International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Design for manufacturing and assembly for

sustainable, quick and cost-effective prefabricated
construction – a review

Muhammad Wasim , Paulo Vaz Serra & Tuan Duc Ngo

To cite this article: Muhammad Wasim , Paulo Vaz Serra & Tuan Duc Ngo (2020): Design for
manufacturing and assembly for sustainable, quick and cost-effective prefabricated construction – a
review, International Journal of Construction Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1837720

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1837720

Published online: 03 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 101

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1837720

Design for manufacturing and assembly for sustainable, quick and cost-effective
prefabricated construction – a review
Muhammad Wasima, Paulo Vaz Serrab and Tuan Duc Ngoa,c
a
School of Engineering, Infrastructure Department, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia; bFaculty of Architecture, Building and
Planning, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia; cAdvanced Protective Technologies and Engineering Service (APTES)

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Recently, researchers have reported that by the amalgamation of concepts of design for manufacturing Construction; cost-effective;
and assembly (DfMA), construction practices and technologies can be further improved. As DfMA is based design for construction
on the principles of optimization of materials and coordination. The optimization and coordination (DfC) and prefabrication;
design for manufacturing
achieved through DfMA at the early design stage can significantly contribute best practices, reduce time and assembly (DfMA);
and delays and improve safety, and thereby enhance the overall productivity of the prefabricated con- sustainability;
struction project. However, the literature on DfMA is limited in prefabricated construction. This paper time reduction
presents an updated and comprehensive review of DfMA approaches and their applications in manufac-
turing and prefabrication. The review is based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with a slight modification. Scopus database was used to obtain
relevant articles from the literature, and three search attempts were taken to ensure that the identified
publications thoroughly cover the focus of this review. Prefabrication and manufacturing processes are
compared and discussed with examples. The findings of this paper show practical analogies between pre-
fabrication and manufacturing. Finally, the review is concluded with recommendations for future works
and the potential opportunities for the application of DfMA in construction.

Introduction with the consideration of the sustainability of the materials.

The elements of a structure that are manufactured at the factory
or off-site and transported to the construction site for installa-
tion are known as prefabricated products/parts, and the structure
to which they are installed is commonly referred as a prefabri-
cated structure (Navaratnam et al. 2019). The ease of installation
reduced construction time, and safety of the prefabricated build-
ings/structures have caused a rapid growth of them throughout
the world in the last few years. Since the concept of the prefabri-
cation has entered in construction, there is a continuous
enhancement in the knowledge related to the methods of design
and fabrication. This led to the recent application of design for
manufacturing and assembly (DfMA) approach in prefabrication,
which is a well-established approach for reducing time, materials
and costs of products (Malleswari et al. 2020).
Recently, Gao et al. (2018) studied the factors influencing the
adoption of DfMA in Singapore construction projects and identi-
fied the key factors by doing the questionnaire survey. Various
stake holders participated in this survey admitted that DfMA in
construction could result in overall time and cost-saving of the
construction projects in Singapore. In another recent study,
Chen and Lu (2018) applied DfMA for the design of curtain wall
system (CWS) for a commercial building in China. They intro-
duced DfMA into prefabricated building design and developed
its concept and process in parametric design incorporating
DfMA oriented building information modelling (BIM).
Ros Garcia and Sanglier Contreras (2017) used DfMA for the
reduction of the environmental impact of the Prototype Unit of
Emergency Housing using life cycle assessment (Cavalcanti 2003)
Nyemba et al. (2017) applied modified DfMA principles for the
production and supply of ethanol storage tanks. Kim et al.
(2016) performed the suitability analysis of precast components
for conventional bridge construction to improve the traditional
procedure of construction of bridges. However, the most recent
works rarely present the true DfMA based structural design of
prefabricated buildings and their elements (Liew et al. 2019;
Lozano et al. 2019; Teodosio et al. 2019; Orlowski 2020). Some
exceptions were highlighted in a recent publication by Wasim
et al. (2020), which presented DfMA based design of prefabri-
cated non-structural components of residential buildings. Tan
et al. (2020) also proposed novel guidelines for the application of
DfMA in construction.
Off-site prefabrication/manufacturing or modular construc-
tion without considering DfMA has been thoroughly reviewed
from various perspectives by other researchers (Li et al. 2014; Jin
et al. 2018; Hu et al. 2019; Hu and Chong 2019; Wuni and Shen
2019; Yin et al. 2019; Jin et al. 2020). However, the review
articles on DfMA concepts, its understanding and application in
construction, especially for off-site prefabrication are very limited
in the literature (Gao et al. 2020; Alfieri et al. 2020). This became
evident upon searching for keywords ‘DfMA in construction’,
which displayed 40 documents with only one review paper
published in 2019 on this topic (searched on 3rd Sep 2020).
Moreover, there are limitations in a previous review on DfMA as
it contained articles published prior to 2017. It lacks recent
articles that demonstrate the application of the main concept of
DfMA in prefabrication. Therefore, to address this limitation,
this review paper presents a detailed discussion on DfMA and its

