Base 2

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/354871711
Construction 4.0: An investigation of Off-site construction in Ireland
Thesis · September 2021

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35899.34087
CITATIONS READS
0 1,499
1 author:
Laura Braz Mourao

Limerick Institute of Technology
2 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Laura Braz Mourao on 27 September 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2020 - 2021
MSc Thesis
Thesis Title Construction 4.0: An investigation of Off-site

construction in Ireland
Author Laura Braz Mourão

K-Number K00255130
MSc - Master of Science in Quantity Surveying (Level 9)
Award Title MSc in Quantity Surveying (Sustainable Public Building)
Submitted to: Limerick Institute of Technology, August 2021

MSc in Quantity Surveying in Sustainable Public Building
Thesis Thesis Declaration
i|Page
Declaration of Ethical Practice
The work presented in this thesis is the original work of the author and due reference has
been made where necessary to the work of others. Research for this thesis was competed in
compliance with the relevant ethical standards prescribed by Limerick Institute of
Technology. No part of this thesis has been previously submitted to Limerick Institute of
Technology or any other higher educational Institute in partial fulfilment of another
academic award.
Author Laura Braz Mourão

Signature
Date 18/08/2021
ii | P a g e
Thesis Dedication
iii | P a g e
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my mom, that has always supported me no matter
what I decided to take on in life. To my dad, whom I miss every day, I am sure he is watching
over me.
To my brother Leandro and sisters Savia and Livia, for the chats, support and all the jokes
and teasing independent of the distance and the situation.
And last but not least to my boyfriend Thiago that always encourages me and gives me
endless support and love.
Thank you, I love you all!
iv | P a g e
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read
and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”
Alvin Toffler
v|Page
Thesis Table of Contents
vi | P a g e
Contents
Declaration of Ethical Practice ............................................................................................... ii
Dedication ............................................................................................................................. iv
Contents ............................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... xv
List of Equations .................................................................................................................xviii
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................. xx
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. xxii
Glossary of Abbreviations .................................................................................................xxiv
Chapter 1 Thesis context ........................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Background of the study ............................................................................................. 2
1.1.1 Construction 4.0................................................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Off-site Construction............................................................................................ 3
1.2 Problem Statement and Relevance of this study ........................................................ 4
1.3 Research Aim ............................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Research Question and Objectives ............................................................................. 6
1.4.1 Research Question ............................................................................................... 6
1.4.2 Objectives............................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Off-site construction categories ................................................................................ 10
2.2.1 Pre-manufacturing 3D primary structural systems ........................................... 11
2.2.2 Pre-manufacturing 2D primary structural systems ........................................... 12
vii | P a g e
2.2.3 Pre-manufacturing components non-systemised primary structure ................ 12
2.2.4 Pre-manufacturing Non-structural assemblies and sub-assemblies ................. 12
2.3 Off-site construction in Ireland ................................................................................. 13
2.4 Benefits of Off-site construction ............................................................................... 17
2.4.1 Time ................................................................................................................... 17
2.4.2 Quality improvement ......................................................................................... 18
2.4.3 Health and safety ............................................................................................... 19
2.4.4 Environmental benefits...................................................................................... 21
2.4.5 Cost .................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.5.1 Labour cost ................................................................................................................ 24

2.4.5.2 Material cost ............................................................................................................. 25
2.4.5.4 Other views related to cost ....................................................................................... 25
2.5 The Drivers of Off-site construction .......................................................................... 26
2.5.1 Productivity ........................................................................................................ 26
2.5.2 Skills shortage .................................................................................................... 28
2.5.3 Market demand ................................................................................................. 30
2.5.4 Sustainability of the built environment ............................................................. 31
2.5.5 Present world Covid- 19 pandemic situation .................................................... 31
2.6 Barriers to the adoption of Off-site construction ..................................................... 33
2.6.1 Barriers related to Process and Programme...................................................... 37
2.6.2 Barriers related to Cost, Value and Productivity ............................................... 38
2.6.3 Barriers related to Regulations .......................................................................... 39
2.6.4 Barriers related to Industry and Market Culture ............................................... 40
2.6.5 Barriers related to Logistics & Site operation .................................................... 41
2.6.6 Barriers related to Supply chain and Procurement ........................................... 41
2.6.7 Barriers related to Skill and Knowledge............................................................. 42
viii | P a g e
2.7 Facilitators for the adoption of Off-site construction ............................................... 43
2.7.1 Lean Construction ................................................................................................... 43
2.7.2 Building Information Modelling (BIM) ............................................................... 44
2.7.3 RFID .................................................................................................................... 46
2.7.4 Virtual Reality ..................................................................................................... 47
2.7.5 Information and Communication Technologies ................................................ 47
Chapter 3 Research Methodology ........................................................................................... 50
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 50
3.2 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 50
3.3 Research Strategy...................................................................................................... 52
3.3.1 Secondary Research ........................................................................................... 52
3.3.2 Primary Research ............................................................................................... 53
3.3.2.1 Rationale for the use of electronic survey ................................................................ 53

3.3.2.2 Pilot Survey ............................................................................................................... 54
3.3.2.3 Survey structure ........................................................................................................ 54
3.3.2.4 Participants recruitment ........................................................................................... 55
3.3.2.5 Rationale for using Semi-structured Interviews ....................................................... 56
3.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 57
3.4.1 Softwares and Statistics method applied for survey results ............................. 57
3.4.1 Softwares and analysis method applied for SSI results ..................................... 59
3.5 Research Ethics.......................................................................................................... 60
3.6 Limitations of the study ............................................................................................ 60
Chapter 4 Research Findings.................................................................................................... 62
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 62
4.2 Electronic survey results ........................................................................................... 62
4.2.1 Responders’ demographic profile ..................................................................... 62
4.2.1.1 Responders’ role title ................................................................................................ 63
ix | P a g e
4.2.1.2 Responders’ length of experience in the construction industry ............................... 64

4.2.1.3 Responders’ professional body affiliation ................................................................ 66
4.2.1.4 Responders’ organisation type ................................................................................. 67
4.2.1.5 Organisation size ..................................................................................................... 68
4.2.2 Benefits of Off-site construction........................................................................ 69
4.2.3 Drivers of Off-site construction ......................................................................... 71
4.2.4 Barriers to the adoption of Off-site construction .............................................. 73
4.2.4.1 Barriers related to Process and Programme ............................................................. 73

4.2.4.2 Barriers related to Cost, Value and Production ........................................................ 74
4.2.4.3 Barriers related to Regulations ................................................................................. 75
4.2.4.4 Barriers related to Industry and Market Culture ...................................................... 75
4.2.4.5 Barriers related to Logistics & Site operation ........................................................... 76
4.2.4.6 Barriers related to Supply chain and Procurement .................................................. 77
4.2.4.7 Barriers related to Skill and Knowledge .................................................................... 78
4.2.4.8 Rank of Barriers’ Categories and Overall Barriers ..................................................... 79
4.2.5 Use of facilitators for the adoption of Off-site construction ............................. 82
4.3 Interviews with experts ............................................................................................. 84
4.3.1 Interviwees’ Background ........................................................................................ 85
4.3.2 Perceived benefits of OSC .................................................................................. 87
4.3.3 Perceived main driver of OSC ............................................................................ 88
4.3.4 Perceived main barrier of OSC ........................................................................... 89
4.3.5 View on Government role to incentivise a wider adoption for OSC ................. 90
4.3.6 View on current Education and Trainning for construction industry

professionals .................................................................................................................... 91
4.3.7 View on systems and tools to facilitate OSC...................................................... 93
4.3.8 Perception of Covid-19 impact on the adoption of OSC ................................... 97
Chapter 5 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 100
5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 100
5.2 Off-site construction Benefits for the Irish Construction Industry ......................... 100
x|Page
5.3 Drivers for Off-site Construction adoption in Ireland ............................................. 101
5.4 Main barriers for the adoption of OSC.................................................................... 104
5.5 Facilitators for the adoption of Off-site construction ................................................. 108
Chapter 6 Conclusion and Recommendations....................................................................... 112
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 112
6.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 112
6.3 Contribuitions and Limitations .................................................................................... 113
6.4 Recommendations for future researches .................................................................... 114
Works Cited ............................................................................................................................ 116
Appendix ................................................................................................................................ 127
A- Email response received from Engineers Ireland .......................................................... 127
B- Pilot Survey ................................................................................................................... 128
C - Survey questionnaire ................................................................................................... 138
D- Interview invite, consent form and questions .............................................................. 149
E- Interview transcript ....................................................................................................... 152
F- Skillsets needed to develop an Educational course in Rep. of Ireland on MMC / Modular

Construction – Sugested by Interviewee 3, received via e-mail........................................ 192
xi | P a g e
Thesis List of Tables
xii | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Sectors of application and material utilisation of OSC categories in Ireland .......... 16
Table 2-2 Barriers identified as constrain for wider adoption of OSC in several different
countries .................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 2-3 CIF identified barriers for wider adoption of OSC separated into categories ......... 36
Table 3-1 Survey Questionnaire structure ............................................................................... 54
Table 3-2 Survey data Analysis Strategy .................................................................................. 59
Table 4-1 Respondents current roles frequency distribution and percentile, given by Systat
analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 63
Table 4-2 Respondents length of experience in the construction industry frequency
distribution and percentile, given by Systat analysis............................................................... 65
Table 4-3 Respondents professional body affiliation frequency distribution and percentile,
given by Systat analysis ............................................................................................................ 66
Table 4-4 Respondent’s organisation type frequency distribution and percentile, given by
Systat analysis .......................................................................................................................... 67
Table 4-5 Respondent’s organisation size, frequency distribution and percentile, given by
Systat analysis .......................................................................................................................... 68
Table 4-6 OSC main driver responses frequency distribution and percentile, given by Systat
analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 71
Table 4-7 Barriers broad categories Mean rating and relative levels of impact in the adoption
of OSC....................................................................................................................................... 79
Table 4-8 Identified barriers ranked by their mean rating ...................................................... 81
Table 4-9 Interviews details ..................................................................................................... 84
Table 5-1 Top four barriers that restrain OSC adoption in Ireland........................................ 105
xiii | P a g e
Thesis List of Figures
xiv | P a g e
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Diagram representing the definition of Construction 4.0 ........................................ 3
Figure 2-1 MMC Category definition. ...................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-2 – Modular Educational units (St Pauls Secondary School, 2020) .......................... 15
Figure 2-3 Construction Sector vs All Sector Workplace Fatalities.......................................... 20
Figure 2-4 Traditional construction cost,¹ % of total, and potential o site savings/cost. ........ 23
Figure 2-5 Productivity index per economic sector in Ireland................................................. 27
Figure 2-6 Application of BIM along the Engineering and Construction Value Chain ............. 45
Figure 3-1 Research Design ...................................................................................................... 51
Figure 3-2 Research strategy ................................................................................................... 52
Figure 4-1 Respondents current role responses chart ............................................................ 64
Figure 4-2 Respondent’s length of experience in the construction industry responses chart 65
Figure 4-3 Respondents professional body affiliation responses chart .................................. 66
Figure 4-4 Respondent's organisation type responses chart .................................................. 68
Figure 4-5 Respondent’s organisation size responses chart ................................................... 69
Figure 4-6 Benefits of OSC responses frequency graph .......................................................... 70
Figure 4-7 Main driver for the adoption of OSC responses chart ........................................... 72
Figure 4-8 Barriers related to Process and Programme, percentile of responses for each
barrier and calculated mean ratings ........................................................................................ 74
Figure 4-9 Barriers related to Cost, Value and Productivity, percentile of responses for each
Figure 4-10 Barriers related to Regulations, percentile of responses for each barrier and
calculated mean ratings ........................................................................................................... 75
Figure 4-11 Barriers related to Industry and Market Culture, percentile of responses for
each barrier and calculated mean ratings ............................................................................... 76
Figure 4-12 Barriers related to Logistics & Site Operation, percentile of responses for each
Figure 4-13 Barriers related to Supply Chain and Procurement, percentile of responses for
each barrier and calculated mean ratings ............................................................................... 78
Figure 4-14 Barriers related to Skill and Knowledge, percentile of responses for each barrier
and calculated mean ratings .................................................................................................... 79
xv | P a g e
Figure 4-15 Graph of the level of impact on the adoption of OSC of each Barriers Broad
categories ................................................................................................................................. 80
Figure 4-16 Graph of frequency of tools and systems used by respondents .......................... 82
Figure 4-17 Graph of frequency of tools and systems with the potential to facilitate the
adoption of OSC ....................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 5-1 OSC drivers divided by professional's length of experience ................................ 103
xvi | P a g e
Thesis List of Equations
xvii | P a g e
List of Equations
Equation 3-1 Barrier mean rating: .......................................................................................... 57
Equation 3-2 Barrier category mean rating ............................................................................. 58
Equation 3-3 Barrier Category relative contribution index ..................................................... 58
xviii | P a g e
Thesis Acknowledgements
xix | P a g e
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank those who have helped me undertake this research,
My supervisor Deborah OSullivan, for her feedbacks and patience;
My lecturers for all the knowledge shared during this master’s course;
The industry experts who have taken time from their busy schedules to share their
experience in the industry and their thoughts with me.
Thank you!
xx | P a g e
Thesis Abstract
xxi | P a g e
Abstract
The Irish construction sector has been seeking a way to increase its productivity, meet
market demand and achieve the commitments set on the National Development Plan. Since
the release of “Economic analysis of productivity in the Irish construction sector”, the
Construction Sector Group has taken actions on innovation and digital adoption, including
establishing Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) working group to guide the
development of off-site construction and other MMC in the country.
Off-site construction (OSC) is an umbrella term used to refer to many different construction
systems produced in a manufacturing facility and then transported to the site and
assembled to complete a building. This construction method has many reported benefits,
including a healthier and safer work environment, enhanced quality, environmental
sustainability, cost and time certainty of projects that all leads to the industry productivity
enhancement. However, some barriers constrain OSC adoption.
This research aimed to investigate off-site construction in Ireland and identify which barrier
most constrain OSC adoption in the country.
This investigation and identification were made through a review of other OSC studies,
stakeholder surveys, and interviews with industry experts to assess their perception of OSC
benefits, drivers, barriers and facilitators. The multi-attribute technique was used to
prioritise the identified barriers for OSC uptake.
Findings revealed that current construction education and training need to be updated and
include courses on OSC since the main barrier that restrains OSC in Ireland is construction
education and training being focused on traditional construction methods. Moreover,
industry professionals know the advantages of OSC, but these advantages are not
recognised in the wider market. Furthermore, industry professionals use modern tools and
systems that can facilitate OSC adoption, and their potential to aid OSC is mostly recognised.
xxii | P a g e
Thesis Glossary of Abbreviations
xxiii | P a g e
Glossary of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Full Title

OSC Off-site Cosntruction
C4.0 Construction 4.0
MMC Modern Methods of Construction
I4.0 Industry 4.0
CIF Construction Industry Federation
CSG Construction Sector Group
M&E Mechanical and Electrical
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
SCSI Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland
DfMA Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
LS Lean System
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
IoT Internet of Things
ICTs Information and Communication Technology
BIM Building Information Modeling
AEC Architecture, Engineering and Construction
SSI Semi-structured Interviews
xxiv | P a g e
Thesis Main Body
xxv | P a g e
Chapter Context for the Thesis
1|Page
Chapter 1 Thesis context
1.1 Background of the study

The construction industry has been lagging over the years compared to the other industries.
An urge for this industry to catch up and enhance its quality, sustainability and overall
productivity exist.
Off-site construction has been a promising approach to solve these long-lasting problems
encountered in the construction industry by offering many benefits to the market and the
built environment in general. Nevertheless, some barriers and issues constrain its
implementation.
With the fourth industrial revolution, the advance of technologies and rapid change in the
way humans create, exchange and distribute value and information gives the industry the
opportunity to more rapidly address the challenges that impede a wider spread of this
construction approach and allows the full potential of OSC to be delivered.
However, further understanding of these barriers and issues are needed to allocate better
efforts to overcome them. Moreover, the industry must realise the potential that disruptive
technologies may offer to facilitate OSC adoption.
1.1.1 Construction 4.0

Construction 4.0 is the framework of Industry 4.0 applied to the construction industry. The
central concept of I4.0 is the industrialisation and automation of production processes.
According to Forcael, Ferrari and Opazo-vega (2020), C 4.0 is based predominantly on two
pillars, the digitisation of the construction industry and the industrialisation of construction
processes (see figure1- 1). Therefore C4.0 will include the adoption of OSC in projects and
the use of disruptive digital technologies into all phases of construction and production.
2|Page
Figure 1-1 Diagram representing the definition of Construction 4.0 given by Forcael, Ferrari and Opazo-vega
Industrialisation
of construction
process
C 4.0
Digitisation of
construction
industry
1.1.2 Off-site Construction

According to Sirtoli (2015), the appearance of prefabrication occurred in the post-World
War II period due to the shortage of skilled labour in European countries and the need for
large-scale construction. To attend to this demand, one of the solutions to rationalise
materials, labour, and reduce time and costs was to move some of the operations on the
construction site out of it.
According to the same author, it is impossible to determine a precise date that off-site
construction started. However, Gonçalves (2010) states that this construction method can
be traced to the early days of humanity, with the nomads and their ways of living: tents with
light structures and mostly easy to be transported and assembled, as they constantly moved
around in search for food.
Nonetheless, according to the Modular Building Institute, off-site construction has been
evolving over the past three centuries. Furthermore, as production technologies and
advanced materials become available to use, the prefabrication of buildings and their
elements becomes a realistic option to attend to the present construction industry needs.
Lawson, Ogden and Goodier (2014) stated that historically the use of OSC was mostly for
portable or temporary buildings.
Rodrigues et al. (2017) state that OSC is associated with prefabrication in which components
can be produced off-site in manufacturing specialised facilities or even on-site but with
overall quality enhanced as there is a standardisation of components.
3|Page
Knaack et al. (2012) defend that OSC is part of system building, defined by them as
prefabricated components to be assembled to a complete form. However, not all
prefabricated system building components fit under OSC definition. Some of these system
buildings can be prefabricated on-site, such as in situ precast concrete wall systems that are
cast separately on-site and then installed in the building structure.
McKinsey & Company (2019) defines OSC as the production of standardized components of
a structure in an off-site factory and assembling those components on-site. Their report also
states that terms such as modular, off-site, prefabricated, industrialised building systems
(IBS) are used interchangeably to cover a range of different systems that are part of the OSC
approach.
Despite the slight differences in the definitions given, all authors opinions converge on
specific points:
• OSC is an umbrella term that covers some modern methods of construction (MMC).
• This construction approach brings many benefits for projects
• It is a construction method that takes part of the construction off-site and on-site to
complete a building.
1.2 Problem Statement and Relevance of this study

With the rapid development of industries, off-site construction has been gaining space in
the worldwide market as it promises to be a remedy for the construction industry
backwardness (Bertram et al., 2019).
Even more, the adoption of OSC promises to increase the quality, health and safety, and
performance of the construction industry (Young et al., 2020). This approach to construction
projects has resurged in the past years and has been successfully adopted in many countries
such as Japan, Sweden, Australia and UK (Salama, Moselhi and Al-Hussein, 2018; Manley
and Widén, 2020).
However, its adoption has encountered barriers in every market. These barriers need to be
addressed, allowing the construction industry to evolve and catch up with other industries
in terms of modernity and productivity. Moreover, the Irish construction industry should
evolve and modernise so its many construction companies can attend to internal demand
and contribute to the country's economic growth.
4|Page
The report “Economic analysis of productivity in the Irish construction sector” (KPMG FAC
and TU Dublin, 2020) concluded that steps need to be taken on a collaborative basis to
develop the construction industry and ensure that all industry’s sectors work together to
drive it forward.
In this report, an increase in off-site construction is put forward as one of the steps to
develop the construction industry.
Even though Ireland have many OSC manufacturers providers and successful cases of
constructions using this type of approach, there are challenges encountered for wider
adoption of OSC in new construction projects. Also, the use of I 4.0 systems and tools in the
industry seems to be only beginning at a slow pace of adoption, which could mean that the
benefits that new technologies can bring to support OSC adoption are not realised in the
market.
New disruptive tools and systems adoption in projects and operations can be seen as
facilitators for OSC adoption and become part of businesses strategies to overcome many of
the challenges that may restrain OSC uptake and increase construction industry productivity
(Zhang et al., 2016; Bowmaster and Rankin, 2019; Goh and Goh, 2019).
An investigation of the perception of OSC’s benefits, drivers, and barriers is needed to
understand better what needs to be done so this approach can deliver its full potential in
the market.
This research fills this gap by assessing the stakeholder’s view of the benefits, drivers, and
barriers pushing forward and restraining OSC adoption in Ireland.
The identified barriers were categorised, and, through the level of impact perceived by the
construction industry professionals, they were prioritised, revealing which barriers need
immediate attention to unlock the adoption of OSC in the Irish market.
Also, an assessment of the use of technologies by these professionals was carried out, along
with their perception of these disruptive systems and tools' potential to facilitate OSC
adoption.
Therefore, this study provided further literature on these themes, a view of Ireland’s
construction industry professionals towards technology adoption and a better
understanding of their view concerning the prioritisation of barriers that hinder the
adoption of this construction method.
5|Page
Moreover, this prioritisation can support decisions on where to allocate efforts when
looking to address and overcome these barriers.
1.3 Research Aim

Investigate the Irish construction industry to prioritise the barriers that hinder a wider
adoption of Off-site construction.
1.4 Research Question and Objectives

1.4.1 Research Question
This research aims to address the following question:
What is the barrier that most restrains the uptake of Off-site construction in Ireland?
1.4.2 Objectives
The specific objectives of this study are:
i. Determine the different types of off-site construction systems and their applications
in Ireland.
ii. Identify the benefits of OSC.
iii. Examine the drivers for the adoption of OSC in the industry.
iv. Investigate the barriers that constraints the adoption of OSC.
v. Review modern systems and tools that facilitate OSC adoption and verify if they are
recognised as facilitators in the Irish industry.
vi. Prioritise the investigated barriers according to industry stakeholder’s perceptions.
1.5 Structure of the Thesis

This thesis comprises of 6 chapters. The composition of each chapter is highlighted as
follows.
Chapter 1 is an introduction to the research, presents the background Industry 4.0 and Off-
site Construction. States the research problem, research aim, and objectives and outlines
the structure of the thesis document.
Chapter 2 is dedicated to the literature review, which includes an extensive study of

researches to date following the objectives of the thesis.
In this chapter, types of OSC and their use in Ireland along with its drivers are presented.
6|Page
Moreover, the benefits of adopting this approach to construction projects are identified, the
barriers for OSC adoption in another jurisdiction and Ireland are investigated.
Furthermore, the use of systems and tools that can overcome the barriers that constrain
OSC adoption are identified.
The literature review was the basis for the primary research, structured self-administrated
questionnaire and semi-structured interviews.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology used to develop the research, outlining the research
design and strategy used, including its planning and implementation for data collection, data
analyses, and how the results were interpreted. Table 1-1 below shows the research
methods used to reach each objective of this study.
Table 1-1 Objectives and research method used to develop the thesis
Objectives Research Method
Determine the different types of off-
i. site construction systems and their use Secondary research, extensive literature review.
in Ireland.
Secondary research, extensive literature review
ii. Identify the benefits of OSC giving the basis for questionnaire and interviews
primary research.
Examine the drivers for the adoption
iii. giving the basis for questionnaire and interviews
of OSC in the industry.
primary research.
Investigate the barriers that
iv. giving the basis for questionnaire and interviews
constraints the adoption of OSC.
primary research.
Review modern systems and tools that
facilitate OSC adoption, and verify if Secondary research, extensive literature review
v. giving the basis for questionnaire and interviews
they are recognised as facilitators in
primary research.
the Irish industry.
Prioritise the barriers according to the Questionnaire Primary research results and
vi.
stakeholder’s perception. statistic application analyses.
7|Page
Chapter 4 summarises the results obtained through primary research data collected in the
45 responses received from the 70 electronic surveys distributed and the data collected on
five one to one semi-structured interviews conducted with industry experts.
Chapter 5 analyses and discusses the findings presented in the previous chapter within the
limits of the objectives of this study. The research objectives were discussed in order to
formulate practical conclusions to the research question.
Chapter 6 presents the conclusions drawn from the main findings of this research.
Moreover, it outlines the contributions of the work and discusses its limitations. Also,
recommendations and opportunities for further research are made.
8|Page
Chapter Critical Review of

Literature
2
9|Page
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Literature review purpose is to educate oneself in the topic area to establish what is known
about this subject and what is not yet known (Arshed and Danson, 2015).
Therefore, this chapter comprises an extensive literature review on the topic of Off-site
construction.
It englobes research on the systems types that comprise OSC, the materials used in these
systems. The identification of the benefits this approach offers and the examination of
drivers to its adoption is also presented. Moreover, the barriers to adopting this approach
were investigated, and the use of disruptive systems and tools that can facilitate the
adoption of OSC in projects was reviewed.
2.2 Off-site construction categories

The Irish Construction Industry Federation has presented a recent categorisation of the
different OSC systems under the Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) definition
framework.
According to Kirwan (2021), MMC is a broad term used to delineate Off-site pre-fabricated
construction and on-site techniques that seek to improve construction projects' delivery and
performance through improved processes.
According to the Construction Industry Federation (2020) report, MMC are separated into
seven categories, as shown in figure 2-1.
10 | P a g e
Figure 2-1 MMC Category definition.

