Cost is often seen as the sole reason for the challenges facing Modern Methods of Construction in the UK. However, a new research paper by Dr Ali Saad of Loughborough University argues that the picture is more complex and we also need to address a confidence issue fuelled by “innovation negativism”
Dr Ali Saad of Loughborough University’s School of Architecture, Building & Civil Engineering recently published a policy practice paper titled Confidence Amidst Collapse, in association with the leading combined management organisation for regional frameworks, YORhub.
Contributors to the research include:
Professor Chris Gorse, professor of construction engineering and management at Loughborough University.
Steve Baker, YORhub joint chair of operations.
Professor Chris Goodier, professor of construction engineering and materials at Loughborough University.
Professor Mohammed Dulaimi, head of engineering at Leeds Beckett University.
Cost and confidence in Modern Methods of Construction
The paper starts by rejecting the prevailing view that broader adoption of construction methods dissimilar from the traditional ways of delivering places is only cost.
Instead, the paper introduces a confidence issue, which is not only separate from the former but also tends to be complex and fuelled by “innovation negativism”.
Innovation negativism has been defined as “the degree to which an innovation’s failure conditions a potential adopter to reject future innovations. When one idea fails, potential adopters are conditioned to view all future innovations with apprehension.” (Rogers, 2003, p.225).
The study has found that more than just the previous negative perceptions formulated post-World War Two are driving MMC negativism in the UK public sector.
The paper’s identified emerging factors believe to influence confidence in MMC among decision-makers.
These are:
The nature of MMC organisations mainly operating in silos.
The lack of a reliable national source of evidence.
The lack of a fair longitudinal comparison criterion.
The complexity of establishing a supplier-client relationship history.
The lack of a descriptive glossary.
The inadequate synergy across construction-manufacturing processes.
The overall magnified challenges imposed by the planning system.
Each of these topics, on their own or in combination, are argued to promote innovation negativism, deterring confidence in non-traditional construction methods, and challenging relative organisations offering these methods to survive.
The paper’s seven recommendations stem from the identified factors believed to influence confidence among the decision-makers.
1. Common elemental outputs
Standardise systems among MMC providers to ensure ease of handover in the event of organisational failure.
Projects’ continuity and future maintenance should not be dependent on a single provider, emphasising the need for standardised processes and practices within the MMC sector.
2. Nationwide source of evidence
Develop a nationwide exemplar source that compiles successful and failure stories of MMC project delivery and implementation. This resource should track both positive and negative examples, provide public access to data and serve as a credible reference for stakeholders seeking insights into historical MMC projects. A policy needs to govern the functions of the source to include all lessons learned and the consequences of relative decisions made.
3. Fair comparison criterion
Develop and implement a fair and robust longitudinal comparison criterion that goes beyond cross-sectional assessments. This criterion should accurately assess MMC against traditional construction, broadly considering the values offered by MMC and avoid any trivial short-term cross-sectional comparisons. The comparison needs to communicate the value profiles for both traditional methods and MMC.
4. Promote a relationship history
Modify public procurement practices to allow for the development of a relationship history with MMC organisations. Remove limitations fitted to traditional construction by deploying dynamic and specific agreements that can allow broader MMC presence and access to public projects. By that enabling public entities to build long-term relationships and repeat business with MMC providers.
5. Descriptive glossary
Develop a living MMC descriptive glossary that specifies and comprises the key terms used in MMC design, manufacturing, production, transportation and assembly. A policy needs to centralise the MMC glossary as a point of reference to any relative project. The glossary needs to differentiate between the existing terms and describe these to ensure common understanding and use of the same wordings, jargons and acronyms.
6. Synergy
Synergy across the different MMC phases in realisation of pre-manufactured value must be in place. The interphase needs to include adequate communication between the different skillsets and processes to avoid conflicts and misalignments. A policy needs to advocate the use of digital technologies to support such synergy, while ensuring adequate reporting and learning of the emerging challenges and the contingencies in place to address them.
7. Fast-track planning for innovations
A policy relative to planning permissions in construction must promote rewarding change rather than indirectly discouraging innovators by delaying permissions merely due to unfamiliarity. The policy may encourage MMC organisations to proceed towards site preparation and components’ assembly in a fast-track approach.
Planning needs to allow the establishment of a repetitive MMC-specific reference database to facilitate decisions based on historical permissions granted to comparable projects. The use of Artificial Intelligence to help in planning’s decision-making against projects’ critical success factors and benchmark would enable faster and accurate planning decisions.
Caroline Gumble, chief executive officer of the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), welcomed the publication of Dr Saad’s paper: “I welcome this timely paper, which goes a long way towards helping us to understand why Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) have not been as widely adopted as we need them to be; in fact, more disappointingly MMC has had much negative press which is highlighted within the paper.”
The paper is set to be critically discussed in roundtable discussions in February, bringing together experts from across the country to critically debate and argue the future of MMC amidst the collapse of some of the leading organisations in the sector.
Access the paper online by clicking here.
Dr Saad also discussed these topics on the Own the Build podcast.
References:
Rogers, EM 2003. Diffusion of innovations 5th edition. New York, NY: Free Press.
The post How can we rebuild confidence in Modern Methods of Construction? appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