CONTACT Muhammad Wasim mwasim@unimelb.edu.au

ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. WASIM ET AL.
Figure 1. The trend of published documents in English with keyword DfMA (graph source from Scopus taken on 3 Sep 2020).
updated application in prefabrication, the analogies and anoma-
lies associated with the construction and manufacturing, as well
as the comparison between DfMA and DfC.
Methodology
A systematic approach was adopted in reviewing the literature
on DfMA and its application in prefabricated construction. First,
a search using keywords DfMA in Scopus (all fields) was per-
formed, which produced 8,830 documents published between
years 1955 and 2020. After carefully analysing and screening the
list of documents produced by this search, thousands of docu-
ments were found to be irrelevant, where only a few were
selected for obtaining the background history of DfMA. Then,
the acronym ‘DfMA’ was used as a keyword in another search in
Scopus to ensure that articles covered the application of
Boothroyd’s method and its concepts. The trend of published
articles between 1985 and 2020 on DfMA is shown in Figure 1.
Refining the Scopus search on DfMA by excluding all other lan-
guages except English and limiting the search to engineering
yielded 130 articles.
The very refined and simple search in Scopus is men-
tioned below:
From the searched 130 articles, DfMA concepts, i.e. design
for assembly (DfA), design for manufacturing (DfM) and design
for construction (DfC) were selected for review. Further refine-
ment of the search to the application of DfMA in construction
yielded 26 journal articles in SCOPUS. The selected latest papers
on DfMA in construction with their author’s names and the
journals in which they were published are shown in Table 1.
Acronym ‘DfMA’ was used as the main keyword in SCOPUS to
find its application in the whole ‘Construction Industry’ (another
keyword) to cover off-site construction/prefabrication as well.
The network of the keywords related to DfMA in construction is
shown in Figure 2. While the methodology of literature review
adopted in the current research is shown in Figure 3.
ALL (dfma) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, ‘English’))
AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, ‘ENGI’)) AND (LIMIT-TO
(EXACT KEYWORD, ‘Construction Industry’) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTKEYWORD, ‘Construction’))
The articles presented in this review are based on the
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with modifications. The articles
were systematically organized and divided into various sections.
The background knowledge of DfMA is presented under heading
‘Background Knowledge of DfMA’. The main concepts of DfMA
are introduced in this section with their brief history of origin.
The section ‘DfMA Concepts For Manufacturing’ of this paper
presents the articles on the application of DfMA concepts in
various fields of engineering excluding civil. The ‘DfMA in
Prefabricated Construction’ section highlights the research stud-
ies undertaken in the construction field incorporating DfMA
approaches. It covers the similarities between DfMA and DfC
and provides a comparison between the two methods. Moreover,
the section ‘BIM in DfMA based prefabrication’ discusses the
role of BIM in enhancing DfMA-based prefabrication.
Furthermore, ‘DfMA for Onsite Construction or Offsite
Manufacturing’ section contains a philosophical discussion and
arguments between the similarities and dissimilarities of con-
struction and manufacturing. The last section of this paper is
‘Conclusions and Recommendations’.
Background knowledge of DfMA
DfMA is a combination of two terms, i.e. design for manufacture
(DfM) and DfA (Boothroyd et al. 2001). DfM is defined as ‘the
design for ease of manufacture of the collection of parts that will
form the product after assembly’ and DfA as ‘the design of the
product for ease of assembly’.
The concepts of DfM and DfA were developed in the late
1960s and early 1970s, with the pioneering research that led to
the initial development of DfMA being carried out on the orien-
tation of assembly parts (Boothroyd et al. 1970). The first stand-
ard with the title ‘The Management of Design for Economic
Production’ that provided the basis of DfMA concepts was pub-
lished in the United Kingdom in 1975 (Plant et al. 2010; Bogue
2012). Then, the coding systems for small parts manual handling
were developed (Boothroyd and Ho 1976). Geoff Boothroyd,
working at the University of Massachusetts USA, developed a
DfA method for estimating the time required for the assembly of
a product manually and its associated cost on an automated

