongly agreed with an efficient
construction time with off-site MMC. Very little disagreed
with this with only 10% in total.
Table 4. Improved site efficiency regarding time
Variable
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Strongly disagree
2
7
Disagree
3
10
Neutral
4
13
Agree
15
50
Strongly agree
5
17
N/A
1
3
Total
30
100
Table 4 shows is a high percentage of respondents
agreeing with an improved site efficiency regarding time.
Only 17% of the 30 people disagree with this, however,
majority of off-site construction takes place from the
construction site to the factory for production therefore time
is effectively saved.
Table 5. Increased number of houses built in the UK
Variable
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Strongly disagree
1
3
Disagree
1
3
Neutral
13
43
Agree
8
27
Strongly agree
5
17
N/A
2
7
Total
30
100
Table 5 portrays majority of house builders have a ‘neutral’
opinion regarding the number of houses build using off site
methods. This may be due to the lack of understanding and
awareness of such methods providing benefits to the
construction industry.
Table 6. Reduces speed of construction
Variable
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Strongly disagree
7
23
Disagree
2
7
Neutral
1
3
Agree
6
20
Strongly agree
13
43
N/A
1
3
Total
30
100
The data in Table 6 shows 43% agree with a reduction
of speed applied with off-site construction, however, 23%
of 30 respondents disagreed with this.
3.2. Interview
3.2.1. Utilisation of MMC in the UK
The interviews conducted regarding this objective
indicated that a substantial number of house constructors and
housing organisations are utilising, or have considered, at
least one modern method of construction in their building
Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2021, 11(1): 19-28 25
plans. Of all the interviewees from large and medium-sized
housing companies, only three claimed to have not applied or
considered at least one form of MMC in the past 5 years.
According to most participants, the most com-monly used
form of MMC includes sub-assemblies and components,
panellised systems, semi-volumetric and vol-umetric
constructions respectively. Almost three quarters of the
house builders and half of the housing companies
inter-viewed in this study claimed to have used
sub-assemblies and components. However, opinions remain
divided with more than half of the participants in each case
indicating to have rejected or not likely to consider using
them at all.
Table 7. Results of the utilisation of MMC in the UK
Form of MMC Percentage
(%)
Panellised systems
50
Sub-assemblies and components
75
Volumetric
15
Semi-volumetric
10
Site-based MMC
20
Majority of the participants indicated that the apparent
lower utilisation of MMC by housing companies might be
because of the procurement of new houses through design
and building contracts or under Section 106 agreements.
One particular respondent noted, "The housing companies
have not been able to fully adopt the modern methods of
construction partly due to Section 106 agreements and the
development of new homes through design and building
con-tracts. Procurement of new homes through these
approaches means that the companies may not always have a
chance to choose the construction method used." By region,
the South East and London were found to have the highest
utilisation of volumetric and semi-volumetric construction.
On the other hand, Scotland has the highest utilisation of
panellised system MMC, which according to Lehmann
(2013) [30] is because of the well-established culture of
using timber frame in construction. The region has also been
credited with the highest utilisation of off-site made (OSM)
sub-assemblies and components.
3.2.2. Positive Impact of MMC in the Housing Segment in
the UK
Finding out the positive impact that MMC may have had
on the UK's housing industry was another core objective of
this study. A review of the available literature regarding this
issue indicated that the evidence of MMC benefits is still
inconclusive, considering that only few studies have
investigated the matter. However, the participants
interviewed in the present study associated MMC to several
benefits including, energy saving, addressing the existing
skills shortage, reduction in wastes, fewer trips to and from
the sites, improved quality of buildings and health and safety
of workers.
The majority of the participants (construction firms and
academicians) indicated that homes constructed using MMC
require lesser heating energy than those built using the
traditional methods of construction. For instance, one of the
respondents argued, "MMC homes have more insulation
components on the walls and roofs than the conventional
houses, thus reducing the amount of energy required for
heating. Moreover, there are fewer air leakages from the
houses." It also emerged the increased interest in MMC
among the construction companies is because of the
anticipation that the energy requirement regulations will
soon become stricter.
Another positive impact of using MMC in house
construction is the reduction of wastes resulting from on-site
processes. A review of the literature indicates that waste
from the construction and demolition processes accounts for
25% of UK waste [28]. As such, over three-quarters of the
participants expressed their confidence that the use MMC is
going to reduce the amount of waste being produced around
the building sites. One particular respondent observed, "The
use of modern methods of construction allows factory
components to be ordered to the correct specifications, thus
limiting the risk of on-site spillage, especially during wet
weather."