Source: Construction Industry Federation (2020).
From these seven categories, four are pre-manufacture categories that englobe the range of
different OSC systems. These categories are:
• Category 1- Pre-manufacturing (3D primary structural systems)

• Category 2 - Pre-manufacturing (2D primary structural systems)
• Category 3 - Pre-manufacturing components (non-systemised primary structure)
• Category 5 - Pre-manufacturing (Non-structural assemblies and sub-assemblies)
2.2.1 Pre-manufacturing 3D primary structural systems

These are entire buildings formed by several different volumetric units, it includes the
structure and envelope of the building, and these units are mostly finished off-site, up to
95% can be complete in the factory according to Smith (2016), and then they are
transported and put together on-site to compose a whole building.
According to Gibb (1999), this type of prefabricated buildings was used in hotel
accommodations, stand-alone retail units, medium-rise office buildings, and temporary and
relocatable solutions.
More recently, Mendes Dos Santos (2020) defends that the application of modular building
has gained more versatility. Therefore homes, businesses, apartment blocks, high-rise
buildings, hospitals, among others, are being built using this type of OSC.
11 | P a g e
Mendes dos Santos attributes this versatility to the development of a variety of new
materials that can be used in the construction of modules. The improvement of factory
processes and the enhancement of equipment’s capacity and accessibility allowing taller
and more complexes installations to be done on-site. The application of modular building
has gained more versatility.
2.2.2 Pre-manufacturing 2D primary structural systems

These are flat panel units used for floors, walls and roof structures produced in a
manufacturing facility then transported to a site where these panels are assembled to form
a final 3D structure.
Bertram et al. (2019) explained that this system resembles a flat-pack assembly approach
used in home’s furniture.
Great Britain's Ministry of Housing (2019) report highlights that the most common systems
under this category are open panels or frames, consisting of the skeletal structure only and
do not include unitised or composite external walling systems that are not load-bearing.
Kirwan (2021) exemplifies this category with timber-framed housing wall and roof panels,
metal-framed whole wall panels.
2.2.3 Pre-manufacturing components non-systemised primary structure

As presented in the CIF (2020) report, these are pre-manufactured structural members.
Moreover, Great Britain's Ministry of Housing (2019) report gives an example for this
category as prefabricated off-site load bearing beams, columns, walls, core structures, and
slabs. The report also highlights that it can also include substructure elements such as ring
beams, pile caps, driven piles, and screw piles.
2.2.4 Pre-manufacturing Non-structural assemblies and sub-assemblies

Kirwan (2021) described that under this category are elements that form parts of buildings
but not the actual building structure, which will fit under one of the before mentioned
categories.
According to Great Britain's Ministry of Housing (2019) report, non-structural assemblies
and sub-assemblies can be a series of different approaches. It includes unitised non-
structural walling systems, roof finishes cassettes or assemblies when not part of a
structural system, non-load-bearing volumetric units, also known as pods, are included in
12 | P a g e
this category.
Examples of this category are bathroom pods, kitchen pods, unit MEP central equipment
assemblies, door sets (finished with ironmongery).
2.3 Off-site construction in Ireland

According to Browne (2020), in Ireland, OSC is re-emerging in recent years and is typically
component related with little modularity at scale.
As stated in a presentation by Searson (2020), M&E off-site systems were in place in Ireland
as far back as 2008.
Moreover, Clark (2020) reports that other systems, such as penalised systems, have been
present in Ireland for at least 20 years.
On the Modern Methods of Construction report, it is stated that there are around 80
providers of OSC solutions in Ireland. Furthermore, in his presentation, Searson (2020)
highlights that OSC is being used in the country in various sectors such as:
• Residential • Educational
• Commercial/ Office fit-out • Aviation
• Industrial • Food & Beverage
• Infrastructure • Manufacturing
• Healthcare • Life Sciences
• Data Centres
Moreover, Young (2019) lists in his presentation some of the materials that are used in
Ireland for Off-site systems fabrication:
• Timber Frame •Lightweight Modular Systems
•Light Gauge Steel (LGS) Frame •Hot Rolled steel
• Precast concrete •Cold rolled steel
•MEP Assembles
Table 2-1 below compiles sectors in which each category has been applied in the country
and the materials used in these systems according to Young (2019) and Searson (2020).
Moreover, few examples of the use of OSC in projects in the country are:
Healthcare
Recent use of this approach to construction in the healthcare sector can be seen on the
13 | P a g e
University Hospital Limerick (UHL) project to rapidly add capacity to respond to the Covid-19
pandemic. A 14- week duration project that used a combination of OSC solutions delivered
24 single en-suite rooms at the UHL site. The project’s main contractor describes the
systems used at UHL, structural steel frame system and prefabricated light-gauge steel wall
panels for the external and internal walls. Hot-roll steel columns, beams, and bathroom
pods were used to complete this project (Clancy, 2020).
As recognised by Fitzgerald (2020), the use of OSC in this project facilitated an early start to
the construction work and was a more streamlined process when compared to traditional
building projects. It also allowed for the hospital to keep open and working during the
construction as OSC creates fewer disruptions on site.
Residential
McAuley and Hore (2020) published by CiTA a case where OSC was used in the residential
sector. This case was a part of the Dublin City Council Rapid Housing Programme, load-
bearing structural systems from cold-formed steel fabricated by off-site manufacture
located in Galway. Moreover, in the same publication, these authors point out a project of
818 student accommodation in Sandyford, Dublin, using 3D modules that fit in container’s
shipping parameters. Those were tested in France to meet the Irish and EU construction
standards and regulations.
Data Centres
For the ever-growing Data Centres sector, a variety of projects are being delivered using
OSC solutions as speed, flexibility, sustainability and quality are demanded by clients. As
stated by Enterprise Ireland (2018), these demands can be met when using modular
solutions. A 60MW hyperscale data centre in Dublin was built using 24 modularised switch
rooms and 56 skid modules that according to Kirby Engineering and Construction, the
requirements of the client and the repetitive nature of the layout lead the project to adopt a
modularised solution.
Educational
In the Educational sector, modular educational units are being used across the country. An
example is St. Pauls Secondary School in figure 2-2 below finished in 2020.
These modular units are very different from the mobile classroom used in the past. KES
14 | P a g e
Group (2021) explained that these are permanent, fully equipped buildings with an
expected lifespan of more than 60 years.
Figure 2-2 – Modular Educational units (St Pauls Secondary School, 2020) – Actavo Ireland
Source: MMC Construction Industry Federation, 2020
Commercial:
Dublin airport South Gates passenger boarding facility was developed to meet the growth in
passenger numbers. OSC was used to execute this project. Seventy-seven steel-framed
modules, up to 12m long was manufactured in a manufacturing facility in Northern Ireland.
According to the Public Sector Build Journal (PSBJ, 2019), the use of an off-site solution
allowed the airport operations to continue uninterrupted, with minimum disruption. This
approach to the extension was also deemed essential for the fast-track programme of the
project to be achieved. The terminal was operational within 18 months. It comprises a 2,200
square metre facility with seven boarding gates, cafe, toilets, baby changing and a
workstation area with plugs and charging points.
15 | P a g e
Table 2-1 Sectors of application and material utilisation of OSC categories in Ireland
Category Sector that uses Type of material used
Residential Concreate
Comercial / Office Fit-out LGS
Healthcare Stailess Steel
Life Science Timber
Data Centres
Manufacturing
Food & Beverage
Residential Timber
Comercial / Office fit-out Concreate
Healthcare Cold rolled steel
Educational Hot rolled steel
Life Science
Data Centres
Comercial / Office fit-out Cross Laminated timber
Infrastructure Cold formed steel
Educational LGS
Manufacturing
Data Centres
Comercial / Office fit-out LGS
Industrial Stailess Steel
Healthcare Timber
Aviation Glass clading
Manufacturing Insulated concrete frame
Life Science MEP Assembles
Data Centres
16 | P a g e
2.4 Benefits of Off-site construction

Off-site construction presents great potential to help meet governmental, environmental,
health and safety requirements and meet market demands and programs specifications that
cannot be met by traditional construction alone.
A list of the benefits that this approach brings to projects can be found in many scholar’s
work. These benefits relate to projects’ time, quality, health and safety, environmental
impacts, cost, among others.
Benefits that consequently lead to the enhancement of productivity and sustainability of the
construction industry leading this industry to a leaner and greener approach to
construction.
In this section, the most relevant benefits will be identified and discussed.
2.4.1 Time
From the many benefits of OSC construction, speed of delivery is on the top of the list. In
their studies, young et al. (2020) defend that the main reason for using OSC is speed as
opposed to traditional construction, which focuses on cost savings.
Certainty of schedule is one of the issues in the traditional construction industry. Time
overrun of projects leads to cost overruns and can lead to poor quality in the execution of
projects. When taking the construction process off-site and bringing it into a controlled
environment, external factors (such as weather conditions) tend to be nullified. Therefore it
is less likely that schedules will be altered due to such factors (Musa et al., 2016).
Moreover, in a manufacturing environment, the possibility of multiple works being done
simultaneously is more feasible than in traditional building and can speed up the
construction process.
Boyd, Khalfan and Maqsood (2013) point out that when using off-site modular building,
parallel processes on-site and off-site are possible, resulting in the reduction of the overall
time of projects. While on-site works such as excavation, concrete foundation are being
done, modules or other elements are being produced in the factory resulting in a shorter
overall construction time.
As works can be carried out concurrently, Harvey (2014) explains that, contrary to
traditional stick build construction projects, when dealing with OSC, concurrent scheduling
is appropriated. Thus it allows the critical path time to be reduced.
17 | P a g e
Looking at other phases of a construction project, Blismas, Pasquire and Gibb (2006a) report
that less time is spent in commissioning and the speed of delivery of the product is
recognised by the clients as a benefit of this approach construction. Another study by
Jaillon, Poon and Chiang (2009) confirmed the same perception of time-saving when using
OSC.
However, the same authors state that the design and planning phases require a longer time
than in traditional construction, which can be a constrain for adopting this approach.
To take advantage of this time-saving benefit of OSC has to be an integration of all
stakeholders, and the decision to use OSC needs to be made in the very early stages of the
project.
According to Fraser et al. (2015), when comparing off-site construction completions with
traditional on-site projects, 96% of off-site projects are delivered on time, while only 63% of
the traditional on-site projects meet their delivery time as scheduled.
Data analysed in the McKinsey & Company report showed that OSC projects could
accelerate construction schedules by up to 50% compared to traditional building. A few
years before in their studies, Musa et al. (2016), found the same percentage of time-saving
on project schedules when using modular construction instead of the traditional on-site
method.
These authors point that this schedule acceleration is due to the productivity in factories
outweighing the on-site activities productivity. Also, in a manufacturing environment, the
use of automation and other digital technologies is more widespread and likely to occur
than on traditional on-site construction projects, which contributes to a more accelerated
fabrication of components.
2.4.2 Quality improvement

Traditional construction is exposed to many factors that can alter the quality of works.
Weather exposure, worker’s skills and level of experience, site conditions, machinery, and
tool availability are examples of these factors that can lead to poor quality of a building.
Moreover, standardisation of processes is not a reality in most construction work, resulting
in different outputs even if building the same element to the same specifications. Exact
repeatability is very unlikely to happen on traditional construction manual labour
dependent processes.
18 | P a g e
According to Gibb (1999), a factory controlled environment enables improved supervision of

material and workmanship when compared to traditional on-site construction. This
improved supervision and the use of automation and modern manufacturing technologies
lead to more controlled processes enabling standardisation and smaller and tighter
tolerances in the production of building elements, components, and modules. This will
result in more consistency of products and consequentially will lead to a better-quality end
product, in this case, buildings.
Although this quality improvement in processes and therefore on building elements can be
achieved in OSC, different authors report that there is a cultural stigma of poor quality
associated with buildings constructed using the OSC approach (Luo et al., 2015; Wang, Li
and Wu, 2019; Young et al., 2020). Even more, modular units are associated with temporary
accommodations that are not built to last (Musa et al., 2016). This creates a resistance to
the adoption of this approach in projects.
Davies (2018) links customers' resistance to the adoption of OSC because customers’
perception still lies in the image of post-war emergency houses. Moreover, in their studies,
Razkenari et al. (2020) found that this stigma is due to buildings poor performance in the
past when materials and the building techniques used in construction were not as advanced
as today.
However, improvement of quality is achieved when components and modules are
fabricated in a controlled environment. The same authors list this quality improvement as a
benefit of OSC and a driver for its adoption.
2.4.3 Health and safety

Another benefit of OSC is the improvement in the health and safety of workers and the site
surroundings.
In a factory, the controlled environment allows a safer working space reducing the risk of
construction accidents (Musa et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2018; Bertram et al., 2019).
Along with a better working environment for workers, the disturbance of site surroundings
is reduced since the work on-site is less intense.
According to Abdelmageed and Zayed (2020), 90% of on-site activities are removed when
using modular construction. As the traffic of people and materials to the site is reduced,
19 | P a g e
being limited to the delivery and installation of modules and preparation of the site to
receive the modules, the noise and others disruptions to the surroundings are also reduced.
In the 2019 McKenzie report, the idea of an enhancement of labour force wellbeing when
using OSC is supported. This enhancement is due to working on a fixed place instead of on a
temporary basis from site to site in each different project.
The Health and Safety Authority (2020) reports that in terms of work-related accidents in
Ireland, the construction sector has been in the top five sectors for accidents that lead to
four or more days of absence since 2014.
In 2019 the rate of injuries in construction was 16.7 per 1000 workers. Moreover, the rate of
fatalities in the construction industry in 2019 grew more than 50% compared to 2018, going
from 5 to 12.
Figure 2-3 Construction Sector vs All Sector Workplace Fatalities

Source: CSO Ireland
As shown above, in figure 2-2, the construction industry alone accounts for roughly 25% of
work-related fatal accidents reported in 2019.
Analysing these accidents statistics and the percentage that the construction industry
employees, only 6.4% of total employment in the Irish economy (IPPO, 2019), shows how
safety is a complex issue in the construction industry.
20 | P a g e
By reducing the works on-site and taking out the weather variables, possible poor visibility
to execute work and a busy environment with constant material, machinery, and people
flow, a factory based is considered safer. Therefore, the risks of injuries and accidents at
work are reduced. Moreover, workers welfare impacts their output directly. By offering an
enhanced work environment for workers, their productivity will also be enhanced.
2.4.4 Environmental benefits

The EPA (2020) reported that in 2018, construction and demolition waste in Ireland reached
6.2 million tonnes, an increase of 1.5 million tonnes from the previous year.
OSC has been recognised as an approach to construction that reduces waste generation.
As Fraser et al. (2015) mention, on-site construction waste is ten times the industrialised
factory norms. They revealed the waste not only of materials but also energy and water,
representing 3%-5% of construction total cost.
Moreover, the House of Lords’ Science and Technology Select Committee (2018) published
written evidence that considers there is a possibility of achieving improved environmental
credentials for projects built off-site due to the efficiency of the building process in a factory
environment.
The waste minimization on the use of OSC has been widely recognized. Studies done by Tam
et al. (2007), Jaillon et al. (2009) and Ajayi et al. (2015) suggests that a 52% to 84.7% waste
reduction can be achieved when using OSC. More into their studies Ajayi et al. (2015)
conduces interviews with construction experts and finds that their opinion regarding waste
in OSC is that this construction method reduces waste significantly in a project due to the
design freeze. Their findings are pertinent since when it is known exactly what will be
constructed, the exact amount of material can be estimated and bought. The constant
change in traditional construction leads to rework and an increase of materials to adhere to
design changes during the construction phase.
Jaillon et al. (2009) study quantified the waste reduction potential by using precast concrete
components for residential projects. They found that off-cuts are the major cause of
wastage during the construction phase on-site.
Better and more accurate use of materials and resources are possible in a manufacturing
environment as it is better controlled (Arif and Egbu, 2010). There is the repeatability of
products due to the standardisation of processes which allows the offcuts and use of
21 | P a g e
material to be optimised, leading to fewer resources being discarded and consequently

reducing raw materials consumption. In addition to minimizing impacts on the environment,
reducing material waste leads to cost savings on projects.
Resources usage is also an aspect that has to be looked into when discussing the
environmental impact of construction. A study carried out to quantify and compare energy
use in prefabricated elements with traditional construction by Hong et al. (2016) found that
the average energy consumption in the embodied phase of a prefabricated building was
higher than in traditional methods of construction.
However, contrary to Hong et al. (2016) findings years before Couto and Couto (2008) on
their research mentions the programme PREPARE (Preventive Environmental Protection
Approaches), which studies efficient technologies of prefabrication, this programme
identified the following potential benefits when adopting OSC:
• 50% reduction of water consumption when constructing a typical house.
• Reduction of at least 50% of energy consumption.
In their studies, Mao et al. (2013) found that OSC can reduce construction greenhouse gas
emissions by 32kg/m2. Wuni and Shen (2020) defend that a wider OSC uptake can help
mitigate climate change and leverage significant environmental sustainability to the
construction industry.
Moreover, the opportunity to recycle and reuse OSC elements is greater than in traditional
construction, which improves construction industry sustainability supporting the industry to
meet environmental policies demands to reach the countries targets of emissions, resources
consumption, and waste reductions.
Savills (2020) highlights that OSC uses 39% less CO2 during construction than traditional
methods, and to achieve the country’s commitment to be carbon neutral by 2050, wider
adoption of OSC is necessary.
In order to achieve levels of sustainability, many aspects have to be looked at, and projects
need to be considered as a whole. The selection of materials as much as routes to delivery
materials and OSC products and other aspects of construction processes such as labour
force dislocation to sites will have an impact on the sustainability of projects.
The overall perception of authors and researchers is that OSC has the potential to be a more
sustainable method of construction than traditional building. It can support the
22 | P a g e
achievement of government targets to reduce environmental impacts. However, it is

necessary to pay attention to all aspects of a project (social, economic, environmental), so
improvements on the overall project and product can be achieved and not only on part of it,
not letting one aspect outweigh the other.
2.4.5 Cost
Cost overrun is a constant problem in construction projects. Most authors see OSC as the
remedy for this reoccurring problem. It has been recognised that cost certainty in OSC is
higher than in the traditional approach, as materials and labour input are controlled and
standardised in a factory-based work environment.
Besides cost certainty, the chances of cost savings when using OSC methods is highlighted
by the McKinsey & Company report. It presents a figure of 20% of costs that can be saved
when using modular construction compared to traditional methods. However, presented in
the same report, there is a risk of an up to 10% cost increase that can occur if logistics and
materials procurement costs are higher than the savings achieved by less manpower, waste
reduction, and resources on site.
In figure 2-3, Bertram et al. (2019) show this relation scenario of cost savings opportunity
and the possibility of increased costs.
Figure 2-4 Traditional construction cost,¹ % of total, and potential o site savings/cost.
Source: McKinsey 2019 report by Bertram et al., 2019
23 | P a g e
2.4.5.1 Labour cost
Looking at the total construction project cost percentage, the greater factor that impacts
the total cost is on-site labour, and it accounts for roughly 40% of costs from a project. This
cost can be drastically reduced when using off-site construction, as shown in figure 2-3.
Labour costs can be reduced by 10 to 25% when adopting OSC. Therefore, labour cost is the
factor that most impacts cost savings when using OSC.
According to the UK Off-site Construction Hub (2017), in a case study of a four-storey
building done by the Stell Construction Institute, using OSC on-site labour was reduced to
approximately 25% than when using traditional building approach.
Moreover, labour costs can fluctuate when deadlines are not meet, and it is highly
dependent on labour efficiency. In traditional building approach, labour costs on projects
constantly shift since it is common for deadlines not to be met in this industry. Thus, the
efficiency of labourers varies on construction projects, which leads to less efficiency,
requiring more labour hours than planned to execute a task.
On an off-site facility under a controlled environment, the execution of work is prone to be
more efficient, and also deadlines are met more frequently. As mentioned before Fraser et
al. (2015) found that 96% of off-site projects meet deadlines. This project delivery
24 | P a g e
punctuality is because OSC is less labour intensive as it allows for more automation of
processes than traditional building.
2.4.5.2 Material cost
OSC companies can gain economies of scale when buying large quantities as a
manufacturer rather than buying small amounts multiple times in one-of-projects as it is
done when constructing using traditional on-site approach. Bertram et al. (2019) highlighted
this opportunity for cost reduction as they state that cost savings can be achieved on OSC if
costs related to material do not outweigh the savings on the reduction of on-site labour.
Moreover, Fraser et al. (2015) defend the same ideas as they point out that design for OSC
solutions allows standardisation, which contributes to better usage reducing waste of
materials, which generates savings on material quantities needed, reducing material cost in
projects.
The rise in raw materials prices, such as plastic, steel, timber, increases cost in either
construction method, be it on-site or off-site. However, on-site operations are more likely to
use more materials. In a manufacturing operation, the control in the operations and the
input of materials are greater than on-site. This higher level of control reduces material
waste and also material loss due to weather exposure, incorrect storage, or even building
something incorrectly is avoided when adopting OSC.
2.4.5.4 Other views related to cost
In contrast, some studies show OSC as more expensive than traditional building, as cited by
Hong et al. (2018). A range of studies indicated a 2% to 17% higher cost of prefabricated
buildings.
In their study, Hong et al. conducted a series of analyses. Their result found an even higher
percentage than these previous studies. The cost of buildings built under prefabrication
technology was 26,3% to 72,1% higher than buildings built under traditional methods.
Goodier and Gibb (2007), and Blismas and Wakefield (2009) suggest that to realise costs
savings, the whole lifecycle cost of a building should be considered as most studies consider
only direct costs as material, labour and resources in the construction phase. However, they
recognize that there are a possibility of higher costs occurring in OSC if factories and the site
are too far from each other.
25 | P a g e
Ajayi, Alaka and Dauda (2019) defend that cost comprises three aspects: material, labour,
and time. Thus, a reduction in one of those aspects will reduce cost, and by the same logic,
an increase in any of those aspects will incur on cost increase.
This relationship among these three aspects and project cost is also shown in the McKinsey
& Company report. The report fosters the necessity of equilibrium among these aspects and
to develop a more integrated end-to-end supply chain, so the gains on cost reduction are
not outweighed by construction industry fragmentation. Kamali and Hewage (2016) backed
up this idea of equilibrium, defending the need for well-managed construction’s cost
sources so OSC can achieve cost savings over traditional building.
Recently on an interview the executive expert researching OSC in Ireland affirms that
modular construction costs is reaching a tipping point close to becoming cheaper for house
building than traditional on-site methods (O’Halloran, 2021). The expert also points that this
cost-saving is possible when there is volume involving 100 or more dwellings.
It can be said that there is potential for overall cost savings in projects when using OSC.
However, the management of all aspects mentioned above has to be treated holistically.
Project cost certainty is what has been unanimously recognised as the cost related
advantage of OSC for now.
2.5 The Drivers of Off-site construction

Although off-site construction is not a new concept and has been in and out of history, as
McKinsey & Company (2019) highlights, this construction approach has become more viable
than before with the advancement in technologies and production methods. Coupled with
all the benefits that OSC can deliver, some industry challenges can be addressed by adopting
it.
Therefore, OSC is seen as the answer to improving industry productivity, attending to
current market demands, addressing the sector’s skills shortage, achieving a sustainable
building environment, and overcoming other industry challenges.
These drivers for OSC adoption will be discussed in this section
2.5.1 Productivity
Construction industry productivity is often compared to manufacturing productivity, and it is
always lagging behind, not only when compared to manufacturing but also other industries.
26 | P a g e
In Ireland, this situation is not different. In the past decade, the construction sector has one
of the lowest productivity indexes among the other sectors, as shown in figure 2-4 below.
Figure 2-5 Productivity index per economic sector in Ireland
Source: CSO Ireland
The industry lack of productivity can be linked to various factors. Vrijhoef and Koskela
(2000) report a large quantity of waste and problems in the construction supply chain and
processes that prejudice construction industry productivity. According to these authors, this
is due to the short-sighted control of the construction supply chain.
Moreover, Liu and Ballard (2009) suggest that one of the factors to construction industry
productivity issues is related to the low workflow reliability. According to the McKinsey &
Company (2017) report, over the past 20 years, labour productivity in the construction
sector is the lowest one.
The need to drive further increases in productivity in the industry so it can keep up with the
growth plan of the country was elucidated in the “Economic analysis of productivity in the
Irish construction sector”, a report commissioned by the Department of Public Expenditure
and Reform (KPMG FAC and TU Dublin, 2020).
Prior to this report, Bertram et al. (2019), on behalf of McKinsey & Company, published a
research in which an analysis of the productivity gains that the use of off-site construction
27 | P a g e
can achieve was made, and they concluded that shifting from traditional construction to
OSC can dramatically increase the productivity of construction industry.
Moreover, as elucidated by the IPPO (2019) report, Ireland’s construction sector is ranked
fourteenth in the Euro Area for labour productivity. OSC offers a manufacturing like work
environment that increases labourers welfare in their workplace, increasing labour
productivity. While manufacturing labour productivity average growth is around 3.6%
annually, construction labour productivity average growth is only 1% annually. So by
adopting OSC, this gap in labour productivity can be shortened.
According to Carvalho (2020), the construction industry seeks a way to make use of and
extract the benefits of the manufacturing industry technologies for a long time. Due to the
manufacturing industry’s success in improving productivity, OSC is the opportunity to
achieve what Carvalho (2020) reported and approach the construction industry to the
manufacturing industry.
As Innella, Arashpour and Bai (2019) defended, OSC can be considered a hybrid of both
worlds manufacturing and construction. Therefore, it can take advantage of the higher
productivity index of its manufacturing side and help increase the overall productivity in the
construction sector.
In Ireland, manufacturing is on the top two sectors with the greatest productivity index, and
this has been growing exponentially, as can be seen on the graph above (figure 2-4).
Moreover, Farmer (2016) defends that OSC embraces lean principles in production and
delivery to site. It promotes coordination in projects leading to a minimisation of overall
projects programmes and optimising integration. Thus, it enhances productivity since it
reduces input and delivers the same gross value added.
Despite many other drivers for the adoption of OSC, Rahimian and Goulding (2019) defends
that enhancement of productivity is on the top of the list.
2.5.2 Skills shortage

Skills shortage in the construction industry is another factor that pushes the growth of this
approach in construction projects. According to a report done by KPMG (2016), the
construction industry has been suffering to provide the skilled workforce necessary to
attend to the demand of planned projects. Corroborating with KPMG report,
28 | P a g e
In their report, Engineers Ireland (2019) state that there is an acute skill shortage in the
construction sector in the country. There are almost 100,000 fewer people employed in the
sector when compared to 2006 when the number of people employed in the construction
sector peaked at 237,300.
Moreover, the shortage of experienced construction professionals in the market is
considered a barrier to growth. As mentioned in the report, the shortage of construction
trades professionals in the delivery of homes and infrastructure projects as envisaged in the
National Development Plan is at risk of not being met.
The National Skills Bulletin (2019) reports that construction sector growth was the strongest
over five years compared to the other sector of the economy. However, as Ó’Murchadha
and Murphy (2018) found in their research, there is a lag in the increase in trades
apprentices joining the labour market resulting in an ageing workforce.
Another report, Building Future skills by the Expert Group on Future Skills Needs (2020),
explains that an ageing workforce signifies a lack of appeal to younger people for the
construction sector. Years before, Taylor (2009) found in his studies that younger people no
longer had an interest in pursuing careers in construction due to the industry poor working
conditions.
A recent article published by the Irish Building Magazine (May, 2021) explains this
disinterest of younger workers in pursuing a career in the industry due to the vivid image of
the impact that the financial crash in 2008 brought to workers in the industry at that time
and some other reasons including the nature of building sites.
However, when adopting OSC, the working conditions are different from traditional
construction. As identified in section 2.4.3, this can be attractive to draw younger people to
enter the construction industry.
According to Ó’Murchadha and Murphy’s survey, wet trades have suffered the most. There
are no records of registration for apprentices for these trades since 2013. Although there
are initiatives by the state and professional bodies such as the CIF to attract younger people
to start a career in these trades, it does not appear to be sufficient to cover the market need
as the construction output demand grows. In this survey, 86% of the companies agreed that
there is an inadequate supply of qualified tradesperson for wet trades.
29 | P a g e
This lack of qualified workers in wet trades was backed up by the SCSI and PwC (2019)
market monitor that reports a shortage of skilled workers as the top issue that holds back
activity to meet the required output demands in the construction sector.
As presented by the House of Lords (2018) report, OSC reduces the requirement of wet
trades. As defended in the KPMG (2016) report, by moving construction activities to the
factory environment, the dependence on a large number of small groups of specialists is
minimised. It can attract and develop non-skilled workers from across other industries. Also,
fabricating components or modules in a factory allows for more automation than stick build
traditional construction, reducing the number of workers needed. As a result, OSC helps to
overcome the present limited industry capacity due to the current lack of traditional
construction trades workers.
2.5.3 Market demand

The demand of houses, buildings, industrial facilities, data centres, hospital, schools,
infrastructure projects and so forth is growing and cannot be fulfilled by the present
industry capability. This creates space for the adoption of OSC in a variety of projects to
cater for this demands.
According to Host in Ireland (2021) report the number of operational data centres in Ireland
increased by 25% in the last 12 months. The report anticipates a construction investment of
€7 billion in the coming five years; € 1.33 billion is projected to be spent in 2021 and €1.5
billion in 2022 and 2023. There are 8 data centres under construction, 36 with planning
approved, and other five going through planning application at the moment (Bitpower Ltd.,
2021). A publication by Linesight (2021) explains that modular construction is key to meet
this demand as it shortens construction programmes, allows for easier upgrades in the
future, and optimize space usage.
Clark (2020) reports that the rise in popularity over the last few years of OSC in Ireland is
due to the potential solution that this construction method can offer to the housing crisis.
Moreover, he complements that in the last five years has been a growth in the demand for
student accommodation, build to rent and hotels in the country.
Requirement by the market for fast-tracked construction projects pushes off-site
construction as the realisation of the benefits of this approach is occurring in the market,
the use of OSC starts to become a requirement.
30 | P a g e
2.5.4 Sustainability of the built environment

Government commitments and initiatives directed to reach a circular economy by 2050
along with reduction of carbon emission and energy use and the commitments to address
climate change all drive the adoption of OSC.
ARUP (2016) pointed out that a circular economy aims to decouple economic growth from
resource consumption. According to the World Economic Forum (2016), the construction
industry is the number one consumer of global raw materials. Adopting circular economy
principles could significantly reduce this consumption and enhance global construction
industry productivity (Lindberg, 2020).
Climate change policies seeking to reduce waste and pollution in every sector and a circular
economy approach align well with what OSC can offer to the built environment. As pointed
out in section 2.4.4, OSC brings many environmental benefits to construction projects,
reducing the use of materials, generation of waste, use of resources and buildings carbon
footprint.
This alignment is recognised by the government and construction sector.
Therefore looking to comply with government legislation, policies and directives, there has
been an increase in demand for green construction, along with the use of building
information systems and the use of OSC, as pointed out in the report Focus on Construction,
by the Department of Business (2020). Moreover, an increase in OSC use is seen as a
potential action in the construction sector roadmap for Circular Economy (DCCAE, 2021).
2.5.5 Present world Covid- 19 pandemic situation

COVID-19 pandemic has affected communities globally. This situation forced governments
and companies to take action and respond to the spread of this virus, so many sectors'
activities were closing down, and health and safety measures were put into place. Closing
of some sites, social distancing, and travelling restrictions disrupted the whole supply chain
of the construction industry and impacted the financial index and expected growth for the
sector. Thus, the pandemic situation impacted the forecasted growth of the construction
industry.
In general, it has also changed the view of construction professionals about OSC use.
Sapphire (2020) highlighted that OSC is key to achieving requirements posed by the current
pandemic, social distancing, less site labour, and the need for efficiency.
31 | P a g e
A recent market sentiment survey results published by Linesight presented that most
designers and contractors estimated that OSC represents less than 10% of current turnover
in their business. Nevertheless, due to COVID-19, 89% of designers and contractors believe
that it will accelerate OSC adoption. Almost the totality of designers and contractors
estimates that in the next three years, there will be an increase in OSC use in the industry
(Linesight, 2021).
Prior to the publication of this survey results, Cousins (2020) had already defended that
restrictions put in place to control the pandemic could be seen as an accelerator to OSC
adoption. Moreover, Biörck et al. (2020) affirmed in their article that although signs of
disruption, pushing the construction industry to embrace innovations have increased in the
industry in recent years.
With the pandemic, this looming disruption was accelerated and more than ever, companies
needed to adapt strategies and business models in order to survive and thrive in the
industry.
As construction sites were forced to be closed, or at least reduce the number of workers
considerably on site to comply with social distancing guidelines, the already not so great
productivity of construction work on sites dropped even more. Meanwhile, manufacturing
facilities were kept open.
As mentioned, the health and safety of factories environments are much greater than in
construction sites.
This situation presented an opportunity for OSC adoption in projects looking to minimize the
impact of sites closure or reduction of productivity in project delivery.
Moreover, projects such as the University Hospital Limerick, before mentioned in section
2.3, to add capacity quickly to respond to the hospitalisation of people infected by the virus
saw OSC as the solution for a quick, safe, less disruptive way to expand the facility and be
operational in weeks.
Covid-19 increased demand for fast-tracked construction and gave the opportunity to OSC
solutions to attend to this demand. The realisation of the inherent benefits of OSC was put
in the spotlight, and this realisation could perdure longer than the pandemic allowing for
the OSC approach to construction going forward to expand and be more widely used and
considered in construction projects.
32 | P a g e
2.6 Barriers to the adoption of Off-site construction