Table 1. Number of journal articles with titles on DfMA and construction between 2001 and 2020 (search performed on 25th June 2020).
Authors
Wasim M, Han TM, Huang H,
Madiyev M, Ngo TD
Tan T, Lu W, Tan G, Xue F, Chen K,
Xu J, Wang J, Gao S
Castle H
Gao S, Jin R, Lu W
Orlowski K, Antoniou F, Marinelli M
Lu W, Tan T, Xu J, Wang J, Chen K,
Gao S, Xue F
Alfieri E, Seghezzi E, Sauchelli M, Di
Giuda GM, Masera G
Liew JYR, Chua YS, Dai Z
Gbadamosi A-Q, Mahamadu A-M,
Oyedele LO, Akinade OO, Manu P,
Mahdjoubi L, Aigbavboa C
Tik LB, Jhun, KK, Tatt SL, Lin AF,
Min TS
Oktavianus Y, Kristombu Baduge KS,
Orlowski K, Mendis P
Gao S, Low SP, Nair K
Orlowski K, Shanaka K, Mendis P
Matthews S, Leminen V, Eskelinen H,
Toghyani A, Varis J
Chen K, Lu W
Yuan Z, Sun C, Wang Y
Trinder L, Browne J, Brocklebank K
Banks C, Kotecha R, Curtis J, Dee C,
Pitt N, Papworth R
Said HM, Chalasani T, Logan S
Mart
ınez S, Jard
on A, V
ıctores JG,
Balaguer C
Omigbodun A
Figure 2. A network of most frequently used keywords for DfMA in construction.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3
Title Year Source title
An approach for sustainable, cost-effective and optimized 2020 Journal of Building Engineering
material design for the prefabricated non-structural
components of residential buildings
Construction-oriented design for manufacture and 2020 Journal of Construction Engineering
assembly guidelines and Management
Disrupting from the inside: UK archipreneurs 2020 Architectural Design
Design for manufacture and assembly in construction: a review 2020 Building Research and Information
Verified and validated design curves and strength reduction 2020 Engineering Structures
factors for post-tensioned composite steel-timber stiffened
wall systems
Proposal for the promotion of standardization of precast beams 2020 Frontiers in Built Environment
in highway concrete bridges
Design for manufacture and assembly (DfMA) in construction: 2020 Architectural Engineering and
the old and the new Design Management
A BIM-based approach for DfMA in building construction: 2020 Architectural Engineering and
framework and first results on an Italian case study Design Management
Steel concrete composite systems for modular construction of 2019 Structures
high-rise buildings
Off-site construction: developing a BIM-based optimizer 2019 Journal of Cleaner Production
for assembly
Design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA) for Malaysia 2019 Malaysian Construction
construction industry Research Journal
Structural behaviour of prefabricated load bearing braced 2018 Engineering Structures
composite timber wall system
Design for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA): a preliminary 2018 Architectural Engineering and
study of factors influencing its adoption in Singapore Design Management
Design and development of weatherproof seals for 2018 Buildings
prefabricated construction: a methodological approach
Formulation of novel DFMA rules for the advancement of 2018 International Journal of Computer
ergonomic factors in nonlinear iterative prototype assembly Integrated Manufacturing
Design for manufacture and assembly-oriented design 2018 Sustainability (Switzerland)
approach to a curtain wall system: a case study of a
commercial building in Wuhan, China
Design for manufacture and assembly-oriented parametric 2018 Automation in Construction
design of prefabricated buildings
A client’s perspective of design for manufacture and assembly 2018 Proceedings of Institution of Civil
in the UK water industry Engineers: Management,
Procurement and Law
Enhancing high-rise residential construction through design for 2018 Proceedings of Institution of Civil
manufacture and assembly – A UK case study Engineers: Management,
Procurement and Law
Exterior prefabricated panelized walls platform optimization 2017 Automation in Construction
Flexible field factory for construction industry 2013 Assembly Automation
Value engineering and optimal building projects 2001 Journal of Architectural Engineering
4 M. WASIM ET AL.
Figure 3. The methodology for carrying out a literature survey in the current research.
machine (Boothroyd et al. 2001). Boothroyd published DfA: A
Designer’s Handbook in 1980; and in 1981; Boothroyd and Peter
Dewhurst developed a software package of the DfA method,
founding the company Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc. (BDI) in 1983
to promote and sell the solution. The software and company
became famous and is now world-renowned for its business
(Bogue 2012). Stoll (1988) presented Group Technology to
reduce manufacturing system information content by using codes
to identify similar parts. This technology simplified the DfMA
task without using functional analysis and DfA Handbook
(Boothroyd and Dewhurst 1983a, 1983b).
The three main principles or criteria for the application of
DfMA on products are rephrased as follows (Boothroyd
et al. 2001):
 The design team simplifies the product structure such
that it incurs minimum costs in manufacturing and
assembly. Moreover, the improvements in the product
structure are quantified.
 A tool was developed for studying products which numerically
quantifies difficulties in their manufacturing and assembly.
 A tool was develop for assisting with the reduction of costs
and negotiating contracts with suppliers.
DfMA concepts
DfMA combines two designs stages, a first required for manufac-
ture (DfM) and a second for assembly (DfA) (Martinez et al.
2013; El-Nounu et al. 2018). High levels of ‘manufacturability’
are intended to be achieved in DfM, while DfA focuses on
achieving the requirements for assembly of the products (Rausch
et al. 2017) by maintaining technological needs and economics
(Martinez et al. 2013).
DfA
The complex assembly procedures of products incurring 50%
higher cost in design were replaced by DfA based design in the
late 20th century (Boothroyd and Dewhurst 1983a, 1983b;
Miyakawa and Ohashi 1986). Tests on the effect of geometry,
symmetry, weight and flexibility on manual handling time were
performed (Yoosufani and Boothroyd 1978; Boothroyd 1979; Ho
and Boothroyd 1979a, 1979b; Seth and Boothroyd 1979; Yang
and Boothroyd 1981; Fujita and Boothroyd 1982; Yoosufani et al.
1983). A classification and coding system for manual handling,
insertion and fastening processes based on time for estimating
manual assembly times were developed (De Lisser and
Boothroyd 1982; Dvorak and Boothroyd 1982).
In the 1980s, the main principles of DfA were nearly estab-
lished (Swift and Redford 1980; Boothroyd and Dewhurst 1983a,
1983b), which were little enhanced in the 1990s (Boothroyd and
Alting 1992; Miles and Swift 1998). Since then, DfA principles
are well established (Appleton and Garside 2000). The key stages
and factors of the DfA are shown in Table 2 (Barnes et al. 1998;
Dalgliesh et al. 2000; Moultrie and Maier 2014).
The use of DfA for the 3D printing (Oh et al. 2018) focusing
on part decomposition and assembly-based re-design for additive
manufacturing and the reduction in assembly reorientation and
the number of parts by developing an automatic DfA method
(Samadhi et al. 2018). Anyfantis et al. (2019) used computer-
aided DfA and DfM both for designing multi-material mechan-
ical components. Robinson et al. (2018) parameterized a model
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5

Table 2. Key factors of the DfA.