The use of MMC was also found to have a positive impact
on the transport cost because fewer trips to and from the
construction sites are required. According to one of the
participants, "the development of a significant portion of a
house in factories reduces the overall number of trips to a
construction site." The participant further observed that most
of the construction works are often carried out on
‘brownfield' sites in the cities, and therefore the use of MMC
or off-site manufacturing is crucial in that respect. More than
two-thirds of the participants cited health and safety of
workers as one of the most significant benefits of using
MMC. Statistics indicate that the construction sector is one
of the most dangerous with regards to the safety of workers,
with close to 100 fatalities per year in the United Kingdom
being associated with the industry [13]. For this reason, most
participants claimed that MMC is safer than the traditional
methods since the risk of accidents in a controlled factory
setting is significantly reduced, with workers also spending
less time on the building site.
3.2.3. Cost-effectiveness of Using MMC Compared to
Traditional Methods
There were mixed opinions among the participants
concerning the cost-effectiveness of modern methods of
construction in comparison to the traditional ones.
A significant number of house builders argued that MMC
are cheaper than the conventional methods while others
indicated that MMC leads to an increased cost of
construction by around 8-10%. The majority of the
respondents were unable to differentiate the
cost-effectiveness of the two methods. They claimed that the
confidentiality of project financial information and
variations in the building costs of the traditional methods
make is it difficult to make comparisons.
26 Abdussalam Shibani et al.: Effectiveness of the Modern Methods of Construction
in Terms of Cost and Time: A Case Study of the United Kingdom
In addition, though MMC is said to have a significant
potential to lead to reduced initial costs, increased cash flow,
and faster sales returns [17], only 45% of the participants
indicated to have experienced cost reduction and enhanced
profitability. The majority seemed undecided on the
cost-effectiveness of MMC in comparison to the
conventional methods. Furthermore, the use of MMC was
not considered to have reduced the dependence on specific
construction materials such as bricks, which are critical
regardless of the construction method used. For this reason,
80% of the respondents disagreed with the notion that the use
of MMC minimises the cost of materials. However, 60% of
the house builders interviewed in this study agreed with the
statements that: (1) MMC minimises service utilities cost; (2)
MMC minimises labour cost; and (3) MMC minimises
maintenance cost.
3.2.4. Discussion
The survey results and a review of the literature indicate
that the utilisation of MMC in the UK's housing sector is still
not up to the required levels. A significant number of the
house builders are still satisfied with the conventional
methods and are not ready to embrace MMC. This scenario,
however, does not necessarily imply that house builders are
not aware of the potential of MMC to revolutionise the
construction industry. Instead, the low level of contentment
with the use of MMC may be due to the existing apathy in the
utilisation of such methods [13], with the majority of
builders, unsurprisingly, indicating that they have considered
applying at least one form of MMC. Moreover, because most
of the participants had little experience with the technologies,
their opinions may have been influenced by the existing
perceptions about MMC. Regarding the positive impact of
MMC on the UK housing sector, this study has shown that
the benefits of the methods are yet to be clearly understood.
However, those who have used the methods associate them
with several benefits, with key among them being cost and
energy savings and an improvement in the health and safety
workers. Although there is still no sufficient evidence
concerning these particular benefits, it is clear from this
study that the use of MMC has a significant potential
to contribute to the government agenda of reducing the
amount of energy consumed, mainly on heating and other
housing-related activities. Moreover, the use of MMC is
likely to reduce the transport and labour costs, with fewer
trips and labourers being required on-site. This observation
is consistent with the findings made by Taylor, (2010) [7],
who indicated that MMC often apply off-site manufacturing
of components, which reduces the number of workers
required on the construction site and the number trips in
and out of the sites. The cost-effectiveness of MMC in
comparison with the traditional methods appears to be
unclear because the cost has been cited as both a barrier and a
benefit. According to Pan and Sidwell (2011) [17], one of the
main reasons as to why some people view the cost of using
MMC as high than the traditional methods is because some
benefits such as improved quality of buildings and fewer
mistakes are not reflected in the project accounts.
The time-effectiveness of MMC also seemed to divide the
opinions of the participants, with half of the construction
companies being uncertain about the benefit. However, there
seemed to be a consensus among the house builders that
MMC is faster than the traditional methods, with all those
who have used the methods citing speed as the main reason
as to why they choose to apply them. Pan and Sidwell (2011)
[17] noted that the housing companies might not be
convinced of this benefit because some them do not have
direct control over the planning because of their dependence
on the contractors [29-31].