Despite all the aforementioned benefits and drivers, OSC's adoption has encountered
barriers that constrain its adoption on construction projects.
Many researchers have looked into the barriers that prevail a wider use of OSC. In their
research, Yang, Pan and Pan (2017) found 13 barriers that constrain OSC adoption organized
under four major categories.
In the Australian market, Blismas and Wakefield (2008) identified 22 barriers. Those were
separated into seven categories. In New Zealand, Mohsin (2011), based on the research
carried by Blismas and Wakefield, found similar barriers from the Australian market. The
exception was the health and safety category not mentioned as a barrier to OSC uptake in
New Zealand in Mohsin’s study.
Moreover, in her study, Carnemolla (2019) compiled the barriers perceived in eight different
studies, including information from eight different nations, those being developed and
developing countries, giving a broader look into the barriers that constrain OSC adoption.
The table below summarises the barriers encountered by these researchers.
Table 2-2 Barriers identified as constrain for wider adoption of OSC in several different
countries
Yang, Pan and Pan (2017) Barriers

· Poorly design material flow
· Poor information flow
Process · Unbalanced distribution of workload
· Low productivity and efficiency
· Floating bottlenecks
· Fragmented coordination between individual specialist
People & Organisation
groups
· Lack of systematic approach for facilities arrangement
Factory configuration · Difficulties in the evaluation and verification of factory

layout design
· Limited use of automation

· Limited use of information technology in the factory
Technology Information and control · Lack of information accuracy for components
system manufacture and assembly

· Lack of tailored scheduling and planning for OSC
components manufacture
33 | P a g e
· Poor information transfer from module design phase to

manufacturing phase.
Blismas and Wakefield (2008) and

Barriers
Mohsin (2011)
· Lengthened lead times
· Design’s alterations required to be done at an earlier
stage of the project process
· Low IT integration in the construction industry
Process
· High fragmentation in the industry
·Interface problems on site due to low tolerances
· Difficult and expensive long-distance transport for large
and heavy loads
· Appears expensive when compared to traditional
Cost methods
· High set-up costs
· Restrictive regulations, especially between geographic
Regulations jurisdictions
· Lack of codes and standards
· Negative stigma and pessimism based on past failures
· Union resistance
Perception · A perception that it is restrictive and unable to deliver
customer desires
· Difficulties in financing
· Loss of control on site and into the supply chain
· Limited capacity of suppliers
Supply · Inter-manufacturer rivalry and protection
· Difficulties in inventory control

· Low quality imports
Health and safety* · Possible increased consequences of incidents
· Lack of professionals skilled in OSC
Skills/Knowledge · Lack of manufacture/supplier skills lack of a knowledge
portal
Carnemolla (2019) Barriers

· Longer lead times for pre- planning and design.
· Current design process is based on traditional
construction
Process and programme · Lack of transparent information for decision makers in
the construction process relating to comparative costs
· Lack of multi- skilled labour for off-site production
· Design change difficult in later stages of production
Cost/ value/ productivity · Considered expensive compared to traditional methods
34 | P a g e
· Higher initial set up costs demonstrate lifecycle

implications
· Perceptions of increased of investment early in the
design fees construction design processes,
· Increased cranage costs including improved financial
· Increased transportation costs of large modular parts/
components
People and work health safety (WHS) · Increased safety risks for increased crane usage
· Lack of understanding of the potential for OSM
approach
· Limited expertise of designers and constructors of OSM –
design philosophy based on traditional construction
· Higher on- site skill required to manage fine tolerances of
manufactured components.
· Education and training focused on current practices.
Skills and knowledge
· May require higher levels of ICT literacy across workers
· Skill qualifications are not adequate or transferrable –
who trains installation?
· Lack of guidance on OSM the marketplace –reliance on
experience
· Disadvantage to SMEs
· Over dependence on traditional construction methods
· Production facility logistics and stock management
(particularly large concrete components) are more
difficult.
· Crane use vulnerable to practice to stoppages
Logistics and site operation
· There is a limit to the mass/ volume of transportable
components
· Higher transport costs
· On- site installation risks of fine tolerance products
· Energy ratings do not capture the benefits of OSM
Sustainability (environment)
because energy is measured at the design stage.
* Category that is not included in Mohsin (2011)
study.
In response to the Economic Analysis of Productivity in the Irish Construction Sector (KPMG
FAC and TU Dublin 2020) report, the CSG and CIF, with the remit to address and improve
productivity in the construction sector, established a working group to investigate the
Modern Methods of Construction existing in Ireland and to explore the previous, current
and future adoption, implementation and best practices of OSC/modularisation.
Recently, the CIF Modern Methods of Construction Working Group (2020) released their
35 | P a g e
first report that entails qualitative research that identified the barriers that constrain OSC
adoption in Ireland.
In order to develop a questionnaire survey to reach the aim of this thesis, barriers identified
by the CIF were separated into seven categories. The separation of the barriers followed
Mohsin's (2011) categorisation as deemed pertinent since the barriers found in Ireland fit
within Mohsin’s defined categories.
The seven categories and the barriers pertaining to each category is summarized in table 2-
3.
Table 2-3 CIF identified barriers for wider adoption of OSC separated into categories
Identified barriers in Ireland that constrain OSC wider adoption
· Less tolerance between factory made components
and on-site assembly
· Inflexible/not suitable for late design changes
·Inadequate co-ordination: procurement, supply chain,
Process and Programme site management
· Low IT integration in the industry
·Requires early contractor involvement.
·Early design freeze, due to the long lead-in time, and
extensive planning
·Potentially higher overall cost to traditional approach
·Higher initial capital cost to traditional approach
Cost, Value and Productivity
·Expensive long-distance transportation for large and
heavy loads
·Fewer codes/standards available
·Regulatory authorities: not yet included in planning
Regulations regulations
·Lack of quality assessment tools and accreditation
· Inter-manufacturer rivalry and market protection

· Lack of incentives
·Perceptions of being unsustainable: less durable/long-
lived, so requires frequent refurbishing
Industry and Market Culture ·Mindset of the industry (cultural problems)

· Clients suspicious about performance
· Poor public acceptability: suspicion about meeting
customer expectations
· Reluctance of manufacturers to innovate and change
to modern materials of construction
36 | P a g e
· Difficulty in obtaining finance because it requires

higher initial cost
· Problems with lightweight construction, e.g.,
overheating
· High fragmentation in the industry
· Site-specific constraints, e.g., access limitations and
space for large loads
Logistics and Site Operations · Poor integration and interface performance with
traditional method
· Less tolerance between factory made components
and on-site assembly
· Not suitable for small projects, as they require
bespoke design
· Inter-manufacturer rivalry and market protection
Supply Chain and Procurement
·Market protection from traditional suppliers
· Limited market demand
· Limited capacity of existing manufacturers
Skill and Knowledge · Lack of experience and skills on OSC
Looking at the perceived barriers encountered on all of these researches, it is possible to

verify similarities and reoccurrences of barriers that hinder OSC adoption in different areas
of the globe. This reoccurrence demonstrates that the barriers are not related to the
geographic area of application of OSC. In fact, it can be concluded that these barriers are
profoundly related to the construction industry culture and its fragmented nature.
In addition, these researches presented above were taken in different time frames. The
similarity of barriers identified in older studies, such as Blismas and Wakefield (2008), and
newer ones, like Yang, Pan and Pan (2017) and Construction Industry Federation (2020),
shows that these barriers have persisted in the past ten years despite the development of
new technologies and management strategies available in the market.
This can confirm the construction industry resistance to innovation and technology adoption
as reported by Bock (2015).
2.6.1 Barriers related to Process and Programme

The adoption OSC requires the integration of all the processes in the project, from the
design phase to the completion of the works. As Innella, Arashpour and Bai (2019)
37 | P a g e
mentioned, the integration of the supply chain and the creation of material and information
flow in OSC is essential to achieve and make the most of OSC benefits in a project.
As reported in various researches, the design and planning phase of an OSC project takes
longer than traditional construction.
From the start of the production of components or modules, the design needs to be fully
finished and detailed to avoid the fabrication of unfruitful items. The CIF also found this as a
barrier that hinders OSC uptake in Ireland.
The management of interfaces during design is the reason for this longer planning time,
according to Mohsin (2011). Moreover, this author highlights that OSC requires extensive
coordination of all stakeholders.
Furthermore, the fragmentation of project and industry have been pointed out by Jin et al.
(2018) as a barrier to broader adoption of OSC. This fragmentation generates many
problems that become barriers to the adoption of new approaches in the construction
industry.
However, the use of ICTs in every sector facilitates communication and coordination of
stakeholders, which should address this fragmentation.
Although there is extensive use of ICTs in the modern world, the same barrier of lack of
coordination and integration from research done in 2008 were identified in the 2020 CIF
research in Ireland.
CIF also points out that late involvement of contractors, inappropriate design process, poor
integration of on-site and off-site processed, a high price to pay if changes after production
has started, and the possibility of knock-on-effect downstream if errors in production are
not discovered early are restrains for the adoption of OSC.
2.6.2 Barriers related to Cost, Value and Productivity

Although certainty of project cost is seen as an advantage for OSC adoption, cost has been
reported in many studies as a barrier that constrains OSC to be adopted more widely.
Projects constructed using OSC are seen as more expensive than traditional building. This
was reported by Blismas and Wakefield (2008) and Mohsin (2011) and was also identified in
the CIF report.
In their studies, Hong et al. (2018) found that prefabricated concrete buildings were more
expensive than traditional building, which has also been reported by Blismas, Pasquire and
38 | P a g e
Gibb (2006). They add that construction industry is more focussed on initial construction
cost rather than its value. OSC’s initial cost is higher than traditional building as to start
fabricating the components, an upfront payment would be expected.
This was also reported by Pan, Gibb and Dainty (2005) that found in their research that
higher capital cost was the most significant barrier that impedes the use of OSC in the
industry.
Goodier and Gibb (2007), Blismas and Wakefield (2009), Mao et al. (2016) and, Ajayi, Alaka
and Dauda (2019) report that higher cost incurred in OSC approach is related to high initial
costs needed for factory set up and the need of hiring staff all year around.
However, there is no basis for direct comparison of traditional and off-site construction as
each approach involves different trades. Therefore, the realisation of value over cost is
needed in the industry.
CIF has also reported that other barriers that constrain OSC adoption are the increased
overall cost due to machinery on-site and the cost of transportation of modules and
components that can be too high.
2.6.3 Barriers related to Regulations

The Construction Industry Federation (2020) reports that a key issue for OSC uptake in
Ireland is conformity to ensure compliance with current Irish Building Regulations and
various other regulations and standards that apply in this jurisdiction.
In their report, CIF exposes a non-exhaustive list of around 25 regulatory requirements’
documents that should be understood and complied with in construction projects.
In his presentation Browne (2020), when talking about B(C)AR and regulations he points out
that there is a necessity to expand the Code of Practice to deal with OSC inspection. He
defends that the liability attaching to inspection and certification at present is not clear.
Moreover, in the RICS report, Davies (2018) exposes the need for regulators to skill up and
get better familiarised with OSC and other modern methods of construction. He defends
that it is crucial that regulations keep pace with emerging technology so these can be
adopted more widely.
Performance requirements of buildings and works are set out in the second schedule to the
building regulations. These are written in broad terms and do not refer to specific
construction methods. According to English (2019) in his response in the Seanad debates,
39 | P a g e
when questioned that regulations are not adequate for OSC, he responded that certain
materials and methods standards and specifications are included in the technical guidance
documents that accompany the building regulations. However, the use of construction
methods that are not specified on these documents is not excluded provided they attend
relevant Irish building requirements and regulations.
If codes and standards are not clear and available, it generates reluctance in the adoption of
these non-traditional ways of construction. Customers have to feel confident with the
product to take on projects using OSC. Regulations and standard compliance promotes
encouragement and protect all involved in the construction process. Therefore, the need for
appropriate, clear building regulations for all OSC types.
2.6.4 Barriers related to Industry and Market Culture

Another factor responsible for the reluctance to adopt OSC and has impeded this approach
to be embraced is the unsuccessful past experiences (Nadim and Goulding, 2010; Rahimian
and Goulding, 2019).
According to Mohsin (2011), the conservative approach adopted by industry’s stakeholders
was the barrier under this category that most constrains OSC use.
Also, due to the unfamiliarity of OSC approach by financial institutions the difficulty of
obtaining finance was recognised as a barrier.
Moreover, Abanda, Tah and Cheung (2017) state that conservativism of the construction
industry creates a resistance to change in the professionals, which restrain the attempt to
innovate in this industry. Goulding et al. (2012) present that an aversion to taking risks in
the construction industry culture constrains its adoption.
Gibb and Isack (2003) defend that the client’s preferences are the most crucial
consideration when deciding what construction method to use. However, if professionals
are not opened to suggest or present the benefits of OSC, clients most likely will not have
information and confidence in adopting this method.
It is important that the market and clients understand the evolution of technology and
materials from the past to the present so the bad stigma that OSC carries can be left behind,
and the resistance to the adoption of this approach can be deconstructed.
Incentives from the Government and industry professionals can be a way to create a new
image for this approach and embrace new technologies changing the industry culture;
40 | P a g e
however, there is a lack of such incentive in Ireland (CIF, 2020).

Moreover, it was identified other barriers that constrain OSC adoption by the CIF. There is
inter-manufacture rivality in the industry and market protection from existing suppliers that
impede new entrants and limits production of OSC. Also, modern materials are not being
used to produce components and modules.
2.6.5 Barriers related to Logistics & Site operation

When using OSC, logistics is a fundamental factor for the success of this approach. It
involves transportation, delivery storage of modules and components. The large size of
these products sometimes makes the transportation and handling of these modules
complicated. That directly impacts site operations as handling heavy and large products
increase risk on site.
Moreover, roads regulations often dictate the maximum size and weight of the products
interfering directly in the production process and design, which might be limited to attend
these regulations and seek to optimise transportation costs.
Blismas and Wakefield (2008) point out that low tolerance of OSC components, especially
when dealing with on-site interfaces, impedes this approach's winder adoption.
Site-specific constraints may limit access to the site interfering with installations and
receiving OSC products. Handling this on-site needs machinery such as cranes which
requires space that is limited by the site characteristics. Also, skilled professionals to deal
with these bulky, heavy loads and to manage on-site interface are needed.
2.6.6 Barriers related to Supply chain and Procurement

Encountered in other researches supply chain for OSC is considered more critical than in
traditional building. A more rigorous control is needed and that requires more integration
(Rahimian and Goulding, 2019).
Blismas and Wakefield (2009) pointed out that the manufacturers' capacity to supply OSC
product is limited and imported products are prone to not meet quality and standards. The
limited capacity of manufacturers was pointed out in the CIF report as a barrier for the
wider adoption of this approach in Ireland. Also, as the manufacturing processes are highly
dependent on their supply chain and as these are limited, it involves high risks. As
41 | P a g e
mentioned, the industry is resistant to taking risks, which interferes with the decision to use
OSC in projects (Larsson and Simonsson, 2012).
Other factors that interfere in the development of a reliable supply chain of OSC are the
fluctuations in demand, instability of investments and constructions cycle (Davies, 2018).
The size of projects influences the use of OSC solutions as it has been found that OSC is not
fitful for small projects.
Moreover, procurement methods presently used were designed to attend traditional
building. Therefore, they do not attend all the specificities necessary for OSC, which involves
different payment terms and contractual terms, creating uncertainty on clients and
suppliers, which constrain the use of OSC in projects.
2.6.7 Barriers related to Skill and Knowledge

Skilled-labour shortage is one of the drivers of OSC. However, this is also seen as a restrain
that impedes a wider adoption of OSC. This construction approach requires specific skills
from designers, engineers, on-site labour, project managers, etc.
The lack of knowledge by professionals surrounding this approach leads to a limited
workforce that can develop and handle projects using OSC. The current education system
and training still focus on traditional building methods.
If the industry is not familiar with this construction method, it will not be adopted as the
benefits of using it will not be realised.
Development of knowledge surrounding OSC is necessary so that it will be a better
understanding of it will lead to stakeholder confidence to embrace the benefits offered by
this solution and adopt it on projects.
42 | P a g e
2.7 Facilitators for the adoption of Off-site construction

The push for the construction industry to embrace innovation, technologies, digitisation has
never been so imminent. Modern tools and systems can aid OSC to deliver its full potential
to the industry showcasing its benefits and overcoming challenges allowing a wider
adoption of OSC.
2.7.1 Lean Construction

Lean Construction (LC) originated from Toyota’s production system that bases itself in doing
it right the first time by waste elimination and continuous improvement. Moreover, Lean
aims to improve the quality of products, eliminate wastes, reduce production times, and
reduce the total cost by embedding lean principles in every aspect of organisations. These
principles are:
• defining value of end product from the customer point of view
• map the value stream of product
• create flow
• use a pull system
• pursue perfection
Smith (2015) defends that lean is central and crucial to companies competing in the present
competitive market conditions as it enhances productivity and companies performances,
giving those a competitive advantage.
According to Aziz and Hafez (2013), in construction, Lean brings a new way to manage
projects. Therefore, an LC project has clear objectives to be delivered, focusing on
maximising the client perception of the project’s performance.
Patil and Jain (2019) proposed that there is a confluence between Lean and OSC. This
confluence can be explained by the ideas defended by Mossman (2019) and Barros (2020).
The latter defends that Lean Construction is based on the idea of industrialising processes of
a project. However, the former adds that OSC on its own is not enough to improve flow and
coordination in construction projects.
Therefore Lean Construction goes beyond industrialising construction processes. It looks to
the overall of a project. Therefore, using tools, Lean integrates the whole chain of suppliers,
partners, and clients, facilitates collaboration as it creates a flow of information and
43 | P a g e
materials, and standardises and automates processes to enhance the project’s

performances.
According to Hubbard and Hubbard (2019), there is an increased desire to adopt lean
construction principles in the industry to support OSC. They defend the resurgence of OSC in
the past years conversely reflects the lean principles applied to construction. Moreover,
Gusmao et al. (2021) defend that OSC provides the ideal environment to fully apply LC to
the industrialised production of construction. Their ideas reinforce the confluence between
Lean and OSC.
Therefore OSC is a part of LC. However, it goes even further, an LC project will have a
controllable, fully integrated supply chain and processes that work collaboratively,
standardised on-site and off-site processes seeking to improve project parameters to
achieve better production results.
To support LC, there are many digital tools such as BIM, RFID, QR code, VR, ICTs that will
also aid overcome barriers for OSC adoption.
2.7.2 Building Information Modelling (BIM)

Information-rich building model that allows data integration between business processes is
how Zhang et al. (2016) define BIM. Moreover, these authors defend that this technology
has great potential to promote the industrialisation of construction, improving the
performance of OSC.
This tool is not as new as others and is considered by Forcael, Ferrari and Opazo-vega (2020)
as mature in a state of “ready to use”. From BIM’s many benefits, enhanced early-stage
decision making, clash detection, material quantity take-off are the most widely talked
about (Gbadamosi et al., 2019). Moreover, advancements in BIM allow it to have
information on scheduling, cost, and Project Life-cycle information (McKinsey & Company,
2017; Richard McPartland, 2017).
Further, BIM can be seen as an LC tool to manage construction projects.
Enabled by the principles of I4.0 technologies, BIM integrated with other tools and systems
can improve oversight and control over the supply chain and project phases.
Figure 2-6 illustrates BIM’s potential when used in a building’s life-cycle, aided by other
tools and systems to control processes and allow collaboration among stakeholders.
44 | P a g e
Figure 2-6 Application of BIM along the Engineering and Construction Value Chain
Source: The Boston Consulting Group, 2016
Using BIM, professionals collaborate by loading several BIM models created by different
parties into one software platform used for coordination.
On this platform, all the parties can analyse constructability issues, changes to fix these, and
the changes’ impacts on the whole project.
This collaborative exercise facilitates decision-making by weighing possible financial and
schedule consequences due to changes, allowing for value engineering solutions in projects.
In OSC, BIM integrates projects’ design, production, execution, and development.
Goulding et al. (2012) defend that in the production of OSC elements, BIM facilitates
automation which increases production accuracy, reduces uncertainty in the design, and
provides accurate and real-time information from the model to stakeholders, leading to
productivity growth.
Moreover, Zhengdao et al. (2018) add that BIM facilitates the on-site assembly service in
OSC. However, they defend that this can only be achieved if there is a complete, accurate,
and real-time data exchange, along with real-time visibility and traceability. Furthermore,
they propose a BIM platform enabled by IoT that uses RFID and VR to capture data in real-
time, allowing managers to supervise projects progress and manage schedules by having
45 | P a g e
real-time information on OSC components.

Another author, Southern (2016), describes a similar system for projects’ progress
supervision and managing schedule using barcoding or QR code embedded in BIM and
integrated through information technology systems.
2.7.3 RFID
RFID is a wireless sensor technology used to capture and transmit data from or to a tag
attached to the material or resources, integrated with other systems such as GPS systems.
This technology is being used widely in all industries to track and locate materials and
resources.
According to Domdouzis, Kumar and Anumba (2007), RFID has been used in the
construction industry to address the low productivity and safety in the industry.
Due to the amount of material, people and equipment involved in the construction project,
the need to locate and track materials, resources, and labour to better control and plan
processes exists.
Sardroud (2012) reports that RFID has been used for material management, tracking
delivery and receipt, and location of OSC components. Moreover, Akinci, Patton and Ergen
(2000) add that RFID is a solution for accessing a component’s history after construction,
which they state is a significant problem associated with precast components tracking. As
cited by Wang, Wang and Sepasgozar (2020), Luo and Chen (2018), combining BIM and RFID
to store and visualise information of OSC components in a project is possible. This
integration of the BIM model and components data detail enriches the model and enables
information flow to all stakeholders and stored for future need of replacing or maintenance.
In material management, RFID links the communication in the construction phase by
locating and tracking materials throughout the construction project, including off-site, en-
route, and on-site processes.
Many researchers have reported the use of RFID and its advantages.
Domdouzis, Kumar and Anumba (2007) exemplify the use of RFID in pipe spools so that
schedule work in construction sites is not delayed. Moreover, Demiralp, Guven and Ergen
(2012) carried out a simulation study on a precast finishing panels company. Their studies
demonstrated that the use of RFID to locate and identify the panels eliminated incorrect
shipments and missing panels. Therefore, they identified cost savings from eliminating the
46 | P a g e
need for workers searching for on-site or off-site components in the manufacturing facility,
making the precast panel company more reliable to their clients and optimising its process
after production.
In OSC projects, the trackability and control of materials are fundamental to keeping the
schedule up to date and guaranteeing certainty in delivery time.
Therefore RFID can be a facilitator for OSC adoption by supporting a more integrated supply
chain and help overcome barriers related to Process and Programme, Cost Value and
Productivity, Logistics and Site Operations, and Supply Chain and Procurement.
2.7.4 Virtual Reality

Carnemolla (2019) states that VR has been applied as a visualisation tool for simulating the
built environment. She defends that users believe that VR models deliver an accurate
representation of the end product.
VR reduces projects and schedule risks in OSC by allowing clients to visualise what their
building will look like when finished. This visualisation gives the opportunity to design,
manufacturers and project stakeholders to work and make decisions collaboratively to reach
design and specifications that work and deliver what the client expects. This tool avoids the
need for design changes when production and construction have started attending to the
design freeze requirement in OSC projects.
Moreover, VR on-site can provide instant information on how to execute a task, which
reduces errors during assembly and reduces rework.
Furthermore, VR is being used for training construction professionals, allowing people to get
hands-on and practical experience in a safe, risk-free environment to develop and refine
their skillsets (Lloyd, 2020).
Ahmed, 2019 have reported the use of VR in quality control and after production
inspections affirming that the use of this tool results in cost reduction for quality
management operations.
2.7.5 Information and Communication Technologies

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) entails wireless networks, devices such
as tablets, cellphones equipped with software applications and operating systems that
47 | P a g e
store, process, transmit, convert, duplicate, or receive electronic information (Zegarra,

Junior and Cardoso, 1999).
According to Sekou (2012), ICT in the construction industry is aimed at supporting
information sharing among project stakeholders. He highlights that ICT promotes an
enhancement of collaboration in the industry.
Some authors defend that ICT is the main enabler for changing industry business processes
as it allows a collaborative environment (Ruschel, 2008).
Juhl (2014) mentions that ICT can be used in the manufacturing processes to create a pull
system that signals when each process is ready to receive more material for fabrication. This
way, ICT supports the adoption of lean principles in the production process. Also, ICT allows
for the integration of systems that promotes data transparency and more control of
resources.
Moreover, Juhls reports that an ERP system integrated into a pull system can follow the
quantities of specific materials through the different stages of production and monitor
quantities, which gives more certainty in production costs.
Studies have confirmed the positive impact of utilising ICTs in the construction industry.
Improvements in costs, scheduling and quality of construction projects have been reported
according to Hosseini et al. (2013).
Sezer and Bröchner (2019) conclude that the use of ICT can reduce technical uncertainties
on projects, as it can be used for inspection and quality assessments that permits
identification of problems before it scales up.
Therefore, ICT’s have vast applications throughout companies and their processes. For the
construction industry and especificaly for OSC, it can be used to integrate supply-chain, on-
site and off-site operations, helping to overcome barriers that hinder the adoption of this
construction approach.
48 | P a g e
Chapter Research Methodology
49 | P a g e
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The research aimed to prioritise the identified barriers that restrain a wider adoption of OSC
in Ireland. Moreover, this thesis investigated the view of construction industry professionals
on the benefits and drivers of this construction method and their perception of the use of
disruptive technologies to address the barriers.
In this chapter, an overview of the methodology adopted to develop this research, outlining
the research method and research strategy used, including its planning and implementation
for data collection, data analyses and interpretation of results were done are presented.
3.2 Research Design

According to Ogunbiyi (2014), research design describes how all data was collected and
analysed to answer the research question.
Qualitative research emphasises meanings, experiences, and descriptions and can be
exploratory and attitudinal (Naoum, 2019).
For this thesis, exploratory research was carried out using primary and secondary data
collection. As McCombes (2019) explained, the aim of exploratory research is to explore the
main aspects of an under-researched topic or problem.
This approach was suitable for this study as the research was directed to answer the
research question “What is the barrier that most restrains the uptake of Off-site
construction in Ireland?”.
Exploring the views of construction industry professionals in Ireland towards the identified
barriers that constrain OSC uptake and statistically prioritising the barriers according to
these professionals' views was possible to answer the research question.
The gathering of data was done using both primary and secondary sources.
Therefore, this research gathered quantitative and qualitative data from a mix of primary
and secondary data sources.
To analyse the collected data, the author used descriptive and statistics methods.
Figure 11 below illustrates the research design.
50 | P a g e
Figure 3-1 Research Design
Literature Review on Offsite Construction
Selection of referred scholarly Journals, presentations, reports, master thesis and

doctoral thesis
Use of OSC in Benefits, drivers, and Use of technology

Ireland barriers to the along with OSC
adoption of OSC
Analyse and list the benefits, drivers, and barriers of OSC. Investigate technologies
that can help address some of the barriers for the adoption of OSC.
Data collection through electronic survey and interviews to detail investigation of

the perception of professionals in the Irish construction industry around the
benefits, drivers, barriers and use of technology in OSC .
(Mixed approach – Qualitative and Quantitative)
Data Analyses
(Multi- attribute analytical technique and Descriptive statistics and coding)
Research Findings
51 | P a g e
3.3 Research Strategy