Factors
Functional analysis
Manufacturing process
Handling/feeding analysis
Assembly/fixing analysis
Product group
Product structure
Component design
General DfA heuristics
Systematic approach
for evaluating
assemblies
Description
In this analysis, if any material not qualifying factors such as relative movement need for different material, and the need for
adjustment, it is eliminated from the system.
Involves careful selection of materials and their quantities and complexity, process and cost evaluation for improved
manufacturing.
It is seen whether a part is easy to manipulate manually by hand or with assembly equipment automatically (termed as feeding).
Involves the details of the individual parts and their operations including the identification and scoring of insertion, fixing and
gripping process. In this analysis, the ease and simplicity of inserting a part into the assembly and joining to other parts are
examined. Fasteners are avoided.
Similar parts or components, common assembly sequence and standard feedings features are grouped together in a product to
distinguish it from other products.
Provides detailed information about the manufacturing process description, materials selection, process variation suiting to
manufacturing, economics, design aspects and size configurations and process capability for tolerance and surface finish
are structured.
Information regarding the assembly process for insertion and fastening, process capability data and models for component
manufacture and cost of assembly are made available for the designer.
These are most of the times presented in the pairs of illustrations in which examples of ‘good practice’ and ‘bad practice’ are
presented. These heuristic illustrations are straightforward to understand as they are presented graphically (Beitz et al. 1996;
Appleton and Garside 2000).
Swift and Redford (1980) gave two methods which are still in use to reduce the overall number of components followed by a
thorough analysis of the fitting, handling/feeding and fixing of each component/part. Scores are allocated to each component/
part and assembly process to show the complexity of the assembly.

that employs DfA/DfM. Urban and Manlig (2018) evaluated the
relationship between product development, material flow and
design life cycles of the specific product using DfA and other
design approaches. El-Nounu et al. (2018) used DfA for re-
designing mechanical assembly. Also, an early cost estimation of
a hand pressure mop was conducted by using both DfA and
DfM (Gokul Kumar and Naiju 2017). Similarly, an approach for
the cost-efficient design (Claudio et al. 2017) and integration of
DfA and design for disassembly (DfD) was systematically per-
formed to reduce the complexity of the products and constraints
in manufacturing (Soh et al. 2016).
DfM
DfM concepts are optimized with time (Meyer 1992; Bralla 1999;
Dalgliesh et al. 2000). DfM is applied in the various design
stages, such as conceptual and detailed design stage. DfM in con-
ceptual design develops multiple functional approaches and
propagates them through further design stages and eliminates or
revises candidates who are substandard. A framework for dis-
carding design candidates is provided by Decision-based design.
Several software systems have been developed with time to
support material and process selection during design (Smith
1999; Ashby and Esawi 1999; Gupta et al. 2003). For detailed
design, DfM techniques are applied to overcome the mistakes
and downstream changes. Moreover, there are some specific
areas of DfM that have been developed with time such as design
for production (DfP), design for quality system (DfQ), design for
life cycle cost, and design for environment (DfE).
Finally, DfM/DfA techniques can significantly reduce cost
such that the local manufacture remains economical.
Considering the benefits of domestic manufacture, it secures
intellectual property, favours in-depth manufacturing and pro-
cess knowledge, promotes supply chain, maintains low inven-
tory levels, reduces transportation costs and assists in
accelerated production.
DfMA in prefabricated construction
DfMA based designed in the form of modular and prefabricated
construction projects are gaining attention among researchers and
owners. In these projects, components of the buildings are
manufactured in the factory and then delivered to the projects
sites where these components are installed. Therefore, more
research studies focusing on the critical strategies and technologies
for executing DfMA based design in construction projects are
emerging (Banks et al. 2018; Vaz Serra et al. 2019; Tan
et al. 2020).
DfMA relates the design, construction and manufacturing of
the projects to reduce cost, time and enhances quality, and also
minimises the environmental hazards associated with construction.
Recently, studies have contributed knowledge related to the appli-
cation of DfA in a variety of engineering fields. Wasim et al.
(2020) quantified the efficiencies of prefabricated non-structural
components of residential buildings using DfA. The findings of
this case study showed that DfA manufacturing of the timber
frame and drain system would be 9.8% and 10.244% efficient. In
contrast, only 2.7% and 3.44% efficiency can be achieved through
conventional manufacturing of these components, respectively.
Similarly, in another case study, DfMA based flat-pack walls for
the bathrooms of high-rise buildings in Australia showed 27% sav-
ings due to efficient design (Vaz Serra et al. 2019). Thus, the effi-
ciency of modular construction projects can be increased if DfMA
principles are applied. Some of the recent studies where DfMA
was applied are summarized in Table 3 with the authors, and the
criteria of DfMA implemented for structural components and
facilities in construction projects.
It can be seen in Table 3 that DfMA was effectively used in
structural and non-structural components such as curtain walls,
structural connections, superstructure and substructural components
of bridges, cabled stayed towers, building façades, and mechanical
electrical and plumbing (MEP). Moreover, DfMA was applied to
the timber frame wall, flat-pack wall and the plumbing drain system
for the buildings which resulted in several benefits, including reduc-
tions in construction time and costs, as well as labours savings.
DfMA and DfC
Gerth et al. (2013) introduced the conceptual terminology ‘DfC’,
centred on the same principles as that of DfMA (explained ear-
lier), i.e. to minimize components and materials that are needed
for construction on-site (Ulrich and Eppinger 2008). The similar-
ities and repetitiveness of operations in many individual housing
projects lead to the basis of DfC (Winch 2003; Gerth et al.
6 M. WASIM ET AL.

Table 3. Implementation of DfMA in various construction projects.