4. Conclusions
This study sought to establish the cost and
time-effectiveness of utilising MMC in the in the UK's
housing sector. Inclusively, it has been established that
MMC has a significant potential to play a leading role in
addressing the current housing shortage and improving the
efficiency of the construction processes precisely in the UK.
Against the backdrop of insufficient adoption of MMC, this
paper investigated the perspectives of the construction
companies and house builders regarding the effectiveness of
MMC using a survey sample of 5 top construction firms and
30 academicians in the field. The study has established that,
though there are still uncertainties about some of the benefits
of MMC, the conventional drivers such as speed, quality,
performance, and cost remain critical factors in the adoption
of MMC.
The study also suggests that modern methods of
construction are efficient in terms of time compared to the
traditional methods. However, more analysis and empirical
research need to be conducted to establish their
cost-effectiveness because the stakeholders in the industry
seem uncertain about the benefit. Factors such as energy
saving, reduction in wastes, reduction in transport cost,
improved quality of buildings, and health and safety of
works appear to be the most significant impacts that MMC
have had in the housing sector in the UK. Nonetheless, it has
been established that the perceived higher capital cost has
been one of the major obstacles to the utilisation of MMC
and therefore the strategies revolve around changing the
public perceptions and provision of guidance in the
decision-making processes.
REFERENCES
[1] Baghchesaraei, A., Kaptan, M.V. and Baghchesaraei, O.R.,
2015. Using prefabrication systems in building construction.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research,
10(24), pp.4258-4262.
[2] Lovell, H. and Smith, S.J., 2010. Agencement in housing
markets: The case of the UK construction industry. Geoforum,
41(3), pp.457-468.
Journal of Civil Engineering Research 2021, 11(1): 19-28 27
[3] Kamar, A.M., Hamid, Z.A. and Azman, N.A., 2011.
Industrialized building system (IBS): Revisiting issues of
definition and classification. International journal of
emerging sciences, 1(2), p.120.
[4] Kempton, J., 2010. Modern methods of construction and RSL
asset management: a quantitative study. Structural Survey,
28(2), pp.121-131. 30.
[5] Araz Agha, Abdussalam Shibani, Dyaa Hassan,
Alexander Salmon, 2020, Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Methodology on the UK
Residential Projects. International Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 2020, 9(6): 183-189.
DOI: 10.5923/j.ijcem.20200906.01.
[6] Agha A, Shibani A, Hassan D, Zalans B (2021) Modular
Construction in the United Kingdom Housing Sector: Barriers
and Implications. J Archit Eng Tech 10:2:236.
[7] Taylor, M.D., 2010. A definition and valuation of the UK
offsite construction sector. Construction Management and
Economics, 28(8), pp.885-896.
[8] Hashemi, A., Kim, U.K., Bell, P., Steinhardt, D., Manley, K.
and Southcombe, M., 2016. Prefabrication. In ZEMCH:
Toward the Delivery of Zero Energy Mass Custom Homes
(pp. 65-94). Springer, Cham.
[9] Zupova, L., 2013. Modern methods of construction as
a challenge for energy efficiency buildings. International
Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM:
Surveying Geology & mining Ecology Management, p.677.
[10] Bignell, M., 2014. Some assembly required: component and
ensemble in prefabricated Australian domestic construction.
In Society of Architectural Historians, Australia and New
Zealand (SAHANZ) Annual Conference (Vol. 31, pp.
425-434). SAHANZ and Unitec Press.
[11] Nadim, W., 2012. Modern methods of construction.
Construction innovation and process improvement,
pp.209-233.
[12] Rahman, M.M., 2013. Barriers of implementing modern
methods of construction. Journal of management in
engineering, 30(1), pp.69-77.
[13] Nadim, W. and Goulding, J.S., 2010. Offsite production in the
UK: the way forward? A UK construction industry
perspective. Construction innovation, 10(2), pp.181-202.
[14] McGrath, P.T. and Horton, M., 2011. A post-occupancy
evaluation (POE) study of student accommodation in an
MMC/modular building. Structural Survey, 29(3),
pp.244-252.
[15] Molavi, J. and Barral, D.L., 2016. A Construction
Procurement Method to Achieve Sustainability in Modular
Construction. Procedia Engineering, 145, pp.1362-1369.