In order to achieve the key research objectives, this research used both qualitative and
quantitative analyses of data collected from a combination of primary and secondary data
sources. The strategy followed to achieve the research aim, fulfil its specific objectives, and
answer the research question is illustrated.
Figure 3-2 Research strategy
Answer to
Primary research
research- question
Data
analyses - Semi-
Primary multi structured
research- attribute interview
Eletronic analytical
Survey technique
Secondary
Research-
Literature
review
3.3.1 Secondary Research
According to Bouchrika (2021), secondary research involves summarising data and literature
organized and published by others. This type of research allows the researcher to explore
and further understand a certain topic. Moreover, it allows researchers to identify what is
already known and what needs further investigation into that topic.
An extensive literature review was carried out, using trustworthy sources such as scholarly
journals, industry reports, seminar presentations, books, master thesis, and doctorate
thesis, in order to gather qualitative data to fulfil the research specific objectives.
From this research, the identification of benefits, drivers, and barriers of OSC adoption could
be listed. Furthermore, secondary data was also used to identify systems and tools that
facilitate OSC adoption and can support overcoming the identified barriers.
The data collected in the secondary research formed the baseline for developing the
questionnaire survey and semi-structured interview questions used for primary data
collection.
52 | P a g e
3.3.2 Primary Research

Primary research involves the researcher collecting original data, as posed by Bouchrika
(2021).
Contrary to secondary research, primary research does not rely on other authors data. It
gathers first-hand information and aims to answer the research question.
Using primary research methods, the author brings new information to the surface and
draws recommendations and conclusions into the researched topic.
There are different ways to collect primary data. For this thesis, a mixed-method was used,
a questionnaire survey was developed to collect adequate data to fulfil the research
objectives and answer the research question. Moreover, semi-structured interviews with
experts in the field were conducted to explore the results found in the questionnaire survey
with more depth.
3.3.2.1 Rationale for the use of electronic survey
According to Wilkinson and Birmingham (2003), the justification for using a survey
questionnaire as a research tool is that questionnaires can be designed and used to collect
vast quantities of data from a variety of responders. As there is no geographical limitation
when using online questionnaires, its use was pertinent to this research.
Moreover, as there were dislocation restrictions in the country and as it was important to
gather as many answers as possible, the means of an online survey questionnaire best-
attended the research needs.
Moreover, Ribas (2016) defends that questionnaires have the benefit of being low cost and
being more convenient to participants who can take it on their own schedule, which may
increase the rate of responses.
For that, Google Forms was the platform chosen for the creation and distribution of the
survey. It is a free tool that is intuitive to use. It presents the collected data in an organised
manner on the platform and allows it to be exported in “.xls” format.
Exporting the data in “.xls” format was important as data could be organised and statically
treated for the analyses of results and their interpretation.
53 | P a g e
3.3.2.2 Pilot Survey
Malmqvist et al. (2019) defend the importance of pilot research as an instrument to

improve the research rate of responses and increase the quality of research results.
Therefore, visioning to maximise response rate and facilitate the comprehension of the
question by the responders, a first version of the survey was distributed as a pilot to a small
sample of the target survey public. The pilot was sent directly to their e-mail with a brief
presentation of the researcher and the survey's intent (see appendix A).
The pilot was available to be responded for ten days, and it was sent directly to 9 industry
professionals. From those, three responses were received.
Feedback from the three responders was received, and the number of questions was
considered “too much”, also the length of the options in section 2 of the survey was pointed
by two of the responders as being “too long for people to read”.
A suggestion of adding other types of technology as facilitators of OSC adoption in the
survey section was given. However, that would extend the survey more and was not the
main priority of this research. So an option of “others” was added in the question leaving it
open for the responders to list other technologies they have used in projects or that they
may think it can be a facilitator for OSC adoption if not listed on the options given.
3.3.2.3 Survey structure
The survey questions were structured to address the objectives of the research and answer
the main research question. It was divided into five sections, as detailed in the table below.
Table 3-1 Survey Questionnaire structure
Questionnaire Structure
Content Objective Questionnaire layout
To present the purpose of the project,
ethics and informed confidentiality,
Cover letter- Research Information and
and the anonymity of participants, give Section 1- Headlines
participant’s consent
details of the researcher for the right
to contact the author at any moment.
To investigate the perceived benefits of
OSC over the traditional building. Section 1- Question 1
Benefits and Drivers of OSC
To investigate the main driver for the and 2
adoption of OSC.
Investigate the perceived level of
Section 2- Questions 1
Barriers for wider adoption of OSC impact that the listed barriers have
to 7
that constraint wider adoption of OSC.
54 | P a g e
Investigate the use of tools and

systems by professionals and the Section 3- Question 1
The use of tools and systems
realisation of the use of tools and and 2
systems to facilitate OSC adoption.
Section 4 - Questions 1
Respondent details To gather participants demographics
to 5
Allow participants to leave comments
Open comment space Section 5
and observations on the theme
The survey had a mix of close-ended checkboxes and multiple-choice questions, Likert-type
questions and an open question that allowed responders to leave comments regarding the
survey theme if they wished (see appendix B).
From sections, one to four questions were required to be answered, guaranteeing that all
responders completed the entire survey. The open comment space was left optional.
In section one, questions were displayed as checkboxes and multiple choice in this order.
The use of checkboxes allowed participants to point more than one option to capture which
benefits of adopting OSC are perceived.
The responders' details were left in the last section purposefully following the logical
structure presented by Günther (2003). This author defends that to establish a contact and
guarantee the cooperation of respondents, it is primordial to establish trust between
researcher and respondent by presenting the researcher and the topic of research.
According to Günther (2003), to establish such trust, the first question (and the following)
should address the research topic and thematic, and lastly, the respondent personal data.
3.3.2.4 Participants recruitment
For the survey, the initial idea was to recruit participants through their professional bodies
by contacting professional bodies from the construction industry sector in the country
through e-mails and asking them to distribute the survey or share a list of contacts of
affiliated professionals with the researcher. This strategy to recruit participants was not
possible due to data protection/ GDPR reasons (see e-mail response from Engineer Ireland
on appendix A).
Therefore, the recruitment was done through researchers’ contacting construction
professionals involved in construction projects from different companies across the sector
using LinkedIn.
55 | P a g e
The survey link was sent with an introductory message via LinkedIn message to 70
professionals that work in the construction sector in Ireland. Response from 45
professionals was received back.
Of the 45 survey responders, seven replied to the researcher’s LinkedIn message saying they
had responded to the survey and had further interest in the research being carried out.
These professionals were later contacted again through LinkedIn messages asking if they
were interested in participating in an interview to explore the theme further. A positive
reply from five industry professionals willing to participate in the interview was received.
3.3.2.5 Rationale for using Semi-structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were carried out with the five professionals that demonstrated
interest in participating in it.
For mixed-method research, the use of semi-structured Interviews is deemed appropriated
to supplement and add depth to findings of another approach of data collection such as
surveys.
As explained by Adams (2015), this type of primary data collection is conducted
conversationally with one respondent at a time. Usually, it employs open-ended questions,
often accompanied by follow-up questions. Moreover, he defends that this research
approach may delve into unexpected issues around the explored topic.
An interview invitation letter, consent form and interview agenda were sent to the
interviewees along with an MS Teams meeting invite (see appendix C).
The interview’s duration ranged from 35 to 96 minutes.
These semi-structured Interviews supported the author in investigating the research
question deeper and achieving the research objectives through the more detailed insight of
experienced professionals working in the Irish construction industry.
Interviews were conducted through video calls on Microsoft Teams using the researcher’s
student account. This platform allowed the meeting to be carried respecting current social
distance guidelines due to Covid-19, and at the same time, approach to a face-to-face
interview. Moreover, this platform allowed the meeting to be recorded, facilitating later
analysis and transcription.
56 | P a g e
3.4 Data Analysis

Data analysis is the process of cleaning, transforming, and modelling data gathered to
discover useful information and discover detailed insights about a topic.
For this research, descriptive statistics were used where the data collected was both
nominal and ordinal.
Nominal refers to variables that reflect different categories or names, such as type of
company activity and role in the company. In contrast, ordinal data refers to the order of
the variables, such as company sizes and years working in the industry.
3.4.1 Softwares and Statistics method applied for survey results

In order to organise and analyse the data collected on the online survey, the software
SigmaPlot from the company Systat was used.
According to Jones (2007), the use of software can shorten analysis timeframes, provide a
more thorough interpretation of data, and provide researchers with an enhanced data
management.
SigmaPlot is a software package used for scientific graphing and data analysis. It can read
multiple file formats, including “.xls” and can perform mathematical transforms and
statistical analyses. This software was chosen since it reads the data collected from the
survey platform manages data intuitively, and has free access for a certain period.
The multi-attribute technique was applied in the collected data to prioritise barriers that
constrain OSC adoption. Durdyev and Mbachu (2011) state that this technique is
appropriate for group rating variables in a given set. In a similar study carried out in New
Zealand by Mohsin (2011), this technique to prioritise barriers was also used.
Using this technique involved establishing the mean rating (MR) of each barrier through the
ratings assigned by the responders.
The expression below was provided by Durdyev and Mbachu (2011) and used to calculate
the MR.
Equation 3-1 1 Barrier mean rating:

𝑴𝑹𝒋 = ∑𝟓𝒌=𝟏(𝑹𝒑𝒋𝒌𝒊 × %𝑹𝒋𝒌)
Where:
- MRj = Mean Rating for constraint factor j;
57 | P a g e
- Rpjk = Rating point k (ranging from 0 to 5);

- %Rjk = Percentage response to rating point k, for constraint factor j.
Significant constraint factor: MRj > 2.5
Non-significant constraint factor: MR < 2.5
Where:
1 < MR < 5; Rating point scale: Strongly agree =5; Agree = 4; Somewhat
Agree=3; Disagree=2; Strongly Disagree=1; No idea =0 .
The greater the mean rating, the greater the influence of the named barrier to restrain OSC
adoption.
Based on the barriers mean rating (MRj), a category mean rating (MRi) could be calculated,
allowing the calculation of the relative contribution index (RCI) of each constraint category
that restrains a wider adoption of OSC.
Equation 3-2 Barrier category mean rating

𝑀𝑅𝑖 = (∑𝑛1 𝑀𝑅𝑗) /n ;
Where:
- MRi = Mean Rating for constraint category i;
- n = number of constrains in each constrain category.
Significant constraint factor: MR > 2.5
Non-significant constraint factor: MR < 2.5
The greater the category mean rating, the greater its relative contribution index (RCI) to
restrain OSC adoption.
Equation 3-3 Barrier Category relative contribution index
43
𝑅𝐶𝐼𝑖 = (𝑀𝑅𝑖 ∗ 100)/ ∑ 𝑀𝑅𝑗

𝑛=1
Where:
- RCIi = Relative contribution index for category i.
58 | P a g e
- n = number of constrains.
-MRj = Mean Rating for constraint factor j;
Table 3-2 Survey data Analysis Strategy

Data Analysis Strategy
Questionnaire
Type of data Statistic type Statistic approach
structure
Frequency
Section 1 - Q (1 and 2) Nominal Descriptive
distribution, percentile
Nominal
Descriptive Multi-attribute
Section 2 - Q (1-7) Ordinal (Likert-
and inferential technique
scale)
Frequency
Section 3- Q (1 and 2) Nominal Descriptive
distribution, percentile
Frequency distribution,
Section 4- Q (1-5) Nominal Descriptive
percentile
3.4.1 Softwares and analysis method applied for SSI results

For the SSIs, thematic analysis was used. According to Mortensen (2020), this approach is an
appropriate method for analysing semi-structured interviews. It is considered a flexible
method and appropriated for exploratory research.
This method of analysis consists of six steps:
1. Familiarize with the data.
2. Assign preliminary codes to data in order to describe the content.
3. Search for patterns or themes in your codes across the different interviews.
4. Review themes.
5. Define and name themes.
6. Produce report
The interviews were recorded using Microsoft Teams, and the transcript was automatically
generated, which was not 100% correct. So the video transcription needed some manual
corrections. Therefore after watching the interviews several times and editing the
automated transcriptions, the software NVivo 12 was used to support the thematic analysis.
59 | P a g e
After coding the interviews, it allowed the response patterns to be more easily identified
and the report to be produced. The LIT helpdesk furnished the licence for NVivo12 upon
request.
3.5 Research Ethics

All data collected in the survey and Interviews complied with Limerick Institute of
Technology (LIT) Research Ethics Guidelines for Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate
Programmes 2019-2022 (Vice-President of Academic Affairs and Registrar, 2019).
All information collected was stored, protected from unauthorized access and deleted once
the research was completed.
3.6 Limitations of the study

The study deadline was a limitation since it dictated the timeframe that the survey would be
available to receive responses and the time available to carry out interviews. Therefore, it
directly impacted the response rate of the survey and the number of professionals available
to participate in interviews.
60 | P a g e
Chapter Research Findings
61 | P a g e
Chapter 4 Research Findings
4.1 Introduction
This chapter summarises the results obtained through primary research data collected in
the electronic survey and semi-structured interviews.
4.2 Electronic survey results

The response rate of a questionnaire survey is an important factor to consider to the validity
of the results. However, several factors can influence the response rate of surveys, such as
the researcher's relationship with the target sample, survey length and complexity, and
survey topic.
According to Lindemann (2019), 33% is considered a good response for this type of
research. He also affirms that surveys distributed from unknown senders tend to have lower
response rates ranging from 5% to 30%. On the other hand, Grazynski (2017) defends that
any response rate below 40% would generate results validity issues.
The electronic survey was directly distributed to 70 construction industry professionals
working in the Irish market, and the researcher is considered unknown to them.
The number of responses received was 45, representing a response rate of 64%, and
according to both authors, this rate is considered acceptable and valid. Thus, these survey
results are deemed acceptable to be used to generate reliable conclusions.
4.2.1 Responders’ demographic profile

Questions to collect responders background information was strategically left as the last
section of the survey to increase the response rate, as mentioned in the Survey Structure
section in chapter 3 of this thesis. These questions were used to determine participants’
professional backgrounds and gather information about their organisation.
The goal was to capture the perception on the topic from a broad spectrum of professionals
operating in the construction industry in Ireland. Answers from this section assure that this
goal was met and could also be used for secondary analysis.
This part of the survey was composed of five questions that aimed to collect the following
details:
• Responders’ role title.
• Responders’ length of experience in the construction industry.
62 | P a g e
• Respondent affiliation to a professional body.

• Type of organisation the respondent works for.
• Size of the organisation the respondent is part of.
4.2.1.1 Responders’ role title
This question aimed to identify the current role of the professionals responding to the
survey as the goal was to capture views from professionals in different areas within the
industry.
From the 45 responders, the majority were Quantity Surveyors (33.3%), followed by
Engineers being 17.8% of respondents.
Sales managers accounted for 15.6% of responders. Project Managers accounted for 8.9% of
the responders and Consultants, 6.7% of respondents.
A range of managers from different areas totalled 33.3% of all responders, 4.4% of
responders were directors. Architects and lawyers were each 2.2% of responders.
The table below presents the frequency of the responses and the percentage it represents
from the sample. The graph illustrates the percentage distribution of answers.
Table 4-1 Respondents current roles frequency distribution and percentile, given by Systat
analysis
Current role Frequency Percentage
Architect 1 2.22%
Consultant 3 6.67%
Director 2 4.44%
Engineer 8 17.78%
General Manager 1 2.22%
Information Manager 1 2.22%
Lawyer 1 2.22%
Procurement Manager 1 2.22%
Programme & Contracts Manager 1 2.22%
Project Manager 4 8.89%
Quantity Surveyor 15 33.33%
Sales Manager 7 15.56%
TOTAL 45 100.00%
63 | P a g e
Figure 4-1 Respondents current role responses chart
4.2.1.2 Responders’ length of experience in the construction industry
This question aimed to identify the length of experience of the responders. Professional
years of experience are important since most questions on the survey were answered based
on these professionals’ experience in the construction industry.
As shown below in figure 4-2, more than half of all responders have more than 20 years of
experience in the construction industry (55.6%). The second largest group represented the
responders with less than 5 years of experience in the industry accounting for 15.6% of all
responders.
Responders with 5 to 10 years of experience represented 13.3% of all responders, those
with 11 to 15 years of experience represented 8.9% of responders, and those with
experience ranging from 16 to 20 years represented 6.7% of all responder.
There is a good base of professional experience in the sample, which implies that
responders have a reasonable knowledge of the industry since 71.2% of the responders
64 | P a g e
have more than 10 years of experience. Therefore their responses can be relied upon to
some degree.
Table 4-2 Respondents length of experience in the construction industry frequency

distribution and percentile, given by Systat analysis
Length of experience Frequency Percentage
Less than 5 years 7 15.6%
5 - 10 years 6 13.3%
11 - 15 years 4 8.9%
16 - 20 years 3 6.7%
More than 20 years 25 55.6%
TOTAL 45 100.00%
Figure 4-2 Respondent’s length of experience in the construction industry responses chart
65 | P a g e
4.2.1.3 Responders’ professional body affiliation
This question aimed to identify if responders were affiliated with any professional body. This
question was not mandatory to be responded. Out of the 45 survey responders, 36,
indicated that they were affiliated with a professional body.
SCSI was the professional body most indicated by responders in which 24.4% of responders
were part of it.
The result of this question is shown below in the graph.
Table 4-3 Respondents professional body affiliation frequency distribution and percentile,
given by Systat analysis
Professional Body Frequency Percentage
CIF 10 22.2%
SCSI 11 24.4%
CIOB 4 8.9%
IEI 5 11.1%
Lean Construction Ireland 3 6.7%
RIAI 2 4.4%
CIF, IEI, SCSI, CitA, Lean Construction Ireland 1 2.2%
No Answer 9 20%
TOTAL 45 100.00%
Figure 4-3 Respondents professional body affiliation responses chart
66 | P a g e
4.2.1.4 Responders’ organisation type
This question aimed to identify the type of organisations that responders were a part of
whether they worked in a contractor, sub-contractor, design company, off-site
manufacturer, material supplier company, and so forth. The aim was to get a general view
of the theme, so having various types of organisations was important.
The highest proportion of responders worked in a consulting company 22.2% . Following
were responders that worked with a sub-contractor with 20%. Material suppliers and
general contractors both represented a similar percentage of 15.6% of all respondents.
Off-site manufacturer and developer also had similar percentages, each representing 6.7%
of the total of responders. Design companies accounted for 4.4% of all responders.
Furthermore, responders who worked in a renovation contractor organisation, Law firm,
Government Department, and construction industry client (Pharmaceutical company)
accounted for 2.2% each.
The graph and table below summarize this results percentage and frequency.
Table 4-4 Respondent’s organisation type frequency distribution and percentile, given by
Systat analysis
Organisation type Frequency Percentage
General Contractor 7 15.6%
Sub-contractor 9 20.0%
Renovation contractor 1 2.2%
Off-site Manufacturer 3 6.7%
Consulting company 10 22.2%
Developer 3 6.7%
Design company 2 4.4%
Material supplier 7 15.6%
Client 1 2.2%
Government Department 1 2.2%
Law firm advising employers and contractors 1 2.2%
TOTAL 45 100.00%
67 | P a g e
Figure 4-4 Respondent's organisation type responses chart
4.2.1.5 Organisation size

This question aims to determine the size of the responders` organisation. The goal of the
questionnaire was to obtain a large sample of Irish construction organisations. The results
demonstrate that the majority of the responders, 53.3%, work in large organisations with
more than 250 employees, followed by those in micro-organisations with up to 25
employees, 17.8%%. Responders that work in small organisations with 26 to 49 employees
are 15.6%, and those that work for medium organisations are 13.3%. The results of this
question can be seen below in graph 4-5. The nominal statistics report result run by Systat
software is presented in table 4-5.
Table 4-5 Respondent’s organisation size, frequency distribution and percentile, given by
Systat analysis
Organisation size Frequency Percentage
1-25 employees 8 17.8%
26-49 employees 7 15.6%
50-249 employees 6 13.3%
More than 250 employees 24 53.3%
TOTAL 45 100.00%
68 | P a g e
Figure 4-5 Respondent’s organisation size responses chart
4.2.2 Benefits of Off-site construction

In order to assess the participant’s view on the benefits that OSC can bring to a construction
project, they were asked to point from a list of benefits identified during the secondary
research, which of those they believed could be achieved when using off-site construction
when compared to traditional building.
The options given for this question was:
• Time-saving
• More quality
• Healthier and safer work environment
• Environmental benefits (e.g. less waste generation and reduction on carbon
footprint)
• Cost Certainty
• Cost Savings
• None of the above
69 | P a g e
Figure 4-6 Benefits of OSC responses frequency graph
The participants could select as many benefits as they wished from the list above. All
participants agreed that at least one of the benefits listed could be achieved when using
OSC in a project as no participant selected the option “none of the above”.
Time-saving was the most selected benefit of this construction approach, with 42 out of 45
participants (93%) recognising that the project's programme can be shortened when using
off-site construction in a project.
The environmental benefits and improvement of the workplace as healthier and safer were
recognised by 73% of the responders.
Quality improvement was seen by 58% of the responders as a benefit that can be achieved
when using OSC.
The least selected benefit was cost savings, with 40% of the responders seeing the adoption
of OSC as an opportunity to reduce project costs.
70 | P a g e
4.2.3 Drivers of Off-site construction

In order to understand which of drivers for this construction approach was considered the
most influential one when professionals decide to adopt OSC. The responders were asked to
select which driver in their opinion impacts the most the decision to use OSC in a project.
They were given six drivers to choose from. The options are listed below:
• Productivity enhancement
• Skill shortage
• Environmental benefits
• Life cycle value of building
• Certainty in delivery time
• Enhanced working conditions
• Other
An option to select “other” was given, and the responders could list what driver in their
opinion influence the most on the decision to use OSC. By giving this option, it allowed
capturing other drivers.
Table 4-6 OSC main driver responses frequency distribution and percentile, given by Systat
analysis
Drivers Frequency Percentage
Productivity enhancement 22 48.9%
Certainty in delivery time 9 20.0%
Skill shortage 9 20.0%
Environmental benefits 1 2.2%
Life cycle value of building 0 0.0%
Enhanced working conditions 0 0.0%
Other 4 9%
TOTAL 45 100.00%
71 | P a g e
Figure 4-7 Main driver for the adoption of OSC responses chart
Productivity enhancement was deemed by 48.9% of responders as the main driver for OSC
adoption in projects.
Skill shortage and Certainty in delivery time each had 20% of the responders seeing it as the
main drivers for OSC adoption.
Four responders (8.9% ) listed Other as drivers for the use of OSC. When indicating what
other drivers they see as most influential on the decision to use this construction approach,
they wrote:
“Cost Certainty and the ability to control the Off-site Production schedule.”; “Site
constraints & assured delivery dates” ; “Programme & schedule impact, skill shortages &
covid risks”; “Cost”.
Environmental benefits were seen as the main driver by only 2.2% of the responders.
The life cycle value of the building and enhancement of working conditions were not seen as
the main drivers for adopting OSC in Ireland.
72 | P a g e
4.2.4 Barriers to the adoption of Off-site construction

The research question of this study was to identify which barrier most restrains the
adoption of OSC in Ireland. In order to answer that question, two objectives needed to be
accomplished.
The first one was to identify the barriers that constrain a wider adoption of OSC in Ireland.
The identification was achieved in the literature review based on other authors studies and
mostly on recent qualitative research done by the Construction Industry Federation (2020)
that identified many barriers for the adoption of OSC present in Ireland.
The second objective that needed to be achieved to answer the research question was to
prioritise the identified barriers according to construction industry professionals perception
of the level of impact of each barrier identified.
Therefore, the respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements
related to the 43 identified barriers that prevent further adoption of off-site construction.
The prioritisation of the barriers was done by raking the calculated mean rating of each
barrier according to the mathematical equation presented in chapter 3, section 3.4. Each
broad category mean rating and relative level of impact on the further adoption of OSC was
also calculated.
4.2.4.1 Barriers related to Process and Programme

In this category are the identified barriers that constraints the uptake of OSC related to
Processes and Program on a project from the planning phase to the completion of the
works. Form the 43 barriers seven pertains to this category.
The percentage of respondents that indicated each level of agreement with each statement
related to each barrier can be seen in the table below. Each barrier respective mean rating
(MRj) is also presented in figure 4-8, and they were analysed and organised in decrescent
order, from the highest MRj to the lowest. Therefore, the figure presents the identified
barriers from this category from the one that most restrains OSC adoption to the named
barrier in the category that least restrains further adoption of this method of construction.
All listed barriers in this category were significant as they all had a MRj of more than 2.5.
The key issue found in this category was the cost of changes after production has started.
The second barrier that most constrains OSC adoption in this category was late contractors’
73 | P a g e
involvement, followed by the requirement of a longer period of time, knock-on effect

caused by problems during production, the higher requirement of ICTs, and with the same
perceived level of impact both being than the barriers that under this category has a lower
impact on further adoption of OSC are inappropriate design process and poor integration of
schedule with on-site and off-site processes.
Figure 4-8 Barriers related to Process and Programme, percentile of responses for each
barrier and calculated mean ratings %Rjk = Percentage response to rating point k, for constraint factor j.
Level of agreement
Strongly Somewhat Strongly
Agree Disagree No Idea
Constraints related to Process and Programme Agree agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1 0 MRj
Changes after production has started are expensive 37.78% 22.22% 17.78% 20.00% 2.22% 0.00% 3.73
Late contractors involvement 26.67% 17.78% 35.56% 17.78% 2.22% 0.00% 3.49
Requires longer planning time 17.78% 40.00% 15.56% 22.22% 4.44% 0.00% 3.44
Problems during production generates a knock-on
15.56% 37.78% 22.22% 13.33% 8.89% 2.22% 3.31
effect downstream – e.g. Assembly problem
Requires a high use of ICT (information
15.56% 31.11% 31.11% 13.33% 6.67% 2.22% 3.29
Communication technology)
Design process is not appropriated 13.33% 17.78% 26.67% 31.11% 11.11% 0.00% 2.91
Poor integration of schedule with on-site and off-site
17.78% 8.89% 28.89% 35.56% 8.89% 0.00% 2.91
processes
Category mean rating MRi 3.30
4.2.4.2 Barriers related to Cost, Value and Production
Of the 43 barriers that constrain further adoption of OSC, four of them are barriers related
to Cost, Value and Productivity. Figure 4-9 presents the results from the survey for the
barriers in this category.
The high commercial set-up costs required for OSC was considered the barrier that most
holds up the adoption of OSC in this category. Moreover, not far behind is the perception of
this method of construction being more expensive. The increase in overall cost due to
machinery on site was the third out of 4 barriers in this category that restrains adoption of
OSC, and the barrier pertaining to this category that least impacts the adoption of this
method in Ireland was transportation cost being too high in which 40% of respondents
disagreed with this statement.
74 | P a g e
Figure 4-9 Barriers related to Cost, Value and Productivity, percentile of responses for each
barrier and calculated mean ratings
%Rjk = Percentage response to rating point k, for constraint factor j.
Level of agreement
Constraints related to Cost, Value and Productivity Agree agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1 0 MRj
6.67% 17.78% 57.78% 15.56% 2.22% 0.00% 3.11

Comercial set up costs are too high
Offsite construction is seen as expensive 8.89% 17.78% 44.44% 26.67% 2.22% 0.00% 3.04
Machinery on site increase overall cost e.g. cranage
6.67% 20.00% 37.78% 26.67% 6.67% 2.22% 2.87
fees
Transportation costs are too high 8.89% 15.56% 31.11% 40.00% 4.44% 0.00% 2.84
4.2.4.3 Barriers related to Regulations
Out of the 43 identified barriers, three were related to regulations that constrain further
OSC adoption, as shown in figure 4-10 below.
The key barrier in this category is due to unclear regulations in respect to off-site
components ownership.
Codes and standards are not seen as inadequate by 42.22% of respondents. The least
influential barrier that constrains further adoption of OSC under the Regulations category is
planning approval not clear for off-site components and modules.
Figure 4-10 Barriers related to Regulations, percentile of responses for each barrier and
calculated mean ratings %Rjk = Percentage response to rating point k, for constraint factor j.
Level of agreement
Constraints related to Regulations Agree agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1 0 MRj
Regulation relating to ownership of