Types of structural
Author components or facilities
Fox et al. (2002) 1. WC panels
2. Wall vinyl
3. Floor screed
4. Wall penetrations
Peterseim Cable stayed solar tower
et al. (2016)
Kim et al. (2016) Precast components
of superstructure and
substructure of a bridge
for standardized
bridge construction
Mara and Connections between
Kliger (2016) fibre-reinforced polymer
bridge decks
Banks et al. (2018) Seventy-two percent
of the facade and frame
of a housing building,
MEP components and
bathroom pods.
Chen and Curtain wall design
Lu (2018)
Vas Serra et al. (2019) DfMA based plumbing
of bathroom wet area for
high rise buildings.
Wasim DfMA based prefabrication
et al. (2020) for timber frame wall and
plumbing drain system
for residential buildings.
Implementation of DfMA principles and criteria
1. Framing section reduced
2. Weld moved from the corner for design improvement
3. Specific batch recipe defined for designed improved.
4. Use of neoprene gaskets for design improvement.
1. Use of pre-assembled modules to reduce manufacturing cost.
2. Minimizing the cost of assembly and transport of products resulting
in a reduction of construction time.
1. Reduction in the number of parts.
2. Simplification of steps involves in the fabrication and assembly.
3. Use of standard and common materials and components.
4. Adjustment in weight and size of components for the ease in handling.
5. Reduction in steps involves or simply ease of jointing and fastening.
1. The multidisciplinary collaboration of owner, designer, manufacturer
and contractor for DfMA based design.
2. Avoiding tolerance tight connections.
3. Reducing on-site fasteners and bonded connections.
4. Decreasing the number of parts to assemble.
5. Reduction in rotation and movement of the connection.
6. Allowing repetition and standardization to the maximum possible.
1. Decreasing the number of unique fragments.
2. Use of standard prefabricated modules and elements.
3. Simplification in components joints.
4. Reducing short-term structure.
5. DfMA-led structural design.
6. DfMA approach was contractor-led.
7. Manufacturing meeting special construction requirements.
8. Application of site logistics and assembly.
9. Advanced digital engineering and building information was used for DfMA.
1. Reduction in on-site assembly time, and enhanced quality.
2. Reduction in transportation cost.
1. Higher efficiencies achieved.
2. Quick installation of the wall.
3. Elimination of unnecessary parts before installing on site.
4. One labour did the cutting and assembly; hence the labour force and overall cost is reduced.
5. DfA computations were performed as per Boothroyd procedures.
1. Manufacturing times of timber frame on site and factory were compared with DfMA.
2. Manufacturing times of prefabricated drain system on site and factory were compared with DfMA.
3. A tool was developed to compute the efficiency of prefabricated component by DfMA.
4. DfMA based prefabrication resulted in significant savings in terms of materials, labours and time.

2013). The similarity of projects due to customers values, type of
building and its quality, structural design and production strat-
egy enhances repetitiveness. DfC indicates problems from similar
construction projects of buildings, and by using the knowledge
that supports in the design of the new project with a minimum
occurrence of previous problems.
Besides, DfMA advises determining an assembly index for
each part of the product to evaluate production time, cost, and
quality which are difficult to obtain in numbers in construction
accurately. While, in DfC, the design construction performance
is evaluated to make clear the adequacy of design in achieving
the predefined criteria comprising of desired, acceptable or
unacceptable (Gerth et al. 2013).
BIM in DfMA based prefabrication
DfMA makes BIM more suitable for prefabricated structures
(Yuan et al. 2018). Coupling BIM with DfMA project activities
on site, such as procurement, fabrication, transportation and
installation can be linked to the briefing, options assessment
and concept design. Therefore, the integrated application of BIM
and DfMA significantly increases the common understanding of
the stakeholders on the project. Moreover, digital models assist
the DfMA analysis for simplifying the manufacturing and assem-
bly process. The knowledge learned from adopting the DfMA
approach can be embedded in a structured data-rich model with
a set of standardized DfMA elements. This will accelerate the
adoption of the BIM-generated DfMA system approach
(Building and Construction Authority 2016).
BIM technology along with DfMA is used in the parametric
design of prefabricated structures. Computer aided BIM can gen-
erate architectural drawings, as well as detailed sections of all
components of prefabricated structures. The visual model can be
developed by following the typical component creation process
according to the family template and DfMA in BIM based soft-
ware (Yuan et al. 2018). First, DfMA analysis is carried out to
integrate the information for fabrication and assembly which
includes geometry, structure, connection, manufacturing process,
assembly process and mechanical equipment. Then, planning
and creating the prefabricated components’ family is based on
required parameters, similar to a traditional workflow.
The visual modelling is critical in the prefabrication industry
for timely data exchange. The information of BIM model can be
shared throughout the project life cycle. This enables the key
stakeholders to make informed decisions about design changes
and the production of components of prefabricated construction.
Moreover, level of development (LOD) as a detailing description
standard is also essential for creating a model. It defines specific
content requirements, and authorises the use of the model and
specific purpose of the model related to the phase of a project.
In off-site manufacturing, LOD depends on the level of informa-
tion required by the factory and the extent of prefabrication in
the project.