[16] Boyd, N., Khalfan, M.M. and Maqsood, T., 2012. Off-site
construction of apartment buildings. Journal of Architectural
Engineering, 19(1), pp.51-57.
[17] 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.
[18] Fellows, R.F. and Liu, A.M., 2015. Research methods for
construction. John Wiley & Sons. 29.
[19] Lewis, S., 2015. Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion practice,
16(4), pp.473-475. Shibani, A., Hassan, D., and Shakir, N.,
2020, The Effects of Pandemic on Construction Industry in
the UK, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 11(6), 48.
[20] Ngulube, P. and Ngulube, B., 2015. Mixed methods research
in the South African Journal of Economic and Management
Sciences: An investigation of trends in the literature. South
African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences,
18(1), pp.1-13.
[21] Abdussalam Shibani, Omar Mahadel, Dyaa Hassan, Araz
Agha, Messaoud Saidan, 2021, CAUSES OF TIME
OVERRUNS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN
EGYPT. International Research Journal Of Modernization In
Engineering Technology And Science (IRJMETS), Vol.3 (1).
[22] Abdussalam Shibani, Anjli Bhavsar, Dyaa Hassan, Messaoud
Saidani, Araz agha, 2021, Investigating the Benefits of BIM
for Mid-Rise Timber Buildings in Canada: A Qualitative
Study. . Journal of Mechanical And Civil Engineering.
Volume-7, Issue-1. pp 1-32.
[23] Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell
[24] Berg, B. (2007) Qualitative Research Methods For The Social
Sciences. London: Pearson
[25] Shibani A, Yang W, Hassan D. Evaluate the UK Construction
Project Impact and Response Strategies during the Epidemic
through Malaysia and China. J Adv Res Civil Envi Engr 2020;
7(3&4): 1-10.
[26] Abdussalam Shibani, Michal Ghostin, Dyaa Hassan,
Messaoud Saidani, Araz agha, 2021, Exploring the Impact of
Implementing Building Information Modelling to Support
Sustainable Development in the Lebanese Construction
Industry: A Qualitative Approach. Journal of Mechanical
And Civil Engineering. Volume-7 Issue-1. pp 33-62.
[27] Kelly, P., Marshall, S.J., Badland, H., Kerr, J., Oliver, M.,
Doherty, A.R. and Foster, C., 2013. An ethical framework for
automated, wearable cameras in health behavior research.
American journal of preventive medicine, 44(3), pp.314-319.
[28] Iddon, C.R. and Firth, S.K., 2013. Embodied and operational
energy for new-build housing: a case study of construction
methods in the UK. Energy and Buildings, 67, pp.479-488.
[29] Lehmann, S., 2013. Low carbon construction systems using
prefabricated engineered solid wood panels for urban infill to
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainable
Cities and Society, 6, pp.57-67.
[30] Osmani, M., 2011. Construction waste. In Waste (pp.
207-218).
[31] Mtech Consult Limited., 2009. Offsite and MMC in
affordable housing, Mtech, Shrewsbury, U.K.
[32] Shibani, A. Arumugam, K., 2015, Avoiding Cost Overruns in
Construction Projects in India: Management Studies. 3, 7-8, p.
192-202.
[33] Almutairi, Y., Arif, M. and Khalfan, M.M., 2016. Moving
towards managing offsite construction techniques in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a review. Middle East Journal of
Management, 3(2), pp.164-178.
[34] Arif, M., Killian, P., Goulding, J., Wood, G. and Kaushik, A.,
28 Abdussalam Shibani et al.: Effectiveness of the Modern Methods of Construction
in Terms of Cost and Time: A Case Study of the United Kingdom
2017. Barriers and challenges for offsite construction in uk
housing sector. Welcome to delegates IRC 2017, p.854.
[35] Dyaa Hassan, Abdussalam Shibani, Araz Agha, Said Al
Sharqi, (2021), Performance of Sustainable Building Fabric
to Replace the Traditional Cavity Wall Technique for New
Housing Sector in the UK, International Journal of Advanced
Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS), 8 (2), pp
173-182.
[36] Abdussalam Shibani, Araz Agha, Thuraiya Alharasi, Dyaa
Hassan, (2021), Prefabrication as a Solution for Tackling
the Building Crisis in the UK, Journal of Civil Engineering
Research 2021, 11(1): 10-18,
DOI: 10.5923/j.jce.20211101.02.
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Scientific & Academic Publishing
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