8.89% 26.67% 37.78% 15.56% 8.89% 2.22% 3.04
module/components fabricated off-site are unclear
Inadequate codes, standards available 11.11% 24.44% 13.33% 42.22% 4.44% 4.44% 2.82
Planning approval not clear for some offsite
6.67% 28.89% 20.00% 28.89% 11.11% 4.44% 2.78
components/module
4.2.4.4 Barriers related to Industry and Market Culture
In terms of barriers related to Industry and Market Culture, eight barriers out of the 43
barriers identified in this study are part of this broad category.
75 | P a g e
The lack of incentive to support this approach by the government was the barrier under this
category that most constraints further adoption of OSC, in which 86.6% of respondents
agree to some extent that lack of incentive by government restraints further use OSC in the
country.
The second biggest issue in this category is resistance from stakeholders, followed by the
negative stigma of OSC due to past failure on its use. Figure 4-11 below shows all the
barriers that pertain to this category, the MRj of each barrier in decrescent order, from the
most influential barrier to the least influential one under this category.
Figure 4-11 Barriers related to Industry and Market Culture, percentile of responses for
each barrier and calculated mean ratings
Level of agreement
Constraints related to Industry and Market Culture Agree agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1 0 MRj
Lacks of incentive to support this approach by
28.89% 33.33% 24.44% 6.67% 2.22% 4.44% 3.67
government
Resistance from stakeholders to use offsite
17.78% 26.67% 42.22% 11.11% 2.22% 0.00% 3.47
components/modules
Failure of past attempts of the use of OSC created a
11.11% 42.22% 24.44% 15.56% 4.44% 2.22% 3.33
negative stigma
Clients prefer traditional finishes and custom-made
8.89% 40.00% 31.11% 11.11% 8.89% 0.00% 3.29
design
Buildings that uses OSC have poor quality image 6.67% 17.78% 33.33% 37.78% 4.44% 0.00% 2.84
Inter-manufacture rivality in the industry 8.89% 13.33% 46.67% 13.33% 11.11% 6.67% 2.76
Modern materials are not used to produce
2.22% 20.00% 33.33% 28.89% 11.11% 4.44% 2.60
components/ modules
The materials used to fabricate the components are
8.89% 11.11% 20.00% 48.89% 8.89% 2.22% 2.56
not well accepted
4.2.4.5 Barriers related to Logistics & Site operation
There are six barriers out of the 43 that pertains to category. From these six barriers, five
were deemed significant (MRj>2.5).
On site installation risks were not considered significant in this study as its MRj was 2.42.
The most influential barrier under this category that restraints the wider adoption of OSC
was the increased problems when fitting components on-site due to low tolerance when
using this construction method. The second barrier from this category that most constrains
further adoption of OSC was the limitation of transport. All the barriers under this category
and their results are presented in figure 4-12 below.
76 | P a g e
Figure 4-12 Barriers related to Logistics & Site Operation, percentile of responses for each
barrier and calculated mean ratings %Rjk = Percentage response to rating point k, for constraint factor j.
Level of agreement
Constraints related to Logistics & Site Operation Agree agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1 0 MRj
Low tolerance increase problems when fitting

11.11% 42.22% 26.67% 11.11% 4.44% 4.44% 3.31
components onsite
Limitation of transport ( road width, bridge loads
8.89% 24.44% 35.56% 26.67% 2.22% 2.22% 3.04
capacities, requirement of e
Size and weight of large and heavy components
13.33% 22.22% 28.89% 24.44% 6.67% 4.44% 2.98
complicates transportation, stora
Site-specific constraints ( access limitations, space
4.44% 26.67% 35.56% 24.44% 6.67% 2.22% 2.91
for receiving large load
Logistic and stock management is difficult 6.67% 24.44% 20.00% 33.33% 11.11% 4.44% 2.69
On site installation risks 0.00% 13.33% 35.56% 35.56% 11.11% 4.44% 2.42
4.2.4.6 Barriers related to Supply chain and Procurement
Under this category are most of the identified barriers. Nine out of 43 barriers are related to
supply chain and procurement. All nine barriers under this category were significant.
The one that most restrains further adoption of OSC was the manufactures present
capacity. The second most relevant barrier was that traditional construction contract terms
are not appropriated followed by procurement methods that are not favourable to OSC use.
All the barriers under this category and their results are presented in figure 4-13 below.
77 | P a g e
Figure 4-13 Barriers related to Supply Chain and Procurement, percentile of responses for
each barrier and calculated mean ratings
Level of agreement
Constraints related to Supply Chain and Procurement Agree agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1 0 MRj
Manufacturers present capacity 15.56% 42.22% 31.11% 4.44% 4.44% 2.22% 3.53
Traditional construction contract terms are not
20.00% 26.67% 31.11% 20.00% 2.22% 0.00% 3.42
appropriated
Procurement methods are not favourable to the use
15.56% 22.22% 37.78% 17.78% 6.67% 0.00% 3.22
of OSC solutions
Requirement of a more complex payment terms 6.67% 37.78% 26.67% 22.22% 4.44% 2.22% 3.13
Market protection from traditional suppliers 11.11% 26.67% 26.67% 26.67% 4.44% 4.44% 3.00
This approach is not worth using in small projects 8.89% 22.22% 28.89% 31.11% 6.67% 2.22% 2.89
Apparent loss of control during onsite operations 4.44% 31.11% 24.44% 31.11% 6.67% 2.22% 2.89
Imported components are prone to issues relating
4.44% 35.56% 22.22% 15.56% 11.11% 11.11% 2.73
quality and compliance
Supply chain involves high risks 11.11% 8.89% 33.33% 33.33% 8.89% 4.44% 2.67
4.2.4.7 Barriers related to Skill and Knowledge
Under the broad category of barriers related to skill and knowledge, there are six barriers
out of the 43 total barriers identified. All six barriers under this category were considered
significant.
The barrier with the highest MRj in this research pertains to this category.
The statement “Current education and training still focussed on traditional construction”,
had 96% of all respondents agreeing to it to some extent.
The mean rating (MRj) of almost all barriers listed under this category were above 3.5. The
only one below was “higher on-site skill required”.
All the barriers under this category and their results are presented in figure 4-14 below.
78 | P a g e
Figure 4-14 Barriers related to Skill and Knowledge, percentile of responses for each barrier
and calculated mean ratings
Level of agreement
Constraints related to Skill and Knowledge Agree agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1 0 MRj
Current education and training still focused on

31.00% 49.00% 16.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 4.00
traditional construction
Lack of understanding of the advantages of OSC 29.00% 31.00% 33.00% 0.00% 4.00% 2.00% 3.73
Higher levels of literacy in information
27.00% 36.00% 24.00% 7.00% 4.00% 2.00% 3.67
communication technologies is required
There is a lack of Designers and constructor’s
20.00% 42.00% 24.00% 9.00% 2.00% 2.00% 3.62
expertise about OSC
Higher Off-site Skills required 33.00% 20.00% 18.00% 24.00% 2.00% 2.00% 3.51
Higher on-site skill required 11.00% 16.00% 29.00% 36.00% 7.00% 2.00% 2.82
4.2.4.8 Rank of Barriers’ Categories and Overall Barriers
The relative level of impact that each category has on the further adoption of OSC could be
calculated through the categories’ RCI as presented in chapter 3, section 3.4.
The table below compiles the results of each category mean rating and their relative impact
on the further adoption of OSC in Ireland.
Table 4-7 Barriers broad categories Mean rating and relative levels of impact in the
adoption of OSC
Categories MRi %
Barriers related to Skill and Knowledge 3.5593 16.39
Barriers related to Process and Programme 3.2984 15.19
Barriers related to Industry and Market Culture 3.0639 14.11
Barriers related to Supply Chain and Procurement 3.0543 14.06
Barriers related to Cost, Value and Productivity 2.9667 13.66
Barriers related to Logistics & Site Operation 2.8926 13.32
Barriers related to Regulations 2.8815 13.27
TOTAL 100.00%
79 | P a g e
Figure 4-15 Graph of the level of impact on the adoption of OSC of each Barriers Broad
categories
Through the analysis of the survey results, it was found that the category of Barriers related
to Skill and Knowledge restrains OSC adoption the most, with a level of impact of 16.39% on
the further adoption of OSC. Furthermore, the barrier category that least impacted the
adoption of OSC was the ones under Barriers related to Regulations.
Although among all the categories, the ones related to Regulations have the least impact on
the adoption of OSC it still has some impact that can hold up the adoption of OSC with a
level of impact of 13.27% on the further adoption of OSC. The levels of impact among all
categories found in this study were very close to each other. The difference between the
category that most impacts OSC adoption and the one that least impacts OSC adoption is
only 3.12%.
Table 4-8 below presents all 43 barriers ranked from the most influential to the least
influential one.
80 | P a g e
Table 4-8 Identified barriers ranked by their mean rating

Barriers MRj
Current education and training still focused on traditional construction 4.00
Lack of understanding of the advantages of OSC 3.73
Changes after production has started are expensive 3.73
Lack of incentive to support this approach by government 3.67
Higher levels of literacy in information communication technologies is required 3.67
There is a lack of Designers and constructor’s expertise about OSC 3.62
Manufacturers present capacity 3.53
Higher Off-site Skills required 3.51
Late contractors’ involvement 3.49
Resistance from stakeholders to use off-site components/modules 3.47
Requires longer planning time 3.44
Traditional construction contract terms are not appropriated 3.42
Failure of past attempts of the use of OSC created a negative stigma 3.33
Low tolerance increases problems when fitting components on-site 3.31
Problems during production generates a knock-on effect downstream – 3.31
Requires a high use of ICT (information Communication technology) 3.29
Clients prefer traditional finishes and custom-made design 3.29
Procurement methods are not favourable to the use of OSC solutions 3.22
Requirement of a more complex payment terms 3.13
Commercial set up costs are too high 3.11
Off-site construction is seen as expensive 3.04
Regulation relating to ownership of module/components fabricated off-site are u 3.04
Limitation of transport ( road width, bridge loads capacities, requirement of e 3.04
Market protection from traditional suppliers 3.00
Size and weight of large and heavy components complicates transportation, stor… 2.98
Site-specific constraints ( access limitations, space for receiving large load 2.91
Design process is not appropriated 2.91
Poor integration of schedule with on-site and off-site processes 2.91
This approach is not worth using in small projects 2.89
Apparent loss of control during on-site operations 2.89
Machinery on site increase overall cost e.g. cranage fees 2.87
Transportation costs are too high 2.84
Buildings that uses OSC have poor quality image 2.84
Inadequate codes, standards available 2.82
Higher on-site skill required 2.82
Planning approval not clear for some off-site components/module 2.78
Inter-manufacture rivality in the industry 2.76
Imported components are prone to issues relating quality and compliance 2.73
Logistic and stock management is difficult 2.69
Supply chain involves high risks 2.67
Modern materials are not used to produce components/ modules 2.60
The materials used to fabricate the components are not well accepted 2.56
On site installation risks (not significant) 2.42
81 | P a g e
4.2.5 Use of facilitators for the adoption of Off-site construction

To assess responders’ use of tools and systems in their projects, they were asked to select
from a list which tools and systems they use or have used in projects they worked on.
The options given were:
• Lean Construction
• BIM
• RFID
• Internet of Things
• Virtual Reality
• Information Communication Technology
• GS1 standard
• QR code
• None of the above
The graph in figure 4-16 below summarises the responses received it shows that most
respondents have used BIM and Lean Construction in their projects.
Three responders, which represents 6.67% of all responders, have never used any of these
tools and systems.
Figure 4-16 Graph of frequency of tools and systems used by respondents
82 | P a g e
Further into the tools and systems listed, to assess responders’ view on the potential that
these tools and systems have to help overcome the barriers that restrain further adoption
of OSC.
The use of BIM is seen by 82.22% of all responders as a facilitator for further adoption of
OSC. Followed by Lean Construction, which had 80% of responders indicating they believe
that it can help overcome barriers and facilitate further adoption of this construction
method.
All responders believed that at least one of the listed tools and systems could help
overcome barriers for OSC adoption as no answers indicated the option “None of the
above”.
The graph in figure 4-17 below summarizes the results for all tools and systems listed,
presenting the frequency that the options were chosen and the percentage it represents
from all received answers.
Figure 4-17 Graph of frequency of tools and systems with the potential to facilitate the
adoption of OSC
83 | P a g e
4.3 Interviews with experts

For a more in-depth understanding of the benefits, drivers, and barriers of the OSC
approach to construction and the potential modern systems and tools have to facilitate OSC
adoption, semi-structured interviews were carried out with five industry experts.
These interviews aimed to help the author investigate the research question deeper and
identify if there is an agreement with the questionnaire results.
Interview questions addressed the following themes:
• Background of interviewees
• Perceived benefits of OSC
• Perceived main driver of OSC
• Perceived barriers of OSC
• View on Government role to incentivise a wider adoption for OSC
• View on current Education and Training for construction industry professionals
• View on systems and tools to facilitate OSC
• Perception of Covid-19 impact on the adoption of OSC
Key points of interviewee responses to the questions will be presented. Transcripts of

interviews can be found in appendix E.
Table 4-9 below presents details regarding each interview.
The thematic analysis of interview were done from the 29th of July to 09th of August.
Table 4-9 Interviews details

Interviewee
Interview Interview Date of
Identification Interviewee Current Role Length of
Date duration transcription
Experience
.Operations Manager for the

Over 20
Interviewee 1 industrial sector at a project 29-Jun 33 min 29 & 30- Jun
years
management company.
. Construction Management
Company owner, acting as
Construction manager client Over 20
Interviewee 2 30-Jun 26 min 01-Jul
representative for blue-chip years
companies – Currently represents a
pharmaceutical company.
84 | P a g e
.Chair of Construction Industry

Federation Committee
4.0 – Modular Working Group.
.Activity Leader for Group 3 of the Over 20
Interviewee 3 30-Jun 1hr 32min 3 & 4-Jul
CSG Subgroup on Innovation and years
Digital Adoption.
.CEO & Founder of a Quality and
Lean Construction business.
.Strategy & Development Director

in an Over 20
Interviewee 4 21-Jul 35min 23-Jul
Irish contractor and OSC years
manufacturer.
.Programme Manager in an
Over 20
Interviewee 5 Irish contractor and OSC 22-Jul 1hr 04min 24 & 25-Jul
years
manufacturer
4.3.1 Interviwees’ Background

Interviewee 1:
Just over 20 years in the construction industry. Qualified Building Services Engineer and has
a Post Graduate Diploma in Project Management.
Started out as a building services consultant engineer, designing M&E services for buildings,
worked on generally larger-scale projects.
Worked abroad in Australia in Engineering and consultancy. Then London working on
business development and technical sales for a mechanical ventilation company. Came back
to Ireland working as site Resident Engineer, took part on National Rehabilitation Hospital in
Dun Laoghaire and the National Children's Hospital satellite centers in Connolly and
Tallaght.
Currently is an Operations Manager at a project management company.
Interviewee 2:
Has over twenty-four years civil, structural and project management experience with
engineering companies, consultants, and clients. Is specialised in Construction and Project
Management. Have its own standalone company. Have had international experience over in
the UK for two years.
85 | P a g e
Acts as construction representative for multinational clients from various sectors in specific
projects. Over the past 15 years, clients have usually been pharmaceuticals companies,
including current client.
Interviewee 3:
Over 25 years’ experience in the Construction & Engineering Industry, has specialised in
M&E services, and has knowledge of Civil Construction, BioPharma, Data Centre, and
Commercial Fit-out projects.
Have a master’s in Quantity Surveyor and certificates in Quality Assurance and
Management.
Have worked as Group Quality & Lean Manager for a large Irish contractor.
Currently is CEO of a Construction Quality and Lean Construction business and Chair of CIF
Committee 4.0 – Modular Working Group, researching the current
baseline, implementation and barriers to Modularisation and Off-site construction,
with a report published in November 2020 and a final report due back to Irish Government’s
Construction Sector Group (CSG) by Sept 2021, to facilitate further productivity
improvements and the adoption of Off-site Construction (OSC) for the Construction sector,
against international best practice.
Interviewee 4:
Has over 25 years of experience in the construction sector. Background in Mechanical
engineering.
Had experience with office blocks and commercial buildings. But been focussed in the last
15 years in data centers construction.
Currently is Strategy & Development Director in a big Irish contractor company that has its
own OSC manufacturing facility.
Interviewee 5:
Over 25 years of experience in the construction industry. Spent about 20 years abroad
working in different areas such as oil and gas, nuclear, pharma, heavy industry, mostly as
Construction and Project Manager.
Currently is a Programe Manager for a big Irish contractor responsible to deliver the M&E
part of a big project to a semiconductor sector client.
86 | P a g e
4.3.2 Perceived benefits of OSC

Interviewees were asked what advantage, in their opinion, can be achieved when using OSC
in projects and also they were asked if the market understand and see those advantages as
well. Overall, their answers were:
Interviewee 1:
In her opinion, the advantages were Speed and Quality.
Mentions the fact of doing prep work in parallel to work off-site, which on interviewee 1
words “really speeds things up on site.” Reinforces why quality is a benefit of this approach
and highlights that it is time and quality the benefits, but it comes with a cost.
Don’t believe that the market and clients see quality advantages unless they are end-users,
market in her opinion, only see time and cost.
Interviewee 2:
He emphasizes that in his experience using OSC things are done in a controlled environment
which leads to better quality, faster, cheaper.
Highlights these are benefits achieve with companies that have been doing OSC for a
number of years.
His current client sees the advantage and even sets goals for the use of OSC in projects.
Interviewee 3:
Highlights keeping labour and materials off-site in a controlled environment, especially
during a weathered.
Reduction of transportation into site, reduction of labour traffic.
Affirm that there is a debate about quality control and quality assurance and how effective
this method is in terms of sustainability at the moment.
Emphasizes that benefit is changing the mindset to a production mindset, more control
over scheduling, allows parallel work on-site and on the manufacturing facility.
Mentions time and cost certainty linked to meeting time to market.
He believes that what he calls mature clients see the advantages. These are private sector
companies and have used this approach to construction before.
The public sector is still nervous about using OSC due to past problems.
Interviewee 4:
Lists the following benefits conditioning that the project is planned in advance
Cost certainty.
87 | P a g e
Increased quality & safety due to factory environment and less trades on site.
Time to Market improvements and schedule improvements.
Project Design & planning and Preconstruction activities more integrated
Believe that the market sees the advantages but affirms that there is the perception that
OSC reduces cost, which is not always true.
Interviewee 5:
Demonstration of productivity and quality.
Explains how the enhanced work environment for people on the production floor
contributes to productivity.
Assurance of delivery and getting right at the first time.
Don’t believe the market sees the advantage, mentions the need to demonstrate these
advantages in order to educate the market, so it starts to see these advantages on their
own.
Mentions that there is a need for the market to see the advantages and want the use of OSC
however don’t want to show too much of the savings, so they keep the increased margin.
4.3.3 Perceived main driver of OSC

The interviewees were asked what the main driver for the adoption of OSC in projects is.
Overall, their answers were:
Interviewee 1:
Mentions sectors demands, believes that now it is changing to data centres however in the
past were hotels and apartments.
Interviewee 2:
Affirm that are live plants. And justifies it as in these live plants environment there is a
certain rigour that needs to be taken into account and for him the need to take “hours off-
site”.
He also says that it is more productive and efficient with less hassle.
Interviewee 3:
In his opinion are time and cost certainty. Shows disappointment that sustainability is not a
driver and justifies that as the lack of support around sustainability, information,
regulations, and legislation.
Points out that current Irish building regulations do not account for OSC/ Modularisation
construction and certification.
88 | P a g e
Interviewee 4:
Lists the following drivers:
Reduced time to Market; Less overheads on-site; Increased Quality; Repeatability – get it
right the first time.
Mentions how the use of OSC in data centres are now a market demand and it has evolving
over the past years for mechanical systems and piping.
Interviewee 5:
He explains how time to market is important in the project he is working on and emphasizes
that schedule assurance and delivery are the drivers for using OSC.
4.3.4 Perceived main barrier of OSC

Aiming to identify these professionals’ opinions on the barriers to the adoption of OSC and
later analyse this with survey results, interviewees were asked their view on the main
barriers that restrain the adoption of OSC.
Overall, their answers were:
Interviewee 1:
Interviewee 1 believes that part of it is the mentality and people not willing to change what
they are used to do the way they do. And then affirms that cost is the other barrier. Explains
that if companies don’t have their own manufacturing facility, cost becomes an issue, and
that affects their ability to win a tender process.
She also mentions the current distance of manufacturing facilities to sites and scale of
projects.
Interviewee 2:
Believes that the main barriers are related to people and market, mentions how things are
done certain ways for a long time and that change is hard.
Explains that to overcome this, clients, in general, need to start pulling the market, and for
that to happen, they need to see results and to show results, it is important to have
statistics to be able to compare traditional construction and OSC.
Interviewee 3:
Points out the lack of testing and certification laboratories in Ireland, especially for fire
certification. Affirms that standards and regulations aren’t fit for the purpose of the
adoption of OSC.
Mentions the lack of understanding and awareness of this method.
The lack of knowledge and education and the need to develop courses.
89 | P a g e
Also highlights industry knowledge in wich suppliers don’t know that there are demand and
the clients don’t know the range of suppliers existent in the country.
The need of volumetric to manufactures side and also the current capacity constraint.
Interviewee 4:
Design changes are seen by him as painful to implement.
Believes that there is a need for a one-stop-shop that will manufacture and install OSC
elements. Explains that without this, management of the supply chain is laborious and
harder to control.
Interviewee 5:
Explains that as an overall approach to construction, the biggest barrier is the lack of
government backing the solution and education around it.
Mentions the need for early engagement and design, highlights that the barriers will depend
on where you are located on the supply chain.
4.3.5 View on Government role to incentivise a wider adoption for OSC

In the interview, the interviewees were asked what their thought on the role of government
are towards incentivising the adoption of OSC.
Their overall answers were:
Interviewee 1:
Did not answer this question.
Interviewee 2:
He believes that schools and offices could benefit from OSC as he believes it is a repetitive
project. Suggests that government could present what they expect as an ideal classroom
and modularise that using pods. He highlights that not the use of OSC for structure as he
sees that will change from location to location.
Interviewee 3:
He explains that he sees it as taking part in the government new development plan. The
government should set aside financial support for modern methods of construction.
He believes that the government has to give market volume, and he repeats this during his
answer.
For this volume, he explains that they should be coming up with a framework for schools,
healthcare, residential to meet demands. Explains that the framework that he mentions are
standardized designs with performance specifications that off-site manufacturers can pick
off the shelf and produce.
There is a plan for the construction of a National Construction centre where it will allow
90 | P a g e
testing, prototyping and education on OSC, according to interviewee 3.

He recognizes that the government is doing its part on this.
Interviewee 4:
He suggests that government should benchmark with other large European cities on how
they deliver housing stock. And compares Ireland and the UK.
Mentions that the private sector has been a more obvious driver than the government.
Interviewee 5:
Believes that the government should incentivise by adopting it on their projects.
He compares the capital investment put into government-led jobs and believes the
government should incentivise by investing in it and using it. Repeat this and highlight that
just talking about OSC won’t help adoption, people needs
4.3.6 View on current Education and Training for construction industry professionals
The interviewees were asked what their thoughts on the current education and training of
professionals in the industry are today. And also, they were presented with the survey result
and asked to share their thoughts.
Their answers were:
Interviewee 1:
Believes that courses are not refreshed enough.
Colleges and universities should introduce subjects and courses on OSC and even on the
business aspect of setting up an OSC business.
Talk about tools in the “wrong professionals” hands, and to illustrate gives an example
about BIM being used to model things that the professional don’t really know how in reality
the element in her example piping works.
Interviewee 2:
He believes that the client needs to be educated first.
Affirms that OSC needs to be a subject in college and universities. Mentions that the
industry is too focussed on traditional methods, and there is a need to change that and add
modules in mainstream courses on engineering fields. But thinks that needs to have people
on the decision-making position now educated by other ways now, as students from today
will take at least 10 years to become the decision makers.
Interviewee 3:
91 | P a g e
He says that he has carried out research and found that there are no courses on OSC in
Ireland.
Tells that did a talk in one class for a certain institute of technology and out of 46 students
one said that have heard about modularisation. He believes that if students don’t see or
hear about it, they will not be operating it in the future.
Highlights that Ireland have very successful companies doing OSC, but knowledge is not
shared and retained.
Mentions the need to change the mindset from on-site construction to off-site.
Interviewee 4:
Emphasizes that Ireland is perceived as producing good construction people, engineers and
says this perception is seen across Europe and America. Explains that the on the sector of
data centres their tradespeople capability, quality and delivery is seen as good.
On the residential side, he believes that it is not the same and that Ireland is falling behind.
And for that he believes more education would be beneficial.
He recognises that there is a need to educate the construction industry on OSC when
presented with the survey result that construction education is too focused on traditional
building. He believes there is a need to make this method more mainstream but says that
“But unless it is pushed, the existing delivery methods will evolve instead of change”.
Interviewee 5:
He tells that the company he is part of does a “huge amount” of training internally as people
who come into the company might have different standards, so with their own training,
they set the company's standard to achieve the benefits of quality.
Mentions that the majority of his delivery is through trades and that requires “correct levels
of apprentices”.
Says that engineers who work on OSC don’t have the specific knowledge of OSC but have
the technical knowledge of M&E systems.
Affirms that as a company, they learned from experience.
Believes that some modules in education for engineers need to be specific on OSC, however,
do not believe that it should be one specific course on OSC alone at the moment.
92 | P a g e
4.3.7 View on systems and tools to facilitate OSC

In order to investigate what these professionals’ thoughts around four system and tools and
if it could facilitate the adoption of OSC they were asked about the use of Lean, BIM, virtual
reality, and ICTs.
Their overall answers were:
Interviewee 1:
Believes that Lean and OSC are closely related. Uses the expression “plays a part hand in
hand”.
Affirms that: “it's about planning everything out and being more efficient “. Thinks its key
in OSC the existence of process procedures in a strict format.
In relation to BIM, she says that it helps clients that are not familiar with construction
projects to visualize the end product. Mentions integration of BIM and many technologies
such as VR, drones, 360 scans. However, she highlights that these integrations are not used
very often due to cost.
Emphasizes that BIM is not perfect and finds models flawless on the computer (“clash-
free”), but on-site, that is not the reality.
VR has been helpful, especially in situations where access to places, such as in the COVID-19,
are restricted.
ICTs integrated with BIM is used as an example. Highlights the availability of information
being quicker. And how it facilitated to see the progress of works.
Interviewee 2:
He affirms that he believes in lean but don’t think it is applicable to everything.
Defines lean as lack of waste and explains that for him reducing hours using modular
reduces hours due to early engagement and, as he says, “right guy doing the right design”
instead of having the design done multiple times by different professionals. Highlights that
is his vision as a client.
He thinks BIM fits with lean and OSC. Stressed that BIM is the future by repeating this
multiple times.
He tells that he is using BIM combined with augmented to train personnel to identify
clashes.
93 | P a g e
Have used VR as well, used it mostly for design setting up a production line for an
ergonomics perspective. Believes it helps clients to see the project before execution.
In regard to ICT affirms it helps especially for early involvement of stakeholders. Says ICT is a
lean tool. Highlights that on the project that he works on now there is a driver to use ICT
systems and tools from one of his bosses. Emphasizes that this is real-time information
available to all. Contra points that although its good systems are not entirely user friendly
and can be seen as a waste of time as in his experience, he has to do the same thing in
various systems or respond the same question multiple times.
Interviewee 3:
Affirms that OSC and Lean are connected. State that OSC is part of Lean. And uses the
expression “Off-site construction and lean they go hand in hand. “
Explains that lean is looking at the process, and affirms that is with Lean that the process
will become sustainable. Points out that education is also needed on lean so there would be
understanding of what Lean is and what it can do.
Believes that BIM is needed in the process, and for that there is a need of common
language/standard in BIM .
Highlights how models look great, but when it comes down to the execution phase, a lot of
problems happen, so you have a clash-free model however, there are clashes on site.
Stresses that the information inputted needs to be correct to obtain the desired output and
that design freeze is necessary.
Describes BIM as: “ It's a great tool for saving things like health and safety or doing
coordination or lifts, or even walkthroughs with a client of how best to sequence and
coordinate the work. So, it's a wonderful tool, but it has to be used right. And it needs a
framework to be plugged into off-site manufacturing in an end-to-end process.”.
In relation to VR recognise that its starting to be used, exemplifies one case of using it to do
remote off-site auditing. Believes it can be helpful in OSC to do walkthroughs, engage the
design team to challenge design and check if it is fit for purpose.
Empathize that it’s a good tool and it would give a better insight and knowledge around
product and process but reflects that it’s a tool and won’t do everything.
When asked about ICTs, he stressed that any digital tool that allows communication and
engagement of the whole supply chain will help and is needed. And stressed the need of a
94 | P a g e
standardisation of processes and tells that is what he is looking into developing now, a OSC
framework end-to-end process digitalising every stage in that process including the
milestones where certifications are needed and so on to clarify the steps and facilitate
adoption of OSC, but that needs the involvement of the whole supply chain.
Mentions that traceability of material, products and having a history of everything put into a
building would also reduce uncertainty on the adoption of OSC and allows more control of
the process.
Interviewee 4:
Affirms that OSC and Lean are connected. Uses the expression “hand in hand “ multiple
times to stress that connection.
Defines lean as “another tool” used to avoid rework, get things done right the first time and
look to the whole process by breaking it down into parts.
See it as a smart tool and highlights that for him, the big focus of lean should be on the
planning, design, and preconstruction to prepare and plan the construction delivery to
obtain a lean delivery, saving time and money.
See BIM or similar Construction Management platforms as key to OSC delivery. Believes it
aids the process of having information flow and the whole process understood and agreed
by OSC providers/Subcontractors and the client.
Recognise that BIM is not perfect and in reality clashes on site will be found.
Highlights the importance of inputting details as much as possible so it would make it more
efficient.
States that VR is being used now and cites data centres, pharmaceuticals and semiconductor
industry as leading its use.
Sees as a powerful tool when managing remote projects and believes it is on the increase.
Facilitates for the clients. List that it can be used for walkthroughs and inspections.
Tells that his company uses and with the pandemic, it has increased the use of this tool and
is integrated with a BIM platform for their inspections and signoffs and reports the use of it
with clients for commissioning a data center project recently.
Points out that it hasn’t been perfect, but it has been well received and he believes that it is
becoming more mainstream.
95 | P a g e
When talking about ICTs he seen as a support for the people and believes that every good
construction company would have a “digital nervous system” to support their people. He
believes that by the right set of tools, the ground operations are underpinned, allowing the
operation to become leaner and more efficient. Emphasizes the variety of existing tools that
can often be confusing, so the industry-dominating tools such as BIM document signoffs
should be used with consistency.
Believes there are training needed around it but highlights that if the users see it as
something that would facilitate their work, they learn and uses it.
“It’s important that there is a managed program of technology updates and that the end-
users are not saturated with constant change.”
Interviewee 5:
Defines lean as: “lean means a more efficient way of doing things.”.
Points out that the company he works for uses lean and describes a specific event on his
production floor of a lean initiative. However, he says he has adopted lean in some works,
but he does not feel he has data to demonstrate lean improving adoption of OSC.
In relation to BIM, he mentions having many inexperienced people working with BIM, even
within his company.
He stresses that BIM is expensive, and clients don’t see the output of it, express the belief
that if that could be changed, it would be “excellent”.
He highlights that if there were a possibility to train people to use BIM in OSC it would also
be very positive for the industry.
When asked about ICTs he points out that he uses it in his current role to capture data and
compose his weekly reports on KPIs.
He explains that using information technology in RFID, QR codes, he tracks everything, and it
contributes to understanding his operation from a schedule and programme point of view.
He says that aids the operation to work in a just in time manner, and it saves time when
looking for materials location and so on.
Highlights that the people on the field and manufacturing uses this systems says that he is
not sure if they used it well and affirms that people are bug constraints however, in his
company, they keep systems simple so it can be used with less resistance and more
efficiently.
96 | P a g e
4.3.8 Perception of Covid-19 impact on the adoption of OSC