Figure 4. Proposed framework for the application of DfMA procedure for the prefabricated structure.
Discussion on DfMA based on-site construction or
off-site manufacturing
The significance of DfMA based manufacturing and prefabri-
cated construction is evident from recent works (Gao et al. 2020;
Vaz Serra et al. 2019; Wasim et al. 2020). However, it also raises
a question: why not carry out DfMA based prefabrication on-site
for construction components rather than limit it to off-site
manufacturing?
The product of an assembly plant built at a construction site
can be comparatively large and fixed (immobile) compared to
the industrial manufactured product or products. It is an
extremely difficult and very challenging task to manufacture a
construction product as large as prefabricated tall building in the
industry and bring it to the site of interest. Although a cable-
stayed solar tower was manufactured and then transported to the
site successfully (Peterseim et al. 2016), a solar tower is not com-
parable to the building in terms of its volume and other require-
ments. Further, a flexible mobile factory, as attempted earlier by
Martinez et al. (2013) for the manufacturing of some compo-
nents of construction, is not suitable for tall buildings. Moreover,
the space restriction of the nearby localities is again a further
hurdle for the manufacture of the prefabricated products (com-
ponents/elements/modules) for construction.
Besides, from the volume or nature of the prefabricated con-
struction product (component), it is also very difficult to apply
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7
DfMA manufacturing rules to civil structures in design as it is
difficult to change the well-established codes of practice for a
structural design until and unless there is a flaw or an area of
improvement in design (Gunawardena et al. 2016a, 2016b;
Wasim et al. 2020). Moreover, these codes suggest minimum
thickness design criteria for a structural element to be used at
the site, which cannot be changed. In contrast, DfMA
approaches reduce materials and costs without considering the
minimum thickness criteria, and usually these products (manu-
factured using DfMA) are not as large as civil structures (see
‘DfMA Concepts’ section).
It is also very interesting and notable concerning the manu-
facturing of the DfMA based prefabricated components (non-
structural) when they are only assembled at the industry, and the
parts of the components to be manufactured are imported. In
this case, it is perhaps arguable, why to manufacture in the
industry if the same thing can be done on-site (assembly). For
example, simultaneous or parallel manufacture and assembly on
site are possible instead assembling of the components at indus-
try and transporting them to the site. There remains the possibil-
ity of the construction products to be fabricated on-site when
their only assembly is required. There is a likelihood that the
money and labour savings obtained from manufacturing in the
industry may prove to be same on construction sites.
Nevertheless, the obvious benefits of the prefabricated construc-
tion are undeniable in overcoming the delays, space limitations
8 M. WASIM ET AL.
and wastages of the conventional construction. These benefits
can be further enhanced by coupling prefabrication with DfMA
in the early design stage by the coordination of various stake-
holders including designers, manufacturers, contractors, builders
and also the owner (Figure 4).
Conclusion and recommendations
This paper presented a brief background and the comprehensive
review of the DfMA concepts, i.e. DfA and DfM with their
chronological advancements and applications. The most recent
applications of DfMA in offsite construction were reviewed and
a brief comparison between DfMA and DfC was presented.
Moreover, the analogies and anomalies between offsite construc-
tion and manufacturing processes are critically discussed. This
review concludes that
 There are limited quantitative applications of DfMA in con-
struction; mostly 2D components such as walls are explored
by this approach for prefabrication.
 The application of DfMA in construction can enhance the
productivity of project in terms of materials, labour and
time, including savings obtained by minimizing waste by
DfMA based offsite construction.
 Construction safety can be greatly improved by DfMA-based
due to a reduction of labour.
 Coordination among various stakeholders at the early design
stage can contribute to the application of DfMA for a large
construction project.
Furthermore, the following recommendations can be sug-
gested based on this review:
 The service components, façade and 3D modules of build-
ings can be manufactured by DfMA approaches.
 3D printing and digital technology can significantly contrib-
ute to DfMA-based prefabrication of structural and non-
structural components, which will be explored in
future work.
 Some amendments to the current approaches of DfMA are
required for their applications in large structural compo-
nents. This can be achieved by observing prefabrication
times for a large structural component both on-site and in
