The issue regarding its wider scale adoption is simply that it requires the industry to break with the ideas and processes we’ve been following before.
But, with modular construction, it’s often the case that prefabricating comparatively simple parts of a building as 3D modules adds cost and complexity, especially if the required trades need to be present on-site anyway..The problems found in modular construction are only compounded by inefficient factory working.
The cost of any prefabricated component (indeed, any component of any building) can be divided into materials and labour.If we ignore the cost of the labour that has gone into making the component, we only have material costs left, resulting in limited opportunities to add value.Manufacturers have understood this for decades and spent a great deal of effort developing highly productive assembly routines that enabled the mass production, automation and commoditisation that fuelled the consumer age.. Too often factories are treated as ‘construction sites in a shed' producing bespoke, custom components with overlapping trades and poor works sequencing, causing reduced value and the same inefficiencies that are often found on construction sites.
We want the factories that produce components for the construction industry to be more like the best factories making consumer goods; highly efficient, controlled and focused on achieving the highest throughput for the lowest cost, without compromising on quality..In short, we want factories to be less like construction sites.. Construction Platforms: our MMC approach to achieving the best mix of on-site and off-site construction.
At Bryden Wood, we have over 25 years’ experience applying all types of MMC solutions to a huge range of projects.
Our industry-leading approach to MMC has developed over the years to consider ways to maximise the productivity of both off-site and on-site construction works to achieve better project outcomes for our clients.. Much of our thinking has been published on our website, particularly in our series of books about Construction Platforms, including the recently updated.We gave each laboratory a consolidated, weighted score based on their effectiveness and considering any known issues (always using visualisations and the agreed common language).. We produced visual analytics of the entire web of processes on site in a way that was clear and, as a result, very powerful: it gave the client the tools to be able not just to see and understand their complex processes in their relative context, but also to discuss them with each other (regardless of specialism and teams) and senior management.. We could then map this analysis against a range of desired objectives and value drivers, to describe dependencies, adjacencies and requirements, and how to be able to measure outputs.
We presented a wide range of variables, for example: density of operations in laboratories by m2; activity in terms of people per m2; test time by laboratory and category of test; laboratory capacity by time taken per test, and by number of tests carried out per year; and so on..This gave the client a clear way to see the most pressing requirements, and an initial indication of how to prioritise and plan the way ahead.. We carried out further analysis of the full scope of what is covered by ‘Quality Assurance’ – from the routine to the exceptional – and what impact this activity has on value in the client’s manufacturing process (cost, speed, quality and flexibility, for example)..
Finally, we offered options for strategic direction for improvement, combined with comprehensive and highly detailed potential improvements (using the 5S method).These ranged from maintaining the current system but fixing the most obvious issues, through to relocation and/or consolidation of laboratories, and optimisation and automation of Quality Assurance processes.. A digital methodology.