As COVID-19 caused many disruptions in every sector, and it was reported an increase in the
use of OSC in healthcare among some other sectors, as mentioned in chapter 2, section
2.5.5. The interviewed were asked if they believed that the present pandemic situation
would accelerate the adoption of OSC.
Interviewee 1:
Did not perceived that acceleration in projects but believes that it might increase as it helps
to maintain fewer people on site.
Interviewee 2:
Believes that the pandemic situation is helping to promote OSC.
Affirms that is making people rethink construction due to social distancing restrictions.
Mentions that COVID-19 is helping to the adoption of OSC and digital tools such as VR as
tests were done remotely. Resumes his answer by saying:
“So certainly it's helping us to kind of embrace technology a little bit more, and it's probably
fast-forwarded the industry five or six years into a break embracing technology.”
Interviewee 3:
He states that some people took advantage of COVID-19.
He exemplifies it with the use of remote auditing and inspections that were done during this
time.
He sees an increase in the adoption of OSC. However, he points out that there is a risk that
once COVID-19 becomes more controlled and less disruptive, the industry goes back to
traditional ways.
On the other hand, market demand for data centres is mentioned as what will make the
adoption of OSC keep going despite covid when he says:
“And the demand for data centres and technology is shifted now that we want even more
digitalization, more automation, more robotics, more artificial intelligence, machine
learning, so a lot of that stuff could be applied to off-site manufacturing. So once that starts
happening, the demand starts coming. Which feeds for data centres which then feeds
demand for everything else and away we go again. So, it's a circular economy, and then it's
about making sure OSC can meet those requirements.”
97 | P a g e
Interviewee 4:
Did not give an answer for this question directly but has mentioned Covid speeding up
technology adoption in other question.
Interviewee 5:
Did not see COVID-19 influencing adoption of OSC in his current project.
But realises that COVID-19 added constraints in general and that OSC certainly help to
overcome such constraints as he affirms OSC is easier to manage than on-site work.
98 | P a g e
Chapter Discussion
99 | P a g e
Chapter 5 Discussion
5.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to analyse and discuss the findings presented in the previous chapter
within the limits of the objectives of this study.
The research objectives were discussed in order to formulate practical conclusions to the
research question.
5.2 Off-site construction Benefits for the Irish Construction Industry

The survey and SSI results demonstrate that construction industry professionals recognize
the many benefits linked to OSC. The three most recognised benefits of OSC were:
• Time-saving
• Environmental benefits
• Healthier and safer work environment
Time-saving was the most recognized benefit in the Irish industry, with 93% of all survey
respondents pointing it as a benefit achieved when using OSC. Moreover, the achievement
of this benefit can be attributed to the parallel work on-site and off-site, as interviewees
repeatedly mentioned this on the SSI. This attribution has been outlined by many other
researchers as presented in the literature review of this thesis.
Although environmental benefits were within the three most recognised benefits of this
construction approach, 73% of survey respondents pointed out it as OSC’s benefit. In the
interviews with industry experts, the majority do not list the environmental benefits of this
construction approach.
In the SSI when asked about the benefits of OSC the question was open-ended and
therefore did not suggest any answer options as it was the case of the survey questionnaire.
This indicates that although environmental benefits can be achieved when using OSC as
presented in the literature review, environmental benefits are not yet in construction
professionals' mindset as a priority when discussing this approach to construction.
The fact that OSC offers a healthier and safer work environment is recognised by most
professionals, and had 73% of survey responders listing this as a benefit of OSC. In the SSI
this was also recognised by industry experts. In fact, the enhanced working environment
was highlighted by Interviewee 5 as a contributor to the increase in productivity by workers
in the production floor of OSC elements.
Cost certainty was seen as an advantage of this approach to construction to 58% of survey
responders, and it was also mentioned in some of the interviews. This benefit of cost
certainty was attributed in the interviews to design standardisation in OSC.
Quality enhancement was mentioned as an OSC’s benefit by most interviewees on the SSI. It
was attributed directly to being in a controlled work environment, which corroborates with
Gibb (1999), which has defended this direct relation.
100 | P a g e
Although seen as an advantage by many, as highlighted by interviewee 3 there is still a

debate around quality being a benefit in OSC. The survey result backs this information as
42% of survey respondents do not see quality enhancement as an OSC benefit.
The lack of a testing laboratory in Ireland was also pointed out by interviewee 3 as another
reason that quality is debatable in OSC. A testing laboratory would be advantageous to
showcase OSC and its quality; furthermore, it would support prototyping OSC solutions.
Cost savings was the least recognised benefit in the questionnaire. It was seen by only 40%
of survey respondents as an advantage of OSC. Interviewee 2 represents clients, and he sees
cost savings as an advantage and affirms that this is due to production in a controlled
environment. On the other hand, Interviewee 4, who works in a contractor and OSC
manufacturer company, emphasises that a perception that OSC always reduces cost exists
and affirms that this is not always true. The McKenzie & Company report analysis shows the
possibility of both cost-saving and cost increase when using OSC in projects, as shown in
figure 2-3 in chapter 2.
There is a fine line on how much suppliers and contractors want clients to recognise benefits
related to cost savings. Although there is a need for clients to want the use of OSC in their
projects, companies do not want to share their margins. Therefore, they will not advertise
and disclose costs to the market. Hence the difficulty in finding data to compare costs on
projects using traditional building with projects using OSC.
Although the professionals in the construction industry know and see OSC advantages, it
was found in the SSI that the knowledge of these advantages to the broad market is not as
widespread as to industry professionals. As many interviewees reported, most clients do not
see or understand these advantages, which can constrain OSC adoption.
Clients considered mature and with experience in using OSC understand OSC advantages.
Although they know that there may be some drawbacks in a few first projects using this
construction approach, they are willing to take the risk, overcome challenges and reap the
rewards in the future.
For a wider uptake of OSC, the knowledge and understanding of its advantages should not
be restricted to only those considered mature clients. Knowledge sharing across the
industry could play a big role in helping OSC wider adoption.
5.3 Drivers for Off-site Construction adoption in Ireland

The survey result confirms Rahimian and Goulding (2019) affirmation that enhancement in
productivity is on the top of the list of drivers that push OSC adoption.
As pointed out by the survey responders as the driver that most impacts the decision to use
OSC in Ireland.
The country's desire and recognised need to improve construction industry productivity has
been discussed in many reports. The use of OSC to achieve this productivity enhancement
has also been elucidated in these reports.
101 | P a g e
This increased productivity is related to enhanced working conditions and more controlled
production, reducing rework.
Although interviewees confirm that OSC can increase industry productivity and help meet
market demands, integration of the supply chain and creating an end-to-end framework
with optimised processes for OSC is needed. Furthermore, this framework should include
guidance on what certifications and tests are needed and at what point of the OSC elements
and systems fabrication these tests and certification should be done.
If the production, certification, and delivery process is not streamlined, the potential for
productivity gains is lost.
The decision to adopt OSC in projects needs to be at the project’s early concept stages. As
pointed by interviewee 3, it is always possible to switch from OSC to traditional building;
however, the other way around is not true. Therefore, early engagement of all stakeholders,
collaborative work and design freeze are essentials for OSC projects to run smoothly and
deliver what was designed and featured.
Looking at the other listed drivers, although overall respondents saw certainty in delivery
and skill shortage with the same influence as a driver for OSC adoption. By doing a
secondary analysis of survey results and analysing responses of more experienced
professionals (with more than 10 years in the construction industry) against less
experienced ones (up to 10 years in the construction industry), it is possible to conclude that
certainty in delivery is seen as a more influential driver for OSC adoption in projects than
skills shortage to more experienced professionals (see figure 5-1).
Moreover, this was confirmed in the SSI interviews where certainty in delivery time was
considered a more influential driver for OSC adoption than skills shortage.
102 | P a g e
Figure 5-1 OSC drivers divided by professional's length of experience
It can be concluded that this more significant influence of certainty in delivery time in the
decision to adopt OSC is dictated by the project’s time to market.
The current market demand in Ireland for pharmaceutical, semiconductors and data centres
facilities challenges the construction industry to deliver projects as quickly as possible,
attending rigorous requirements and outstanding quality control. Projects that are time-to-
market-sensitive need certainty in delivery time, and as confirmed in the SSIs, these clients
demand the use of OSC.
Only one responder pointed to sustainability as a driver for OSC. In the SSI, Interviewee 3
express disappointment that this is not a driver and points out that this is due to a lack of
regulations and legislation to support sustainability within the industry.
Interviewee 3 points out that the current Irish Building Control Acts 1990 – 2021 and the
associated Building Control (Amendment) Regulations - BCAR 2014, does not account for
OSC / Modularisation Construction and certification. Furthermore, regulations also do not
support recycling repurpose and reuse, which restrains not only OSC adoption but also
sustainability in the industry.
Codes and regulations need to be kept up to date with industry developments to support
103 | P a g e
the use of modern construction methods and materials and allow recycling, repurpose and
reuse of materials to lead to a circular economy in the sector.
COVID-19 was mentioned as a driver in one of the survey responses. In the SSI, when asked
if COVID-19 will impact the adoption of OSC, one of the interviewees verified that the
pandemic situation is promoting the use of OSC, and the industry is rethinking construction
methods. However, the professionals interviewed report that COVID did not impact their
decision to use OSC on the projects they have been working.
Interviewees generally believed that OSC facilitates the adherence of social distancing
guidelines and other COVID restrictions without losing productivity. One of the interviewees
feels that COVID is now influencing OSC adoption; however, it might not last, and the
industry will fall back into traditional ways once COVID is less of an issue.
Although productivity enhancement was found as the most influential driver for OSC
adoption in the survey, it is important to highlight that drivers will vary depending on the
project and its requirements. Moreover, although asked to point the main driver,
interviewees responded to this question by giving more than one driver. Pointing multiples
drivers also occurred in almost all of the 8.9% survey respondents who had chosen the
option other and then listed the drivers for OSC adoption. This indicates that not one factor
isolated drives the adoption of this construction method in projects but an array of project’s
requirements that the use of OSC can attend.
5.4 Main barriers for the adoption of OSC

In this study, 43 barriers that constraints further adoption of OSC in Ireland were identified
in the secondary research. These barriers were divided into seven broad categories.
By prioritising each barrier and its categories, it was possible to verify the most relevant
barriers that hinder OSC adoption in Ireland and answer the research question.
From all the barriers identified, the “on-site installation risks” barrier was the only one that
had no significance in the study since it did not achieve a mean rating point of more than
2.5. Therefore, on-site installation risks cannot be considered a barrier that hinders OSC
adoption in Ireland.
Results from the survey revealed that the barrier category that most restrains the adoption
of OSC in Ireland is the one that congregates barriers related to Skill and Knowledge.
104 | P a g e
Two of the four barriers that most restrains further adoption of OSC are in the Skill and
Knowledge category. The other two barriers are from the Process and Programme category
and Industry and Market Culture category. Table 5-1 below presents the top four barriers
that most restrains OSC adoption in Ireland.
Table 5-1 Top four barriers that restrain OSC adoption in Ireland
Barriers that most restrain OSC adoption in Ireland
Current education and training still focused on traditional construction -(Skills and Knowledge
#1
category)
#2 Lack of understanding of the advantages of OSC - (Skills and Knowledge category)
#3 Changes after production has started are expensive - (Process and Programme category)
#4 Lack of incentive to support this approach by the government - (Industry and Market Culture)
Current Education and training being focussed on traditional construction were identified as
the barrier that most constraints OSC in Ireland. Survey results showed that 96% of
respondents agreed to some extent with this statement. Therefore, this barrier got the
highest MRj within all barriers listed, indicating that this barrier has the highest impact on
OSC uptake in Ireland.
Discussing this finding in the SSIs, all interviewees agreed that there are no specific courses
on OSC in Ireland.
Moreover, interviewee 3 reported that he has carried out research and found no university
or third level education institution in the country providing a course or short module within
Architecture, Engineering or Surveying on Modern Methods of Construction /
Modularisation. He explains that although Construction Technology is delivered, the courses
may not encompass the details currently being undertaken by large Irish firms and
multinational clients, particularly around semiconductor, data centre, and
biopharmaceutical projects.
Two of the interviewees from different OSC manufacturers & contractor companies report
that they have learned from experience and that their companies invest significantly in
internal training.
The interviewees pointed out that college and university courses are not refreshed as often
as they should be.
Another issue raised during interviews was that many professionals are in roles that they do
not have enough technical knowledge to develop. A repeated example was BIM
105 | P a g e
professionals who often do the design; however, they do not know about the systems that
they are modelling and do not know construction regulations and parameters. Therefore
they are seen as the “wrong” people developing the work.
Although there is this recognition of education and training being too focussed on
traditional construction and lacking courses on OSC and other modern methods of
construction, it is important to highlight that Ireland is perceived for forming good
construction professionals, as highlighted by Interviewee 4. This perception is realised
internationally, and many companies and professionals from Ireland are requested in
international projects.
For this recognition to continue and professionals formed in Ireland to keep being
perceived as good construction industry professionals, education and training on these
construction methods need to become part of third-level education courses and basic
training, so professionals are kept up to date with industry developments.
Moreover, as pointed out by Interviewee 2 the industry cannot wait for the professionals
graduating now to become the decision-makers of companies to start then adopting OSC
and more advanced construction methods. Therefore, for the more experienced
professionals in the industry who have completed their third level education, educational
institutions in conjunction with professional bodies should offer short courses and more
focussed training for their continuous professional development.
The creation of a new Construction Technology Centre in the country is part of the plans of
CSG to support the wider sector and help test and certify products, this is a great initiative,
but the country should not rely only on the Technology Center. Professional bodies and
third-level education institutions should work together and develop courses, training and
research on OSC and the skillsets needed to support this construction method development
in the country and address this gap in the current education.
The second barrier that most restrains OSC adoption in Ireland found in the survey was the
lack of understanding of OSC’s advantages. This was confirmed in the SSI when respondents
affirmed that they believe the wider market does not see the advantages of OSC.
Clients’ requirements dictate demand. Clients and professionals have to understand this
construction approach's advantages so that it starts to become a requirement in new
construction projects. This barrier was also under the skill and knowledge category,
106 | P a g e
reinforcing the idea that OSC needs to be fully understood and publicized in the market for
its wider adoption.
As defended by Gibb and Isack (2003), if professionals are not open to suggesting or
presenting OSC benefits, clients most likely will not have information and confidence in
adopting this method. Thus, the need to educate professionals and the market in this
construction approach to build confidence in clients to adopt OSC in their projects.
The SSI also revealed a lack of knowledge in the industry regarding the OSC ecosystem, as
posed by Interviewee 3. OSC suppliers do not know there is the demand by clients, and
construction industry clients are not aware of the array of suppliers in the Republic of
Ireland.
The larger companies are well known in the industry; however, the Irish construction
industry is formed mostly by SMEs, and these need to reach potential clients, and these
clients need to be aware of all their options. So a record of all OSC providers with their
details should exist as a logbook or website where clients interested in using OSC could
consult and find all the companies in the country.
Another barrier identified in the survey ranked as the third barrier that most restrains OSC
adoption in Ireland was the high costs of changes after production has started.
It is the construction industry norm to have changes done in design during project
executions; however, when using OSC, as mentioned before, a design freeze is essential for
its success.
Once production of elements and modules have started to make a change, a whole new
setup would need to be implemented, moreover differently from traditional construction if
there is a change in the works and it is not communicated beforehand to the off-site
manufacture, many interface problems can happen on-site which might not be simple to fix,
and the complete component or module would not work. Thus, it would generate a waste
of resources, materials, and time. These late changes would increase costs and impact also
projects’ time to market. Therefore advantages of this approach most likely would not be
achieved.
Another main barrier for OSC adoption in Ireland found in the primary research was the
government's lack of incentive to support this approach. This lack of support could be
verified on the SSI. It was repeatedly suggested during SSI that government should be
107 | P a g e
adopting OSC on their own projects. Moreover, the government role in creating a market
and assuring a pipeline of demand to support OSC manufacturers, specialists, and the whole
supply chain was one of the ideas among interviewees. Many companies and manufacturers
do not want to risk setting up a manufacturing operation if they cannot forecast a work
pipeline.
The Government has been taking action towards developing the construction industry since
the release of the report “Economic analysis of productivity in the Irish construction sector”.
The creation of the Construction Sector Group (CSG) and the working groups within it to
investigate and find the issues and needs of the industry is a start. However, the effort put
into the research and recommendations that these working groups will put forward needs
to get off the paper and be put into action. Furthermore, the collaboration and participation
of leading companies and professionals in the industry and professional bodies and third-
level education institutions would be needed.
Creating demand for OSC for public projects should be viable since the country’s demand for
social housing, schools, hospitals, and so forth exists.
5.5 Facilitators for the adoption of Off-site construction

One of the objectives of this research was to assess industry professionals’ use of some
tools and systems and if they perceived the potential of these as facilitators for OSC
adoption.
BIM and Lean Construction were pointed as the two most used tools and systems by the
respondents and also were the most recognised as facilitators for OSC adoption.
BIM’s potential to improve collaboration, coordination and integrate all phases of
construction was identified in the secondary research, and interviewees also pointed out
this characteristic during the SSIs. Moreover, interviewees confirmed that BIM has
facilitated the commercial side of projects, allowing greater client involvement as they can
actually see what will be built and how their project will look in the end. Interviewee 1
reports that this has allowed meeting client expectations more easily.
However, in the interviews, it was recurrent the opinion that BIM activities are being carried
out by people who do not have knowledge on how systems and elements work and fit on
site. That may result in a clash-free model but do not deliver a clash-free operation in the
construction phase.
108 | P a g e
Moreover, it was reported by Interviewee 3 that BIM modellers do not dominate building
regulations, and that creates rework and many times non-compliant building products and
systems. BIM platforms do not warn that the model does not comply with regulations. It
depends on the input of information. Therefore, BIM users should be familiar with projects
specifications and regulations to develop a compliant functional model. Furthermore, BIM
courses specifically for OSC lack in the market and are seen by interviewees as a need to the
market since OSC elements and systems have to account for tolerances and different
specifications from traditional building.
The amount of rework around BIM models in the present was reinforced in the SSIs. And the
high cost of BIM for companies was briefly pointed out.
For the last eight years, Ireland’s construction industry has been acting towards BIM
adoption. Several industry reports have advocated for the importance and benefits of this
technology to the industry's growth and increase in productivity. A recent investigation
done by Mcauley, West and Hore (2020) to assess BIM use and readiness for a government
mandate in Ireland presents that in 2018 although the government had developed a digital
strategy, this failed to advance in the industry due to lack of funding. Interviewee 3
expressed concern that OSC could take the same path as BIM in the Irish industry and not
advance. He also suggests that a BIM platform should be used in the end-to-end process
framework which should be developed to support OSC execution in projects.
The confluence of OSC and Lean Construction defended by Patil and Jain (2019) was
recognised by all interviewees. All agreed that lean has the potential to improve the
adoption of OSC.
As posed by interviewee 3, using lean to develop OSC would be the way to make it
sustainable since lean looks at the process and seeks to improve it continuously through the
integration of workflow, material flow, and information flow. This idea of lean supporting
OSC sustainability by integrating workflow was also defended by Seed (2015).
OSC requires this integration on and off-site. The adoption of lean can help create this flow
and build a more efficient, streamlined OSC delivery.
However, it could be noticed that some of the interviewees see lean as a tool instead of a
philosophy which may reflect a lack of knowledge around Lean concept.
109 | P a g e
The need for an end-to-end delivery model for OSC has been advocated by Rawlinson and
Knight (2018), and it has been confirmed in the SSIs by Interviewee 3.
All interviewees pointed out that the use of ICTs tools is of great help, not only in OSC but all
projects.
The attitude towards ICTs tools and systems was very positive and showed that current
projects rely more and more on those to allow real-time communication and engagement of
the whole supply chain. Some workers' resistance to using these tools was briefly
mentioned and dismissed as a problem. As posed by Interviewee 5 if the tool is seen as
helpful by the worker, they will use it.
Overall, tools and systems that can deliver real-time information are welcomed in the
industry. However, the integration of these tools was highlighted by interviewee 2. He
reported that due to poor integration of some systems, the same information is inputted
several times in different platforms that should be integrated.
Virtual reality, although not widely used by respondents, only 24.44% had used it. Had
51.1% of respondents recognising that it can facilitate the adoption of OSC.
In the SSIs, all participants agreed that VR has a great potential for commercial, training and
inspection purposes. It was reported that during COVID-19, the use of VR for quality
inspections was used in some projects in the country. The cost of use of VR systems was
pointed out as why it is not more widely used.
Overall, industry professionals perceive the potential for most suggested tools and systems
to aid OSC adoption.
However, the effective use of these systems and tools comes down to education/training,
skills and knowledge. For example, people modelling on BIM need to dominate construction
technologies, building regulations, and the elements' function so BIM can deliver all its
potential. Understanding of lean principles is necessary so it can be used in the whole
process of OSC and can actually create a flow and deliver projects as expected by clients.
ICT’s can enable collaboration among stakeholders but should be user friendly and facilitate
people’s work.
110 | P a g e
Chapter Conclusion and

Recommendations
6
111 | P a g e
Chapter 6 Conclusion and Recommendations
6.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the conclusions drawn from the main findings of this research.
Moreover, it outlines the contributions of the work and discusses its limitations. Also,
recommendations and opportunities for further research are made.
6.2 Conclusion
This research aimed to identify the barrier that most constrains OSC adoption in Ireland
through a qualitative and quantitative study of barriers’ level of impact perceived by
industry professionals.
A comprehensive literature review on the topic of OSC was carried out to understand the
benefits, drivers and barriers for OSC adoption and was base to formulate survey questions.
After the first analysis of survey results, the questions for semi-structured interviews were
formulated to discuss the topic with industry specialists and further investigate the topic.
The results from the questionnaire survey and SSIs analyses addressed the research
question and helped to achieve the proposed objectives, which were: identify the benefits
of OSC perceived in Ireland; examine the drivers for the adoption of OSC in the Irish
industry; investigate the barriers that constraints the adoption of OSC and prioritise the
barriers according to professionals perceptions, and identify modern systems and tools that
facilitate the adoption of OSC.
Questionnaire survey and SSIs result leads this study to conclude that:
• The lack of education and knowledge around OSC is what most restrains the
adoption of this construction method. There is a need to update courses adding
modules specific around OSC and all the skills/knowledge needed in OSC projects
(see list of OSC needs on appendix F).
• Although recognised by construction industry professionals, the benefits of OSC are
not recognised in the wider market. This can be related to the lack of education and
fomentation of knowledge towards OSC.
• Although sustainability and environmental benefits can be achieved with OSC,
construction industry professionals do not treat these aspects as a priority.
112 | P a g e
• Enhanced productivity and certainty of the delivery time are the main drivers for
OSC adoption in Ireland.
• There is a need to create a volume of demand to give certainty to OSC suppliers and
incentivise OSC investments. This is believed to be a government role by adopting
OSC in constructing schools, hospitals, and social housing projects.
• An end-to-end execution framework model for OSC needs to be developed to be
used in the industry and have a more streamlined delivery of projects using this
approach.
• Construction professionals in their projects are using modern systems and tools, and
these professionals perceive the potential that using modern systems and tools
have to aid OSC adoption.
• BIM professionals need to develop knowledge in codes and regulations and be more
familiar with construction processes and materials.
• Building regulations need to be updated to support the development of the industry
to a circular economy allowing recycling, repurpose and reuse of materials.
• The industry ecosystem needs to be known by suppliers and clients. A list of all
existing OSC solutions providers in Ireland should be created and be available for
public consultation.
• Covid-19 has been driving the use of modern tools and technologies in the
construction industry during the pandemic and has helped in inspections of
production and delivery of OSC projects.
6.3 Contribuitions and Limitations

This research was structured to give an insight into professionals in the Irish construction
industry towards the benefits, opportunities and challenges for wider adoption of OSC.
From what has been presented to this point, it is believed that this research has fulfilled its
purpose. Moreover, this research has contributed to knowledge by adding to literature and
studies on OSC, specifically in Ireland. It has uncovered some points concerning the
education and training of the industry that needs attention to be solved.
However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study:
113 | P a g e
• The views among different types of companies may not reflect the overall view
found in the study, where the main barrier for OSC manufacturers may be different
from design companies, contractors, etc. Secondary analysis on this was intended to
happen. However, the number of responses from each company type and the time
limitation to hand in this research did not allow this secondary study to be executed.
Therefore, sample size and research deadline were limitations for the research.
• The literature review was mainly based on the literature available on OSC in general
and considered broad and many times non-specific to Ireland as literature and
information available specifically concerning Ireland was very scarce.
• The semi-structured interviews were conducted with professionals involved with
OSC, and their views are constructed from their experience, which can be perceived
as bias.
6.4 Recommendations for future researches