a factory.
 Guidelines will be developed by mutual coordination and
agreements between local manufacturers, engineers, builders,
contractors and project managers for the application of
DfMA in large construction projects.
Finally, this paper will result in new research studies on the
quantitative analysis of DfMA principles applied to prefabricated
modules and structures.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The project was funded by the Department of Industry, Innovation
and Science and Richstone Group Australia. The project number
was ICG000391-392.
References
Alfieri E, Seghezzi E, Sauchelli M, Di Giuda GM, Masera G. 2020. A BIM-
based approach for DfMA in building construction: framework and first
results on an Italian case study. Architect Eng Des Manage. 16(4):
223–247.
Anyfantis K, Stavropoulos P, Foteinopoulos P, Chryssolouris G. 2019. An
approach for the design of multi-material mechanical components. Proc
Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf. 233(3):960–974.
Appleton E, Garside JA. 2000. A team-based design for assembly method-
ology. Assem Autom. 20(2):162–170.
Ashby MF, Esawi AM. 1999. Cost estimation for process selection.
Proceedings of ASME Design for Manufacture Conference, Las Vegas,
Nevada.
Banks C, Kotecha R, Curtis J, Dee C, Pitt N, Papworth R. 2018. Enhancing
high-rise residential construction through design for manufacture and
assembly–a UK case study. Proc Inst Civil Eng Manage Procure Law.
171(4):164–175.
Beitz W, Pahl G, Grote K. 1996. Engineering design: a systematic approach.
MRS Bull. 71.
Bogue R. 2012. Design for manufacture and assembly: background, capabil-
ities and applications. Assem Autom. 32(2):112–118.
Boothroyd G. 1979. Design for economic manufacture. Ann CIRP. 28(1):345.
Boothroyd G, Alting L. 1992. Design for assembly and disassembly. CIRP
Ann Manuf Technol. 41(2):625–636.
Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P. 1983a. Design for assembly-manual assembly.
Mach Des. 55(28):140–145.
Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P. 1983b. Design for assembly-selecting the right
method. Mach Des. 55(25):94–98.
Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight WA. 2001. Product design for manufac-
ture and assembly. Revised and expanded. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Boothroyd G, Ho C. 1976. Coding system for small parts for automatic han-
dling. SME paper ADR76-13, Assemblex 111, Chicago.
Boothroyd G, Poli CR, Murch LE. 1970. Handbook of feeding and orienting
techniques for small parts. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.
Bralla JG. 1999. Design for manufacturability handbook. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Building and Construction Authority. 2016. BIM for DfMA (Design for
Manufacturing and Assembly) Essential Guide. 2020 Apr 18, https://www.
corenet.gov.sg/media/2032999/bim_essential_guide_dfma.pdf.
Cavalcanti M. 2003. Conhecimento e desigualdade. Gest~ao de Empresas na
Era Do Conhecimento. Lisboa, Ediç~ oes S
ılabo; p. 45–70.
Chen K, Lu W. 2018. Design for manufacture and assembly oriented design
approach to a curtain wall system: a case study of a commercial building
in Wuhan, China. Sustainability. 10(7):2211–2216.
Claudio FAVI, Germani M, Mandolini M. 2017. Multi-objective conceptual
design: an approach to make cost-efficient the design for manufacturing
and assembly in the development of complex products. In Advances on
mechanics, design engineering and manufacturing. Cham.: Springer; p.
63–70.
De Lisser WA, Boothroyd G. 1982. Analysis of product designs for ease of man-
ual assembly: a systematic approach. Amherst: Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Massachusetts. Report no. 17, May 1982.
Dvorak WA, Boothroyd G. 1982. Analysis of product designs for ease of man-
ual assembly: a systematic approach. Amherst: Department of Mechanical
Engineering, University of Massachusetts. Report no. 11, May 1982.
El-Nounu A, Popov A, Ratchev S. 2018. Redesign methodology for mechan-
ical assembly. Res Eng Des. 29(1):107–122.
Fox S, Marsh L, Cockerham G. 2002. Constructability rules: guidelines for suc-
cessful application to bespoke buildings. Constr Manage Econ. 20(8):689–696.
Fujita T, Boothroyd G. 1982. Data sheets and case study for manual assem-
bly. Amherst: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Massachusetts. Report no. 16, April 1982.
Gao S, Jin R, Lu W. 2020. Design for manufacture and assembly in construc-
tion: a review. Build Res Inf. 48(5):538–550.
Gao S, Low SP, Nair K. 2018. Design for manufacturing and assembly
(DfMA): a preliminary study of factors influencing its adoption in
Singapore. Arch Eng Des Manage. 14(6):440–456.
Gerth R, Boqvist A, Bjelkemyr M, Lindberg B. 2013. Design for construction:
utilising production experiences in development. Constr Manage Econ.
31(2):135–150.
Gokul Kumar K, Naiju CD. 2017. Early cost estimation of hand pressure
mop using design for manufacture & assembly (DFMA). Int J Mech Eng
Technol. 8(9):167–172.
Gunawardena T, Ngo T, Mendis P, Alfano J. 2016a. Innovative flexible struc-
tural system using prefabricated modules. J Arch Eng. 22(4):05016003.