Further research recommended are:
• Carry out secondary analysis with a more significant sample stratifying it by company
type to identify and understand barriers encountered for different stakeholders of
the OSC supply chain.
• Carry out case studies of adoption of OSC internationally and benchmark
international actions to overcome the barriers for OSC.
• Investigate the courses available in other countries third-level educational
institutions and professional bodies that should be introduced for AEC professionals
in Ireland.
• Benchmark building regulations for OSC with other countries that have successfully
adopted this construction approach and analyse current Irish building regulations to
investigate possible alterations and additions to attend OSC specifics.
114 | P a g e
Thesis Works Cited
115 | P a g e
Works Cited
Abanda, F. H., Tah, J. H. M. and Cheung, F. K. T. (2017) ‘BIM in off-site manufacturing for
buildings’, Journal of Building Engineering, 14(September), pp. 89–102. doi:
10.1016/j.jobe.2017.10.002.
Abdelmageed, S. and Zayed, T. (2020) ‘A study of literature in modular integrated
construction - Critical review and future directions’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, p.
124044. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124044.
Adams, W. C. (2015) ‘Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews’, Handbook of Practical
Program Evaluation: Fourth Edition, (August 2015), pp. 492–505. doi:
10.1002/9781119171386.ch19.
Ajayi, S. O. et al. (2015) ‘Waste effectiveness of the construction industry: Understanding
the impediments and requisites for improvements’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
102, pp. 101–112. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.001.
Akinci, B., Patton, M. and Ergen, E. (2000) ‘Utilizing Radio Frequency Identification on
Precast Concrete Components – Supplier ’ s Perspective’, (Furlani), pp. 1–7.
Arif, M. and Egbu, C. (2010) ‘Making a case for offsite construction in China’, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 17(6), pp. 536–548. doi:
10.1108/09699981011090170.
Arshed, N. and Danson, M. (2015) ‘The Literature Review’, in Research methods for business.
Second, pp. 31–49. doi: 10.23912/978-1-910158-51-7-2790.
Barros, J. (2020) ‘Construção industrializada x Lean construction’. Available at:
https://blogdaliga.com.br/o-que-e-industrializacao-na-construcao-e-por-que-investir-nela/.
Bertram, N. et al. (2019) ‘Modular construction: From projects to products’, Capital Projects
& Infrastructure, (June), pp. 1–30. Available at:
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-infrastructure/our-
insights/modular-construction-from-projects-to-products.
Biörck, J. et al. (2020) ‘How construction can emerge stronger after coronavirus’,
Engineering, Construction and Building Materials Practice, (May).
Bitpower Ltd. (2021) Tracking Ireland’s Data Hosting Industry. Available at:
http://bitpower.ie/index.php/dashboard (Accessed: 7 June 2021).
116 | P a g e
Blismas, N. and Wakefield, R. (2008) ‘Offsite manufacture in Australia: barriers and

opportunities.’ Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27182.
Blismas, N. and Wakefield, R. (2009) ‘Drivers, constraints and the future of offsite
manufacture in Australia’, Construction Innovation, 9(1), pp. 72–83. doi:
10.1108/14714170910931552.
Bock, T. (2015) ‘Automation in Construction The future of construction automation :
Technological disruption and the upcoming ubiquity of robotics’, Automation in
Construction, 59, pp. 113–121. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.022.
Bouchrika, I. (2021) Primary Research vs Secondary Research: Definitions, Differences, and
Examples, Guide2Research.
Bowmaster, J. and Rankin, J. (2019) ‘A Research Roadmap for Off-Site Construction:
Automation and Robotics’, Modular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit Proceedings,
pp. 173–180. doi: 10.29173/mocs91.
Boyd, N., Khalfan, M. M. A. and Maqsood, T. (2013) ‘Off-Site Construction of Apartment
Buildings’, Journal of Architectural Engineering, 19(1), pp. 51–57. doi:
10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000091.
Browne, D. (2020) ‘IRELAND - OFF SITE MANUFACTURING Architects ’ Perspective’.
Carnemolla, P. K. (2019) ‘Scoping potential of virtual reality and offsitemanufacturing’, in
Jack S. Goulding, F. P. R. (ed.) Offsite Production and Manufacturing for Innovative
Construction, People, Proces and Technology, pp. 163–188.
Carvalho, B. S. de (2020) UM MÉTODO DE ENTREGA DE PROJETO PARA CONSTRUÇÃO
MODULAR BASEADO NOS PRINCÍPIOS LEAN. UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO PARANÁ. Available
at:
https://www.prppg.ufpr.br/siga/visitante/trabalhoConclusaoWS?idpessoal=3730&idprogra
ma=40001016049P2&anobase=2020&idtc=125.
Clancy (2020) 24 Bed Fast Track Isolation Ward. Available at: https://clancy.ie/university-
hospital-limerick/ (Accessed: 5 June 2021).
Clark, R. (2020) ‘20 years in offsite construction and counting’. Available at:
https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/category/mmc-news/.
Construction Industry Federation (2020) CIF Modern Methods of Construction.
Couto, A. B. and Couto, P. (2008) Vantagens Produtivas e Ambientais da Pré-fabricação.
117 | P a g e
Davies, A. (2018) ‘Modern Methods of Construction Modern Methods of Construction’, Rics,

(September), p. 62.
DCCAE (2021) ‘Whole of Government Circular Economy Strategy Pre-consultation’, p. 25.
Demiralp, G., Guven, G. and Ergen, E. (2012) ‘Automation in Construction Analyzing the
bene fi ts of RFID technology for cost sharing in construction supply chains : A case study on
prefabricated precast components’, Automation in Construction, 24, pp. 120–129. doi:
10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.005.
Department of Business, E. and I. (2020) ‘Focus on Construction August 2020’, (August).
Domdouzis, K., Kumar, B. and Anumba, C. (2007) ‘Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID)
applications: A brief introduction’, Advanced Engineering Informatics, 21(4), pp. 350–355.
doi: 10.1016/j.aei.2006.09.001.
Durdyev, S. and Mbachu, J. (2011) ‘On-site labour productivity of New Zealand construction
industry: Key constraints and improvement measures’, Australasian Journal of Construction
Economics and Building, 11(3), pp. 18–33. doi: 10.5130/ajceb.v11i3.2120.
Engineers Ireland (2019) THE STATE OF IRELAND 2019: A Review of housing and
Infrastructure in Ireland. Available at:
https://www.engineersireland.ie/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SHtzZx9nDDg%3D&portalid=0&re
sourceView=1#:~:text=The State of Ireland 2019 is an independent assessment of,sectors of
the country’s infrastructure.
English, D. (2019) Nithe i dtosach suíonna (Atógáil) - Commencement Matters (Resumed)
Housing Policy. Available at: https://www.kildarestreet.com/sendebates/?id=2019-05-
28a.27 (Accessed: 6 April 2021).
Enterprise Ireland (2018) The Future Data Centre: Trends in smart data centre design and
construction.
EPA (2020) CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION WASTE STATISTICS FOR IRELAND, EPA Waste
Data Release. Available at:
https://www.epa.ie/nationalwastestatistics/constructiondemolition/ (Accessed: 4 February
2021).
Expert Group on Future Skills Needs (2020) Building Future Skills.
Farmer, M. (2016) ‘The Farmer Review of the UK Construction Labour Model’, Farmer, M.
(2016). Modernise or die: The Framer Review of the UK construction labour market.
118 | P a g e
Retrieved from, p. 76. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/constructionlabour-%0Amarket-in-the-uk-
farmer-review.
Fitzgerald, A. (2020) ‘Work begins on major hospital projects in Limerick to add capacity in
response to pandemic’, Limerick Leader, 6 April. Available at:
https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/532716/workbegins-on-major-hospital-projects-
in-limerick-to-add-capacity-in-response-topandemic.html.
Forcael, E., Ferrari, I. and Opazo-vega, A. (2020) ‘Construction 4 . 0 : A Literature Review’.
Fraser, N. et al. (2015) ‘An Offsite Guide for the Building and Engineering Services Sector’,
(April), pp. 1–144. Available at:
http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/10.1680/mpal.13.00031.
Gbadamosi, A. et al. (2019) ‘Offsite construction : Developing a BIM-Based optimizer for
assembly’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, pp. 1180–1190. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.113.
Gibb, A. (1999) Off-site fabrication : prefabrication, pre-assembly and modularisation.
Caithness, Scotland, UK: Whittles Piblishing.
Gibb, A. and Isack, F. (2003) ‘Re-engineering through pre-assembly: client expectations and
drivers’, Building Research & Information, 31(2), pp. 146–160. doi:
10.1080/09613210302000.
Goh, M. and Goh, Y. M. (2019) ‘Lean production theory-based simulation of modular
construction processes’, Automation in Construction, 101(June 2017), pp. 227–244. doi:
10.1016/j.autcon.2018.12.017.
Gonçalves, M. A. (2010) ‘Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais’, Rahis, (2). doi:
10.21450/rahis.v0i2.782.
Goodier, C. and Gibb, A. (2007) ‘Future opportunities for offsite in the UK’, Construction
Management and Economics, 25(6), pp. 585–595. doi: 10.1080/01446190601071821.
Goulding, J. et al. (2012) ‘Offsite Construction: Strategic Priorities for Shaping the Future
Research Agenda’, Architectoni.ca, 1(1), pp. 62–73. doi: 10.5618/arch.2012.v1.n1.7.
Grazynski, D. (2017) ‘Survey Response Rates , Validity , and Survey Fatigue’, Office of
Institutional Research, 52(1999), p. 1999. Available at:
https://wiki.fairfield.edu/display/IR/Fairfield+University+Institutional+Research+Survey+Res
119 | P a g e
ponse+Rates+and+Validity.
Great Britian Ministry of Housing (2019a) ‘Modern methods of construction, Introducing the
MMC Definition Framework’, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.
Available at: http://www.cast-consultancy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/MMC-I-Pad-
base_GOVUK-
FINAL_SECURE.pdf%0Ahttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modern-methods-of-
construction-working-group-developing-a-definition-framework.
Great Britian Ministry of Housing (2019b) ‘Modern methods of construction, Introducing the
MMC Definition Framework’, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.
Günther, H. (2003) ‘Como Elaborar um Questionario’.
Gusmao, B. S. et al. (2021) ‘A review on the interactions of robotic systems and lean
principles in offsite construction’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print). doi: 10.1108/ECAM-10-2020-0809.
Health and Safety Authority (2020) Annual Review of Workplace Injury, Illness and Fatality
Statistics 2018-2019. Available at:
https://www.hsa.ie/eng/publications_and_forms/publications/corporate/annual_review_of
_workplace_injury_illness_and_fatality_statistics_2018-2019.pdf.
Hong, J. et al. (2016) ‘Life-cycle energy analysis of prefabricated building components: An
input-output-based hybrid model’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, pp. 2198–2207. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.030.
Hosseini, R. et al. (2013) ‘Approaches of Implementing ICT Technologies within the
Construction Industry’, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building -
Conference Series, 1(2), p. 1. doi: 10.5130/ajceb-cs.v1i2.3161.
Host in Ireland (2021) IRELAND’S DATA HOSTING INDUSTRY In association with Biannual
Report May 2021.
House of Lords’ Science and Technology Select Committee (2018) ‘Off-site manufacture for
construction: Building for change-Oral and Written Evidence’, (Cic), p. 600.
House of Lords (2018) Science and Tecnology Select Committee Off-site manufacture for
construction: Building for change. Available at:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldsctech/169/16908.htm#_idText
Anchor058 (Accessed: 29 October 2020).
120 | P a g e
Hubbard, B. and Hubbard, S. M. (2019) ‘Stakeholder transformation in OSM infrastructure

construction’, in Offsite Production and Manufacturing for Innovative Construction, People,
Process and Technology, pp. 359–376.
IPPO (2019) Project Ireland 2040 BUILD Construction Sector Performance and Prospects
2019. Available at: gov.ie/2040.
Irish Building Magazine (2021) ‘Closing the Construction Skills Gap’. Available at:
https://www.irishbuildingmagazine.ie/2021/05/14/closing-the-construction-skills-gap/.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C. S. and Chiang, Y. H. (2009) ‘Quantifying the waste reduction potential of
using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong’, Waste Management, 29(1), pp.
309–320. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.015.
Jin, R. et al. (2018) ‘A holistic review of off-site construction literature published between
2008 and 2018’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, pp. 1202–1219. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.195.
Jones, M. (2014) ‘Using Software to Analyse Qualitative Data’, (January 2007).
Juhl, D. (2014) ‘Assessment of ICT Tools for Construction Material Management in the
Stockholm Region’, p. 86.
Kirwan, P. (2021) Modern Methods of Construction: A driver for increased levels of output in
the Irish Residential Market. University of Salford Manchester.
Knaack, U., Chung-Klatte, S. and Hasselbach, R. (2012) Prefabricated Systems: Principles of
Construction. doi: 10.1515/9783034611404.
KPMG (2016) ‘Smart Construction’:, (April), pp. 4–22. Available at:
https://www.buildoffsite.com/content/uploads/2016/08/KPMG-Smart-Construction.pdf.
KPMG FAC and TU Dublin (2020) ‘Economic analysis of productivity in the Irish Economic
analysis of productivity in the Irish construction sector Contents’, pp. 1–160.
Larsson, J. and Simonsson, P. (2012) ‘Barriers and drivers for increased use of off-site bridge
construction in Sweden’, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, ARCOM
2012 - Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference, 2(September), pp. 751–761.
Lindberg, L. (2020) Circular Economy in the Built Environment. Available at:
https://www.rics.org/eu/news-insight/latest-news/news-opinion/circular-economy-in-the-
built-environment/ (Accessed: 13 June 2021).
Lindemann, N. (2019) What’s The Average Survey Response Rate? Available at:
121 | P a g e
https://surveyanyplace.com/blog/average-survey-response-rate/.
Linesight (2021) The evolution of data centres. Available at: https://www.linesight.com/en-
gb/insights/the-evolution-of-data-centers/ (Accessed: 7 June 2021).
Lloyd, I. (2020) How VR Technology is Being Used in the Construction Industry. Available at:
https://www.futurevisual.com/blog/construction-vr-training/ (Accessed: 24 May 2021).
Lu, W. et al. (2018) ‘Searching for an optimal level of prefabrication in construction: An
analytical framework’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 201(August), pp. 236–245. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.319.
Luo, L. Z. et al. (2015) ‘Risk factors affecting practitioners’ attitudes toward the
implementation of an industrialized building system a case study from China’, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 22(6), pp. 622–643. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-04-
2014-0048.
Luo, M. . and Chen, D. (2018) ‘Application of BIM technology in prefabricated building’, in
International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management: Innovative
Technology and Intelligent Construction (ICCREM 2018). Charleston, SC, USA, pp. 263–270.
Malmqvist, J. et al. (2019) ‘Conducting the Pilot Study: A Neglected Part of the Research
Process? Methodological Findings Supporting the Importance of Piloting in Qualitative
Research Studies’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, pp. 1–11. doi:
10.1177/1609406919878341.
Manley, K. and Widén, K. (2020) ‘Prefabricated housing firms in Japan and Sweden’, Offsite
Production and Manufacturing for Innovative Construction, (December), pp. 399–418. doi:
10.1201/9781315147321-17.
Mao, C. et al. (2013) ‘Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site
prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential
projects’, Energy and Buildings, 66, pp. 165–176. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033.
Mao, C. et al. (2016) ‘Cost analysis for sustainable off-site construction based on a multiple-
case study in China’, Habitat International, 57, pp. 215–222. doi:
10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.08.002.
McAuley, B. and Hore, A. (2020) ‘The role of digital in Facilitating the Offsite Process’, CiTA,
pp. 1–4.
Mcauley, B., West, R. P. and Hore, A. V (2020) ‘The Irish Construction Industry ’ s State of
122 | P a g e
Readiness for a BIM mandate in The Irish Construction I ndustry ’ s State of Readiness for a
BIM mandate in 2020’, (November).
McKinsey & Company (2017) ‘REINVENTING CONSTRUCTION : A ROUTE TO HIGHER
PRODUCTIVITY’, (February).
Mohsin, W. (2011) Offsite manufacturing as a means of improving productivity in New
Zealand construction industry : key barriers to adoption and improvement measures.
Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10179/2685.
Mortensen, D. H. (2020) How to Do a Thematic Analysis of User Interviews. Available at:
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/how-to-do-a-thematic-analysis-of-
user-interviews (Accessed: 11 July 2021).
Musa, M. F. et al. (2016) ‘Towards the adoption of modular construction and prefabrication
in the construction environment: A case study in Malaysia’, ARPN Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences, 11(13), pp. 8122–8131.
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. doi:
10.1108/14714171011037183.
Naoum, S. G. (2019) Dissertation Research and Writing for Built Environment Students,
Dissertation Research and Writing for Built Environment Students. doi:
10.1201/9781351203913.
‘National Skills Bulletin 2019’ (2019).
O’Halloran, B. (2021) ‘Commercial Property Construction All Business Falling cost of modular
building may benefit house building’, 4 August. Available at:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/falling-cost-of-modular-building-may-
benefit-house-building-1.4638083.
Ó’Murchadha, E. and Murphy, R. (2018) ‘Trades & Apprenticeships Skills Survey’, Cif. doi:
10.21427/t2cr-p007.
Ogunbiyi, O. (2014) ‘Implementation of the Lean Approach in Sustainable Construction : A
Conceptual Framework, Lancashire, Central’, PhD. Thesis, (April), p. pp441.
Pan, W., Gibb, A. and Dainty, A. (2005) ‘Offsite Modern Methods of Construction in
Housebuilding Perspectives and Practices of Leading UK Housebuilders’, Strategies, (April
2015).
123 | P a g e
PSBJ (2019) ‘OFFSITE CONSTRUCTION FOR AIRPORTS – THE DUBLIN AIRPORT APPROACH’,
Public Sector Build Journal, April. Available at:
https://psbjmagazine.com/features/infrastructure/4660/offsite-construction-for-airports-
the-dublin-airport-approach/.
Rahimian, F. P. and Goulding, J. S. (2019) ‘Offsite manufacturing Envisioning the future
agenda’, in Offsite Production and Manufacturing for Innovative Construction, People,
Process and Technology, pp. 1–22.
Rawlinson, S. and Knight, J. (2018) ‘The Benefits of Offsite Construction for Housing’,
(October).
Ribas, J. (2016) Quer resultados mais precisos? Contamos como fazer um questionário de
pesquisa online! Available at: https://rockcontent.com/br/blog/questionario-de-pesquisa/
(Accessed: 9 April 2021).
Richard McPartland (2017) ‘BIM dimensions - 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D BIM explained’. Available at:
https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/bim-dimensions-3d-4d-5d-6d-bim-
explained#:~:text=BIM dimensions are different to BIM maturity levels.&text=By adding
additional dimensions of,it should be maintained etc.
Ruschel, R. (2008) ‘Tecnologia da Informação e Comunicação na Construção Civil : uma
experiência de ensino CONSTRUÇÃO CIVIL : UMA EXPERIÊNCIA DE ENSINO’, (January).
Salama, T., Moselhi, O. and Al-Hussein, M. (2018) Modular Industry Characteristics and
Barriers to its Increased Market Share, Modular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit
Proceedings. doi: 10.29173/mocs34.
Sardroud, J. M. (2012) ‘Influence of RFID technology on automated management of
construction materials and components’, Scientia Iranica, 19(3), pp. 381–392. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.02.023.
SCSI/PwC (2019) ‘SCSI/PwC Construction Market Monitor 2019’, Report, (May), pp. 1–18.
Available at: https://www.pwc.ie/reports/scsi-pwc-construction-survey-2018.html.
Searson, M. (2020) Modern Methods of Construction Update on the Irish Construction
industry, CitA Digital Transformation Series – November 2020.
Seed, W. R. (2015) ‘Lean construction defined’, Transforming Design and Construction: A
Framework for Change, pp. 27–31.
Sezer, A. A. and Bröchner, J. (2019) ‘Site managers’ ICT tools for monitoring resources in
124 | P a g e
refurbishment’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(1), pp. 109–