Gunawardena T, Ngo T, Mendis P. 2016b. Behaviour of multi-storey prefab-
ricated modular buildings under seismic loads. Earthquakes Struct. 11(6):
1061–1076.
Gupta SK, Chen Y, Feng S, Sriram R. 2003. A system for generating process
and material selection advice during embodiment design of mechanical
components. J Manuf Syst. 22(1):28–45.
Ho C, Boothroyd G. 1979a. Avoiding jams during assembly. Machine Des.
Tech. Brief, January 25, 1979.
Ho C, Boothroyd G. 1979b. Design of chamfers for ease of assembly. Proc.
7th North American Metalworking Conference, May 1979, 345.
Hu X, Chong HY. 2019. Environmental sustainability of off-site manufactur-
ing: a literature review. Eng Constr Arch Manage. ISSN: 0969-9988.
Hu X, Chong HY, Wang X, London K. 2019. Understanding stakeholders in
offsite manufacturing: a literature review. J Constr Eng Manage. 145(8):
03119003.
Jin R, Gao S, Cheshmehzangi A, Aboagye-Nimo E. 2018. A holistic review of
off-site construction literature published between 2008 and 2018. J
Cleaner Prod. 202:1202–1219.
Jin R, Hong J, Zuo J. 2020. Environmental performance of off-site con-
structed facilities: a critical review. Energy Build. 207:109567.
Kim MK, McGovern S, Belsky M, Middleton C, Brilakis I. 2016. A suitability
analysis of precast components for standardised bridge construction in the
United Kingdom. Proc Eng. 164:188–195.
Li Z, Shen GQ, Xue X. 2014. Critical review of the research on the manage-
ment of prefabricated construction. Habitat Int. 43:240–249.
Liew JYR, Chua YS, Dai Z. 2019. Steel concrete composite systems for modu-
lar construction of high-rise buildings. Structures. 21:135–149.
Lozano D, Mart
ın A,
Serrano MA, L
opez-Colina C. 2019. Design of flexible
structural system for building customization. Adv Civ Eng. 2019:1–18.
Malleswari VN, Surendra Babu B, Praneeth C. 2020. Redesigning of electric
plug for assembly time reduction using DFA. In: Advances in applied
mechanical engineering. Singapore: Springer; p. 1179–1187.
Mara V, Kliger R. 2016. An approach to the development of connections
between fibre reinforced polymer bridge decks. Case Stud Struct Eng. 5:
18–26.
Martinez S, Jard
on A, Gonzalez V
ıctores J, Balaguer C. 2013. Flexible field
factory for construction industry. Assem Autom. 33(2):175–183.
Meyer MH. 1992. The product family and the dynamics of core capability
(No. 77-92. Working paper (Sloan School of Management); p.
3490–3492). Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of
Management.
Miles B, Swift KG. 1998. Design for manufacture and assembly. Manuf Eng.
77(5):221–224.
Miyakawa S, Ohashi T. 1986. The Hitachi evaluation method. Proceedings of
the 1st International Conference on Production Design for Assembly.
Moultrie J, Maier AM. 2014. A simplified approach to design for assembly. J
Eng Des. 25(1–3):44–63.
Navaratnam S, Ngo T, Gunawardena T, Henderson D. 2019. Performance
review of prefabricated building systems and future research in Australia.
Buildings. 9(2):38.
Nyemba WR, Muzoroza RK, Chikuku T. Mbohwa C. 2017. Unlocking the
economic value and potential of design for manufacture and assembly in
a developing country for sustainability. IEEE.
Oh Y, Zhou C, Behdad S. 2018. Part decomposition and assembly-based (Re)
design for additive manufacturing: a review. Add Manuf. 22:230–242.
Orlowski K. 2020. Verified and validated design curves and strength reduc-
tion factors for post-tensioned composite steel-timber stiffened wall sys-
tems. Eng Struct. 204:110053.
Peterseim JH, White S, Hellwig U. 2016. Novel solar tower structure to lower
plant cost and construction risk. New York: AIP Publishing.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9
Plant AVC, Harrison DJ, Griffiths BJ, De Coster R. 2010. Design for manu-
facture and sustainability in new product development. Cambridge:
Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge.
Rausch C, Nahangi M, Perreault M, Haas CT, West J. 2017. Optimum
assembly planning for modular construction components. J Comput Civ
Eng. 31(1):04016039.
Robinson T, Friel I, Armstrong CG, Murphy A, Butterfield J, Price M,
Marzano A. 2018. Computer-aided design model parameterisation to
derive knowledge useful for manufacturing design decisions. Proc Inst
Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf. 232(4):621–662.
Ros Garcia JM, Sanglier Contreras G. 2017. Life-cycle assessment of proto-
type unit of emergency housing. The search for the zero. Informes de la
Construccion. 69(547).
Samadhi TA, Ma’ruf A, Toha IS. 2018. A framework for the development of
automatic DFA method to minimise the number of components and
assembly reorientations. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering (vol. 319, no. 1, p. 012083). IOP Publishing.
Seth B, Boothroyd G. 1979. Design for manual handling. Amherst:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts.
Report no. 9, January 1979.
Smith CS. 1999. The manufacturing advisory service web based process and
material selection. Berkeley: University of California.
Soh SL, Ong SK, Nee AYC. 2016. Design for assembly and disassembly for
remanufacturing. Assem Autom. 36(1):12–24.
Stoll HW. 1988. Design for manufacture. Manuf Eng. 100(1):67–73.
Swift K, Redford AH. 1980. Design for assembly-analysis of a design can cut
assembly costs. Engineering. 220(7):799–802.
Tan T, Lu W, Tan G, Xue F, Chen K, Xu J, Wang J, Gao S. 2020.
Construction-oriented design for manufacture and assembly guidelines. J
Constr Eng Manage. 146(8):04020085.
Teodosio B, Kristombu Baduge KS, Mendis P, Heath DJ. 2019. Prefabrication
of substructures for single-detached dwellings on reactive soils: a review of
existing systems and design challenges. Aust J Civ Eng. 17(2):120–133.
Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD. 2008. Product development and design. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Urban M, Manlig F. 2018. Development of product while considering mater-
ial flow in a product’s life. MM Sci. 1313–2318.
Vaz Serra P, Marfella G, Egglestone S. 2019. Implications of flat-pack plumb-
ing systems for high-rise construction efficiency. CTBUH J. (3):36–43.
Wasim M, Han TM, Huang H, Madiyev M, Ngo TD. 2020. An approach for
sustainable, cost-effective and optimised material design for the prefabri-
cated non-structural components of residential buildings. J Build Eng. 32:
101474.
Winch G. 2003. Models of manufacturing and the construction process: the
genesis of re-engineering construction. Build Res Inf. 31(2):107–118.
Wuni IY, Shen GQ. 2019. Holistic review and conceptual framework for the
drivers of off-site construction: a total interpretive structural modelling
approach. Buildings. 9(5):117.
Yang SC, Boothroyd G. 1981. Data sheets and case study for manual assem-
bly. Amherst: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Massachusetts. Report no. 15, December 1981.
Yin X, Liu H, Chen Y, Al-Hussein M. 2019. Building information modelling for
off-site construction: review and future directions. Autom Constr. 101:72–91.
Yoosufani Z, Boothroyd G. 1978. Design of parts for ease of handling.
Amherst: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
Massachusetts. Report no. 2, September 1978.
Yoosufani Z, Ruddy M, Boothroid G. 1983. Effect of part symmetry on man-
ual assembly times. J Manuf Syst. 2(2):189–195.
Yuan Z, Sun C, Wang Y. 2018. Design for manufacture and assembly-oriented
parametric design of prefabricated buildings. Autom Constr. 88:13–22.