127. doi: 10.1108/ECAM-02-2018-0074.
Sirtoli, A. S. C. (2015) ‘Industrialização da Construção Civil, Sistemas Pré-Fabricados de
Concreto e Suas Aplicações’, p. 75.
Smith A, T. Y. (2015) ‘Lean Thinking: An Overview’, Industrial Engineering and Management,
04(02), pp. 1–6. doi: 10.4172/2169-0316.1000159.
Smith, R. E. (2016) ‘Off-Site and Modular Construction Explained’, National Institute of
Building Sciences, p. 11. Available at: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/site-and-modular-
construction-explained.
Southern, J. (2016) ‘Smart Construction: How offsite manufacturing can transform our
industry’, Kpmg Uk, (April), pp. 4–22. Available at:
https://www.buildoffsite.com/content/uploads/2016/08/KPMG-Smart-Construction.pdf.
Taylor, S. (2009) ‘Offsite Production in the UK Construction Industry, abrief overview’, Hse,
London: Co, p. 30.
Vice-President of Academic Affairs and Registrar (2019) ‘LIT Research Ethics Guidelines for’.
Vrijhoef, R. and Koskela, L. (2000) ‘The four roles of supply chain management in
construction’, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 6(3–4), pp. 169–
178. doi: 10.1016/S0969-7012(00)00013-7.
Wang, M., Wang, C. C. and Sepasgozar, S. (2020) ‘A Systematic Review of Digital Technology
Adoption’.
Wang, Y., Li, H. and Wu, Z. (2019) ‘Attitude of the Chinese public toward off-site
construction: A text mining study’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 238, p. 117926. doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117926.
Wilkinson, D. and Birmingham, P. (2003) Using Research Instruments A Guide for
Researchers.
World Economic Forum (2016) ‘Shaping the Future of Construction A Breakthrough in
Mindset and Technology’, (May).
Wuni, I. Y. and Shen, G. Q. (2020) ‘Barriers to the adoption of modular integrated
construction: Systematic review and meta-analysis, integrated conceptual framework, and
strategies’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119347.
Yang, Y., Pan, W. and Pan, M. (2017) ‘Manufacturing of modular buildings: a literature
125 | P a g e
review’, Modular and Offsite Construction (MOC) Summit Proceedings, (November). doi:
10.29173/mocs52.
Young, B. E. et al. (2020) ‘Modular construction innovation in the UK: The case of residential
buildings’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management, 0(March), pp. 806–816.
Young, J. (2019) ‘Panelised and Modular Offsite Construction’.
Zegarra, S. L. V., Junior, V. F. and Cardoso, F. F. (1999) ‘Tecnologia da Informação e a
Indústria da Construção de Edifícios’, Upe-Antac, 7(1999), pp. 71–80. Available at:
http://www.pcc.usp.br/files/text/personal_files/francisco_cardoso/SibrageqVillagarciaCard
oso.pdf.
Zhang, J. et al. (2016) ‘BIM-enabled Modular and Industrialized Construction in China’,
Procedia Engineering, 145, pp. 1456–1461. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.183.
Zhengdao, C. et al. (2018) ‘Automation in Construction An Internet of Things-enabled BIM
platform for on-site assembly services in prefabricated construction’, 89(November 2017),
pp. 146–161. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2018.01.001.
126 | P a g e
Appendix
A- Email response received from Engineers Ireland
127 | P a g e
B- Pilot Survey
128 | P a g e
129 | P a g e
130 | P a g e
131 | P a g e
132 | P a g e
133 | P a g e
134 | P a g e
135 | P a g e
136 | P a g e
137 | P a g e
C - Survey questionnaire
138 | P a g e
139 | P a g e
140 | P a g e
141 | P a g e
142 | P a g e
143 | P a g e
144 | P a g e
145 | P a g e
146 | P a g e
147 | P a g e
148 | P a g e
D- Interview invite, consent form and questions
149 | P a g e
150 | P a g e
151 | P a g e
E- Interview transcript
From your experience what are the advantages of using off-site construction in a project?
Interviewee 1:
The speed of getting the items into site, so you just have to do the prep work on site, and
everything is happening off-site as just landed in put together, so it really speeds things up
on site.
But also quality. So that’s because the items they tend to be the same whereas when it's all
put together on site everything is different because you might have different people doing it
and they don't go through the same kind of quality check.
So really, for me, the quality, the time. But that comes at a cost.
Interviewee 2:
It's done in a controlled manner. It's usually repetitive by the company that's doing it, so if
they've been doing the same thing for a number of years, they get faster, cheaper, and
better quality.
So, in my experience if you can take it off site-controlled environment, better quality, faster,
cheaper.
Interviewee 3:
So, the advantages are there in my first report, but it's keeping labour and materials off-site
during a weathered, controlled environment like a factory-controlled environment. There is
a debate around is the quality control or the level of it's still the same because you're now
trusting the outside manufacturer? And if there's something wrong, or there's something
inherently missed, and then the next module it doesn't get picked up on the 5th or the 10th
module, it's too late, because now it's inherent in all the modules, so the insurance
companies are a bit nervous about off-site modular, because if there's a mistake in design or
the structure of some module or the assembly, and it doesn't get picked up in the factory
next 10 or 20, you want to keep coming out till somebody picks it up and there could be 100
made at that stage before it's too late and then who is checking the guys in the factory
because with the process piping that goes on a lot of this stuff arrives to site that's not
correct, and all will fix it on site, but that's the whole point of being off site.
152 | P a g e
So, there is still debate around the quality control, quality assurance side of it, but in terms
of people are in a nicer, cleaner environment, there's less transport to sites. So, reduces
footprint of Labour traffic.
Transportation is then cut down because you're just bringing up modules now, and but then
you're also so many discussed about the materials, then have to be imported or brought
into the factory. Is that not adding to sustainability?
So, there's a whole measurement to go around that sustainability. How really effective it is.
But the advantages then, is this production mindset, are scheduling or drawing down of the
product or maybe putting it into that production plus allows the construction to run in
parallel, so you can still do your civils and your structural and your concrete and your
ground works while these modules are being made ready to be dropped into position. Either
we start developing the knowledge and the technology and the skills and everything around
us, or otherwise we will fall behind again in terms of productivity, and we have to meet
demand for the future of the number of units and houses and infrastructure that's needed.
So yeah, there's great advantages and the smart companies and their people have seen the
advantages and it's time to market that gives you that time and cost certainty around that.
Interviewee 4:
I think what you do really get is in addition to safety and less men on-site, I think you get
opportunity, if planned in advance correctly you get less change in your design, which is
probably a good thing for the people who are building it.
And then I think you get more schedule certainty so you know you could argue about all of
those factors, and you'll get different answers, but certainly that would be my opinion:
Cost certainty.
Increased quality & safety due to factory environment and less trades on site.
Time to Market improvements and schedule improvements if Off-site Construction is
utilized fully in planning and preconstruction activities for the project.
Project Design & planning and Preconstruction activities are more integrated , and it forces
the project to be worked out on paper instead of in the field .
153 | P a g e
Interviewee 5:
There's assurance that delivery right when it's done off site. We demonstrate productivity
and quality and everything else. And don't have the constraints that we have on this
particular site with logistics.
These people working there you've got to look after these amount of people from a safety
point of view, you have to look after them from a quality delivery point of view. You have to
look after them with welfare and you know walking time on this and the site of this big. You
lose a lot of money with people going up to get their lunch. You know it's massive and so
when you take that away and you put it into an environment in which it's more of a
production manufacturing line. It's a production line that that runs very productively. We
get the fellows working on the same thing, so they become very much understanding of
what has to be done and it's much more efficient. We also certainly doing that the
production line and the rolling down on wheels. These big things and it's exactly like you
would do anything in the car manufacturer to be able to improve the efficiency. Things
come in with the quality. When the people are trained correctly.
So the OSC ads to quality and it adds to right first time approach and again we set the
standard.
Do you think the market see and understand these advantages?
Interviewee 1:
Not really. To me most of them don't care unless, some of them are the end user,
but like they'll just see time, time or cost.
Where they should be looking a bit more of the quality, I find that that falls down a little bit
in their priorities.
Interviewee 2:
Yeah, for sure, I'm working for a blue-chip company at the moment, and they want to have
they've given us a goal of 60% construction off-site over the next five years.
154 | P a g e
Interviewee 3:
Yeah, the mature clients do. So, the ones that have done it or tried it.
There is still a lot of nervousness, especially with the public sector, when I talk government
departments, they've had a lot of pain with some of those modules there was houses built
in 1980 that were in Dublin, but they didn't, what happened was moisture build-up in the
back in these units and then this is the inherent problems or defects.
Off-site benefits such as they are weathering, you're in a controlled environment, in a
factory environment your materials are available so it's more leaner, more efficient, those
benefits are intangible to the client or the developer.
Well, the more mature clients as I said are aware of where the value are, and when I say
mature who have been doing modular for a number of years be at the pharmaceuticals, the
data centers you know or main contractors or especially mechanical electrical contractors,
they've been doing a few years. They see that. And they don’t see challenges as challenges
they see them as roadblocks, and they are solving them.
Nobody wants to be the Guinea pig or the first person. But the ones who have done it are
now offering that as a differentiator or an advantage to the clients.
It's about risk and appetite and who wants it.
Interviewee 4:
Yes. But there is also a perception that this approach always reduces cost and this is not
always true.
Ans if we take, well within the sort of complex building environment I would say that time to
market probably contrast from everything. I think the commercial obviously this is massive
and will continue to be a massive factor, but I think they will consider time to market
advantages, especially in the data center and the conductor industry, they are really key
advantages. So, if they're prepared to maybe invest and commit, you know small amount to
get at the supply chain moving to get the material prepped, it’s like putting a deposit down
if you know, if they're prepared to do that, make part payments, they really will get the
advantages of time to Market. So, you know, I think cost then time to market are the real
key factor here for the for the end users.
155 | P a g e
But if we take residential market, margins are less in that industry, you know, builders are,
the supply chains are more local. They are less skilled up. If you look at Ireland,
albeit you see some of these big vulture funds now around and they're building, you know
much larger developments overall, further squeezing every square foot at the site and
they're using more modular approach within bigger scale approaches to residential
development. So, you start, you're starting to see that come into the bigger developments.
But lesser in the sort of more traditional healthy developments.
I mean it, it really is rinse and repeat. You know if we can minimize the design thing, or if we
can, you know, pause any design changes till the next evolution you know on phase two or
phase three. But that's the great debate between contractors and clients, because the client
wants to make a tweak, or a change and the contractor is saying well we have everything
ready here to go. And it's the great debate, it just brings it more to focus really in the you
know, the modular approach because it's very painful to change, you know, make changes
along the way.
So, if you just take the data center market, one of the longest items that you have to order
in the data center market are actually generator and big power supplies big batteries and
things right. But they can take 6 - 4 months to six months, you know, from the time you
order them, right? So effectively you've built the building before, you know, all of these
things arrive. So, if there are changes to these modules, be the electrical room, be the
generator modules or containers. If if the clients or the designers changes those along the
way well, then if you are flipping back your, you know, your ordering period again. Now
that's an extreme example, but yea if design start to change during project you lose any
advantage of modular.
Interviewee 5:
I don't think so, no right? And that's where I mean, we're doing we're looking at other jobs,
and in the UK, and for the battery industry for car battery industry and were trying to sell an
idea in some of these and and. It's the market doesn't see it at this point in time the
advantage of it has to be demonstrated to them, they’re very slow again to.. but once
they're educated and once there brought through the advantages and. And as I said, I
touched upon a couple of things. You know when you demonstrated that you know to some
156 | P a g e
of the market that there is a cost, that there is maybe a cost advantage when you
demonstrate that against maybe I don't know productivity claims or whatever the case is,
and the job. It's it changes their view, but again sometimes you know I don't want to sell it
too hard because then I'm taking the cream of my margins. The you know on productivity .
So, I will say Laura, there's a fine line between selling it aggressively, and the client adopting
it, you know you understand.
They'll be looking for OK, so you give me back what you're what you're making on your
productivity. You know so there's, you know Laura, I want them to make up their own minds
with the data that's presented without selling it that I'm going to bring huge amounts of
savings on it.
What would you say is the main driver to adopt this approach in construction projects?
Interviewee 1:
Over the last number of years that would have been more to do with the hotels and
apartments residential aspect, but I think now it is changing to being data centers. So, I
don't think they've adapted it fully yet.
Interviewee 2:
Certainly, live plants, I am working in a live pharma plant at the moment, and to try and get
hours off-site is a big thing, because to carry out some work on alive farmer plant the rigor is
because you know you've got a live factory environment with emissions and you know an
awful lot of EPA, rigor. So, to get as many hours as you can in proper construction off that,
that kind of cocoon. It's yeah, it's much better.
That's certainly today, that's my driver to get hours off-site.
It's more productive, its less hassle, and it's more efficient.
Interviewee 3:
It is time and cost certainty. Sustainability unfortunately, is not there and it's very
disappointing.
Less than 5% of the respondents we interviewed, even to the team that I have this 27 on the
team that I'm doing. I sent out the sustainable materials. Only one girl came back with
157 | P a g e
information around sustainability, so the drivers aren't there. The legislation isn't there. The
regulations aren’t there.
I spoke to one of the team and they said to me that for example if they want to use concrete
that's already an existing solution and they if they crush it on site, they can use it, if they
take it off site and get it crushed, they cannot use back on the site.
So, the rules and regulations are just not.
What we discovered is the standards and regulations haven't kept up with the innovation
and changes that are going on in the industry. So, we still have old standards from 1990 or
2000s, but we're now in 2020.
Also there is a lack of knowledge, and the lack of regular people don't understand codes and
its very low power barriers to entry into the market.
You can set up construction company tomorrow, you don't need any knowledge or
experience this is what's causing the problem.
So how can we innovate if we don't have the knowledge here.
Interviewee 4:
Reduced time to Market; Less overheads on site; Increased Quality; Repeatability – get it
right first time.
I think I think already, you know, there was a bit of a fault zone in data center modular
construction, maybe about 10 or 15 years ago when people talked about containerizing and
putting everything in the module. I think that was a bit of a fault zone, but I would say now
over the last three or four years Modular and off-site construction techniques are coming
more and more to the front in the data center delivery, uh, also in semiconductor and how
highly complex pharmaceutical, you know, deliveries.
There has been a long history of them off by manufacturing when it comes to mechanical
systems, piping, containment, etc. So, you know we're seeing more and more of that, uh, in
those sectors as well, so I think as the subcontract and supply base mature, we will continue
to see more and more of it because it's less men on site. Its higher quality being built in a in
a factory environment, the cost is always a debate that the client expects it to be cheaper,
but you know, I've been on the client side for many years and now I'm on the other side.
158 | P a g e
You know that that's not always the case and I I think depending on the logistics, depending
on your supply base, and depending on where the actual off-site is, they're all real key factor
in addition to the cost of the actual modular piece of equipment. So I think what you do
really get is in addition to safety and less men on-site. I think you get, you know opportunity,
and I think they get if planned in advance correctly you get less change in your design, which
is probably a good thing for the people who are building it. And and then I think you get
more schedule certainty so you know you could argue about all of those factors and you'll
get different answers, but certainly that would be my opinion
Interviewee 5:
Uhm? A big part of this project, it's a very, very aggressive schedule. Obviously for the likes
of CLIENT and that a lot of the semiconductors it's a race to the market and raced it to get
PRODUCT TYPE out. Technology changes very quick in the in this industry, and whereas you
could be delayed and a construction job by the time you get to the end of it with the tools,
but they called it the machines that make the PRODUCT TYPE. We could be, you know
PRODUCTS are out of date. So so schedule assurance and delivering extremely as a client or
extremely aggressive in getting that. So hence as a result of that certainly they are very
much in favour of OSM because of that.
So here are a lot of time has been spent over the many years of developing OSM in some
form, and it was never to the scale in which it's done now on this particular job. So, we were
involved at the very early stages of this in America when WELL KNOWN COMPANY NAME
was designing it so that we could give the input so that the design would be able to factor in
for the OSM, because like everything here, how you design it or how you design the piping
or anything like that, it actually dictates how you're going to build it. And a lot of cases you'd
be spending a lot of money and time redoing stuff, which is which is counterproductive.
159 | P a g e
What about the main barrier that restrain the adoption of this approach in your view?
Interviewee 1:
So, part of it is mentality and people do what they're used to doing.
And again, the cost. If they don't have their own off-site manufacturing company or factory,
they have to then pay someone else to do that, whereas they have guys on their labour
force, and they'll expect them just to do the work.
So it is that change but also that they can put in that cost at the beginning and still be able
to win the tender.
Or, if we actually transitioned to doing more off-site manufacturing, obviously it does
become cheaper, but you need to try and get it that it's a bit more local to where the sites
are, at the minute I think a lot of the factories or such are down the country, and then you
you're trying to store and transport. But again, scale of projects.
Interviewee 2:
I would say it has to do with people and market and some relation to things are done in a
certain way for a long time and its hard to change. The clients in the market need to pull
this . For that they need to see results, for my clients I said guys, this is going to be a saving.
It's going to be shared savings. Saving for the contractors, but it's also going to be saving for
the clients. And I think if you start with that it's almost a sales pitch. It's almost a what's in it
for me? And I think the proof and that's one of the things we're trying to do in lean
construction is get some evidence of savings because unless you have that evidence, there's
going to be no pull from the industry.
That’s in general however when you look at these big companies perhaps the ones that I
have worked with they are different. They want that so they are willing, the company are
investing so that they can learn, and they can drive repeatability and they can drive
learnings and they can drive information and they're willing to lose money on one or two
projects just to get information. We're gathering stats from the projects, we're doing off site
so that we can improve on them and compare them to standard construction 'cause we
don't have that information.
160 | P a g e
Interviewee 3:
So as I said to you that the barriers are first, there's no fire certification or testing in the
country. The standards and regulations aren’t currently fit for purpose at the moment to
adopt modularization and that's recognized. We've spoken with certification bodies, two of
them, and they've told us this, and there is no testing laboratory or center here in Ireland.
All the off-site manufacturers said that there's a lack of understanding, and some of the
design team aren't aware of off-site manufacturing, and some of the more mature or
stronger design firms, being Architects, engineers and surveyors are fairly familiar with the
off-site manufacturing and they see a niche in that market.
And then you've got this knowledge and education that is required, So be a training courses,
we're looking at something with skills enterprise Ireland to develop some of these courses.
I can share that with you, what I believe are the skills needed.
And we've done a submission to hopefully get some funding under to drive that in the
country, 'cause otherwise if we don't educate people we're not going to adopt this and it's
not going to be implemented.
And then the other thing that came back was knowledge withing education and training,
and just the knowledge of the industry. How wide is the ecosystem? So the clients didn't
know there was enough outside providers. They also providers didn't know which clients
were hungry for off-site manufacturing. . So the guys you interviewed said well there's no
market out there 'cause we will meet the market needs and we showed the client there's no
supply chain out there and we don't know if there's no people and we said have you, do you
know about these companies? No never heard them and then we said did you know about
these developers? No, I didn't know.
So, they know there's neither party knew that both things could solve each other’s needs
and demands at the same time.
Another big one is volumetric, there has to be enough volume building, 1 off or bespoke or
five units it's not justifiable. You'd want to be building 100 plus modules for it to make it
viable and to get the throughput through and because they, as I said they take 10 to 20
weeks to make.
161 | P a g e
There is a capacity constraint, obviously at the moment here it doesn't matter if we want to
build another 40,000 units and we had 20 billion, the government had to spend, there is no
labour here.
Interviewee 4:
Like I said Design Changes are painful to implement
You need a supply chain that can Supply and Install. Currently that could be 2 separate
companies.
So, there are there are companies who do both, but it depends on what elements. So you
would have, you know, various engineering workshop that may make you a, you know a skid
with a pump on it with pipes on it, with valves on it etc. And they manufacture that unit to
your designed and they deliver to the site. Some of these companies do have capability to
install, commission and test these things. Some of these companies would only have the
ability to manufacture and supply them, right?
So, depending on, you know, our company are using depending on their capability, you
know. You also have to ensure that you're getting it manufactured correctly to the right
quality. You're getting it delivered to the site, and you're getting it installed, so sometimes
you have one company does it all, but other times depending on the size of what you're
ordering. Depending on the size of the companies are using, there is a whole other layer of
things that you have to manage as a as a contractor. For instance, on mechanical and
electrical, you know, works the smaller they get, you know, it's easier to supply and install
but the bigger the modules get they're going to some of these companies are going
to have to have third parties to help them along the way.
You also need good ‘ logistics’ management to make this work
Interviewee 5:
I think, so probably I would say when you’re designing this and concept study, it's all forms
part about the start of it, so you set the path at the start, so I think that's probably the
biggest constraint that the main driver for. For adopting this, it's. You know when I was
talking to the CIF and we were going through a lot of this. And my view of things with regard
to quality or an engineer a better engineering solution. When you, my drivers will be
162 | P a g e
completely different to other people, and they think. I think as an overall appear if you're
trying to adopt this as an overall construction approach it needs to suppose the, it needs the
backing of the government or education. I know a lot of this, there should be, they were
looking at centers of excellence. The CIF work were encouraging the government to start
centers of excellence of this to drum it up are certainly untrained people in this as a portion,
that would certainly influence the market in the direction it would take. When you've got
tradesman coming out , let's say have specialized or the BIM has been specialized in that
area. I think it certainly ticks the box or one of the one of the drivers that could help their
market I wouldn't say it's, it's all of it for but certainly, you know education and there's a few
of them. I suppose it's it's education, early engagement, design, and those types of things
that that mainly drive, but it depends on which side is the table you're sitting on.
What you think is the role of the government to incentivize wider adoption of this
approach to construction? Do you think a mandate on using it would help?
Interviewee 1:
First question: Not sure.
Second question: Yeah, I would say that could be, and it's the way I think BIM was adopted
because again, the government say all government projects must use them, so that forces
people to start adopting it. So yeah, but not all projects, obviously. I don't think it would
add value on every project, but definitely if there are some mandatory things. Yeah, that
always forces people.
Interviewee 2:
I'm not sure the government would be best place to do that. Government I see wrongly, I
see the government as building roads and highways, not necessarily buildings, but
depending on the nature of work I definitely think BIM should come into it. And I know
you're going to get there.
But off-site construction, depending on the project, and I do think the likes of schools could
benefit. I mean school, their repetitive everybody has an ideal classroom. Why don't you
163 | P a g e
just modularise that, and so I I'm thinking pods maybe not the structure because that will
change from location to location.
But I definitely think what the government are doing be at schools or officers. It's a
repetitive nature, it's repetitive in its maintenance. It's repetitive in its construction so. I
absolutely think they could benefit from the use and just in their own contracts in their own
you know, schools’ offices.
I'd say look, this is our ideal pod for a classroom from this is our ideal part for a meeting
room, this is our ideal pod for open office, and leave people get a bit creative that way as
opposed to the dictate that we have at the moment, and it is a little bit to be honest.
Interviewee 3:
They will be announcing shortly a new national development plan, which is going to be X
billion investments to 2040 and prior to that is they are going to set aside a couple of billion
four modern methods of construction modularization. Then they're going to come up with
the frameworks. Be at School’s framework, healthcare framework, education residential
framework to meet these demands to meet the infrastructural challenges of the future.
They also have to give the market volume.
So come up with standardized designs or performance specifications that then off-site
manufacturers then can pick off the shelf and try to meet those designs in collaboration
with yourselves to meet your needs and demands so the government can incentivize it that
way, by giving certainty back to the market which is back to that certainty that people want
to know about.
Then in return by having standardized designs, therefore they will get cost certainty, but
they will also probably reduce costs because those things get solved and learned and then
you get it right for a couple of these Houses or schools or whatever it is. Then you just say,
well, we'll have designed. 2 For Galway will have designed 4 for Cork will have design 9 for
Galway, because you know it works. It worked in the other ones.
The first couple will be painful and unless level gets educated so the government can
incentivize that way by showing the market certainty.
164 | P a g e
Then hopefully with a National Construction center you can do prototyping, you can test
materials, test different types of things, so that's where the government act, and they are, in
fairness to them they are putting effort there.
So, this national construction center of excellence I've done an outline, proposed level I
can't share but there's a whole strategy to come off that and that's to be ready in
September 2023. So, we three years now to get to their two years left to get this finished.
So the government, in fairness, is focusing on lean green and digital, so they've been very
clear about that and getting the skills of people to meet lean green and digital futures. And
that be it construction or engineering or other retail or whatever. And so, yeah, that's what
government is doing.
So, that's what I'm saying, If you have certainty of the volume then people can start
planning and strategizing, whereas the data center market works because we know we need
more and more data centers, the markets are gonna need 40 more than 100 more in the
next 5 to 10 years, so we need pharmaceuticals because of all the COVID and all of that.
So, when you know there's a market, but there is a market for schools there, is a market for
healthcare, there is a market for residential, we know that's there. I can't create that
market. The government is going to have to step in and create that market or private
developers.
Interviewee 4:
They could consider a study of other large European cities and how they deliver housing
stock. Ireland may be limited on how to do this at present but specifying and incenting this
approach would help.
I think they are looking into that, and if you look to the UK you know the documentation is
largely similar and the approach is largely the same. I would say we're probably lagging a bit
behind in terms of the UK or further down the road, but that they're further advance of a
bigger cohorts of a bigger supply based of a bigger population etc, etc, etc it's not all good
over there by the way. But anyway [laughs].
But I think, definitely we're on the right road, but it's like with all things, Would you like that
to advance? Would be like it would move quicker? I think, of course, we would and if we
had some of those techniques and some of that supply based and some of that sort of
165 | P a g e
modular technology, on the residential side over the last number of years would have
helped the housebuilding situation that we find ourselves now. Yes, I believe it would. You
know, on the more commercial side of it, I mean, it's really not up to the government to
help so, you know, semiconductor companies or data center companies, but they're driving
efficiency, you know they're driving cost, quality, you know, safety, all of those elements.
They have really helped I think over the last 20 years. Party years in Ireland if you say.
The mid 80s. You wouldn't remember those, but from the mid 80s and from the mid 80s
onwards, right through the 90s. You know. I think a lot of the foreign direct investment a lot
of the construction that has happened around the country really has driven confirming
standards and if you look back and look at the accident frequency radio, that's the that's
being constructed and if you look back 20 years and you look back now, you'll see, you know
it's not a nice stat at all, but you know, you'll see that it's fancy lower than it was, so I think
there's been a huge knock on effect to the construction industry in general from the private
sector. But I think you know in terms of what I said the private industrial sector I think
you're starting to see from that approach starting to evolve down to your residential side,
you know.
Interviewee 5:
So there's a huge amount of the government led jobs or capital investment by the
government. And, and they're you know they have the ability to drive the way they do
things right. And I think they have an ability on their own projects if you look at the the big
ones, the the hospital and any of the big big infrastructures on which they they, they have
the ability to drive the drive trends and be OSM they they should be adopting this as one of
their first approaches in some of the in some of the projects in which they're doing. And
they're not doing that at the moment. So I think not only just on the training or the centers
of excellence, but also when to be seen to the market that they are adopting it. I I think that
that would maybe change the outlook from clients from private clients of how they're doing
things, and not so much there. There are just talk about it, you know?
I certainly think it's a step towards it. Yeah it would. It would certainly demonstrate to the
market that they are doing something and, and I don't know if that is putting a fixed
percentage that we won't see apply things like that Laura into it. It's like you're forcing the
166 | P a g e
market so you're forcing them as opposed to adopting it as part of an option. Once they do
their own capital projects, or I think you know if you say OK, we need to adopt 10%. I don't
know to me that's somewhat of a tick in a box exercise. I think they could do it maybe
another way of putting it into their tendering procedures, and their procurement vendor
things as an option of exploration. Or a tending, you know so get two options for tendering
you know for that type of design. That's the way I would put it.
What are your thoughts in relation to the current education and training for the
construction industry professionals?
Interviewee 1:
So, like the scales for the off-site manufacturing, I think an awful lot of that and it's probably
coming along more these days with the BIM, because people are now more used to
modelling things they can see what it looks like, the digital twin and all that. So with that it
lends itself very well with the off-site manufacturing because like that's exactly what we
want and in the past where you only had 2D drawings that did limit like the amount that
could be done outside because it was a matter of going to site doing all your measures.
Whereas I think it's an awful lot easier these days, but people aren't getting the full benefit
of BIM because, again not everyone adapts to it. I'm not an adapter on myself either.
But it's also I, I think in Ireland anyway, we don't have the right people doing the BIM so
where you might need someone that's used to installing items, and they know exactly
how many valves and where the valves go and where the bends are and where the Ts need
to be. Whereas the design consultants were always a bit unsure, have less information and
give it on a schematic. Because I feel sometimes that the model that the consultant’s hand
over to the contractor they almost put that in the bin and start again .
Interviewee 2:
I'm on the board of LCI, lean construction Ireland so I feel quite strongly about it and as a
matter of fact, as I said, I think you need to educate the clients 1st and they're going to be
the hardest people to educate because if there's not a pull from the industry, and that's
what we're spending our time doing, I'm on the client forum of LCI and I've literally rolled
167 | P a g e
out across. We've got 7 manufacturing sites in Ireland and I've spent the last two months
rolling out, what LCI are about how we can improve things, what we should be looking for.
So we're doing a little bit of internal education, but I think It's going to be very hard to
educate the clients and it's gonna take another 10 years to get someone you've educated in
college to be a decision maker in the clients team. But I absolutely, I think it absolutely
needs to be placed in education.
It needs to be replaced in construction and engineering fields it needs to be a subject in
college. It's the future for sure so it needs to be part for education, I think it should be part
of mainstream courses. Like civil engineering and construction studies.
I think the industry is a bit focused on traditional method. I mean, we do as part of this roll
out to the client sector and my own clients.
Interviewee 3:
Well, that's what I said to you. There is no course in the whole of Ireland that I know of and I
check it. You’d be lucky if you did a week on modularization, if not a day. So, I did a talk for
Sligo I kind of M&E systems and modularization on the 14th of April and there was total
silence on the call , of 46 students and they had none of them had ever one person said they
heard about, I think if you've never heard or seen it how you are meant to get to the next
level and be operating with it.
And there is Irish companies, and that's what I said, they are fairly successful, and they are
exporting these modules into Europe to pharmaceutical data centers in the Nordics or the
Benelux countries, Belgium looks Bergen, Netherlands. So it is happening so it's not like this
is new. We have the cable we have the thing but why would they share that knowledge with
you because that's their differentiator, that's their competitive advantage.
So, there is difficulty around the IP, a lot of people have said the intellectual property. Why
would I give Laura my intellectual property and all the stuff that I spend 3 to 5 years solving
for you to take it up.
But we could share some things, like if something's got tested and fire tested, those guys are
saying they pay half a million, you know to get something tested.
Why would I give those technical files then to Laura and Interviewee 3 for them to copy and
build the modules, so the issue is: But then why not combine where we all retesting? So,
anything that changes in the test has to be retested again. You add a new component or a
168 | P a g e
change of material the whole thing has to go through a fire test again. It's just like we should
be able to rate this and be able to understand it, so there's a lot of technical and educational
knowledge around this, plus who signs off. Nobody wants to take the risk because you've
got professional indemnity insurance, which is your design insurance and the insurance
company, you'll get sued if you didn't check something like the building in Miami, collapse
unfortunately, and terrible tragedy there with 150 people missing, you know, that's who
signed off and who checked it. And is it a flaw in the design? So, nobody wants to be liable.
Nobody wants to own that risk for their entity or companies. It's a lot in this, so that's why
I'm saying the education training is not there, now I'll share with you that email with the
skills I think it’s needed.
Interviewee 4:
Well, well, I think we, you know, certainly Ireland will be perceived as producing good
engineers, good construction people for the most part. I think in general, and I think that
will be right way across the globe. You know, the Irish construction community if they like,
those professionals would be perceived very well, and I know that from working all across
Europe and indeed America, and then also some other construction companies that work
across the region would be perceived as being quite productive. You know, quite agile in
terms of we can show up, we can deliver and then we'll move elsewhere. So certainly, in
the industrial sector that I've mentioned, you know, there's quite a few Irish companies now
that are leaders. My company, for instance, their frenemies, who do data center
construction as well. There's 4/5 of them who are all across Europe as well, so there would
be a good perception in the industry in general and of their capability and their
tradespeople, as well, from a quality and delivery perspective. So, I think overall I think we
are not doing a bad job, I think you know if you try to apply that logic more to the residential
side, I think that's definitely where we're lagging behind. So, I think you know, maybe some
more education on that is a good thing. I'd see the CIF could maybe influence and mandates
the more paying in educating education programs around that. I think it'll be good. But
again, it will be a slow slow burner, I think. As I said, I think, you know, a lot of these
residential communities are, you know, some are, I suppose, there are longer term from a
modular perspective. You know, with the exceptions of some of the bigger developments
169 | P a g e
where they are doing, you know, off-site fabrication for concrete and stuff like that. But I
mean a lot of it is still stick built and installed.
Interviewee 5:
We spend a huge amount of money training and training the people. The people you know
they're all tradesmen, but I bring in different people from different. Walks of life and
different way you know people have, you have to set expectations right and people think
that theirs are the standard, and we have training in there to set the minimum expectation
and with the quality output. But also, because you know when a lot of this, and some of it
could be just down to gluing.
You know, basically gluing a flange, fittings. As much as you know, I would think that's easy
just fix it.
the result of getting that wrong and the actual when we go and test it is massive. And it
costs an absolute small fortune to do it afterwards. So the OSM ads to quality and it adds to
right first time approach and again we set the standard by doing a lot of training to say
here's how to Weld that. Here's what we expect you to do. Even down, Laura, even down to
the labels. You know when you think we, we label, pipe and we have QR codes and
everything else? And which we track these? We track everything through QR code so I know
exactly what's been sloan tested and everything else as a single point in time. But even to
put the labels on the further. They would be regarded as snags or punch lists. When the
client takes them over or we do what's called a design verification walks and so again to get
a man or path towards you. Know a copy in the gods. It's It's important and people coming
in I know head for the label on you might know how to put a label on, but you might know
where to put it and these some of these things they might be working on them on the
ground and then in their final position they're up in the air, you know so you know, you
never, I've learned the lesson many years ago that never presume anything of people and
vice versa, when I come into a job, you know. And I employ an engineer I would never
presume that he knows what I want him to do. So I tend to have to write these things down
to say, look? Here's my expectation from you as a role and responsibility, and that's no
different to the fellows in the field. And I have to teach them or tell them what I expect.
170 | P a g e
The results of a survey I did revels that barrier related to Skill and Knowledge of off-site
construction are the major barriers for the adoption of this approach in projects. What do
you think about this?
Interviewee 1:
I think colleges and universities need to change with the times and introduced these as part
of a course and teach people how do they set that up themselves or how they go about it.
Because it's another business aspect.
Again, the skills of BIM like do they need to be introducing them into some of the trades and
apprentice courses too. Instead of maybe just university degrees and that.
But I think there could even lend itself to courses in off-site manufacturing, and I know
Industry is now looking towards the lean manufacturing, so they do have aspects like that,
but it's probably not wide scale enough and to be in the general courses of college and
university and apprenticeships.
I do think a lot of courses they don't get refreshed enough.
Interviewee 2:
Answer with previous question
Interviewee 3:
Its’ what I told you. It is a different mindset. It's you're going from a traditional project
management on-site mindset to now a production factory, scheduling type environment
and you have to have all the information earlier to be able to make that modular
production. That's why car manufactures, laptop computer manufacturers, they have to
design everything is fixed and they make this one laptop, or they make a range of cars be a
Toyota or Ford or whatever. Problem is you have so many stuff and everything is bespoke
and a prototype well then how you design it and if we don't have the BIM model right and
we are still teasing it out and still clash detection on site, what are the chances of you to get
module. So, you have to shift everything up front and that means a lot more, early
engagement, early design, a lot more thinking from clients that not that you just arrive on-
site in three months and throw it and design and hopefully you get what you get. You know
that's design and built. So design and build can work but it's got to be upfront early design
and build with everyone engaged all stakeholders, not this linear approach from one to
171 | P a g e
another and another. And you're asking people then to change the whole mindset and
culture for the last 20 years to say now. And what one person said, we hope it doesn't end
up like BIM was, BIM was meant to be the silver bullet and everything, but a lot of people
didn’t buy into it, some people did some of them didn’t, to the point that it never fully
realized itself and MMC could end up like that if people don’t engage with it.
Interviewee 4:
I agree. We need to educate the construction industry on this developing skill. We need to
make this type of delivery more mainstream so that means cost / quality / schedule has to
make sense first and foremost. But unless it is pushed, they existing delivey methods will
evolve instead of ‘ change’.
Interviewee 5:
Certainly, the vast majority of my delivery is through trade, right? So I need I need the
correct level of apprentices at the craft coming out right? I need a certain level of that as I
look down onto the BIM, so there's no specific courses for OSM for BIM even though it's OK,
it's somewhat of the same, I suppose that the more pacific on the output of that for the BIM
people, and you're right, probably on the engineering side we have engineers working on
this because they have the knowledge of the actual system and things like that as opposed
to the knowledge of OSM. So, in some cases we we've learned as we've gone along. And.
you know this is some of this is fundamental part of OSM. You know, be at the framing or
whatever the case is that make this up, we've learned as we've gone along on this of what's
the best material to apply to this. And maybe you know from an education point of view, if
it was certainly. you know, for engineers coming out that although you know to give them a
proper directional chain and I don't know, is that one or two modules or half a year or
whatever, but something. To be able to get them the training and would certainly be
advantageous. And certainly, on that I I tend to, I mean engineers is a, you know, come out
we are very broad aspect. Mechanical Engineers come out with very broad but the it's
massive it's massive. And if and I'm just thinking about myself If I was back doing
engineering and there was an engineering course for OSM Pacific that I don't think I would, I
don't think I would do it because the market is not there for it at present, and I might, be
could be holding myself. And so as much as I think it should be adopted as part of some of
172 | P a g e
the modules for some other courses may be specific. Specific areas of it might be just one
step too far at this moment.
Lean construction and off-site construction what are your thoughts around it? Do you
think it can help address some of the existing barriers for the use of OSC in projects?
Interviewee 1:
So, they have to play a part hand in hand because it's about planning everything out and
being more efficient, whereas guys on site there just , stand around and do whatever and
the way they measure things or use things or install things. Some of them it's like
babysitting. Sometimes you let them away off and like God, what did you do that needs to
be taken out, redone again whereas Process procedure strict formats and that like I think
that's key.
Interviewee 2:
Well lean, I believe in lean but it's not always applicable.
I believe in lean I'm a champion for lean in this company but some of my guys walk a
kilometre to work in the morning from their cars, and it makes my skin crawl, but we’re on a
pharma plant and it majorly controlled environment, so I think lean is whatever suits you
and your company at the stage or at, I mean we talk about lean journeys, but lean is lack of
waste.
For me, lack of wasted two things, It's the stuff that heads out to the gate and skip, but
hours and to my mind, if you can reduce hours you can reduce. You know we We're getting
to modular construction, so we want to see where the design company stops, and the
modular company starts. Because we don't want to pay the designer what we've
traditionally would have paid when the modular guys designing for us, you know?
So we're getting into the space of the right guy doing the right design, you know. And we
were early engaging contractors so that we're getting their skill set that you know you don't
want the designers to do what he thinks and then a contractor to change it and eventually
the client pays for all the hours, whereas if you get contractor on board early.
And so we're doing a number of lean steps and again, elimination of waste is what lean is.
173 | P a g e
That's your waist could be hours, It could be materials, it could be, you know, but at the
moment we're concentrating on the hours, but as a client.
Interviewee 3:
Yep, Of course, Lean is looking at the process. You're trying to shorten the cycle times
you've got to collaborate, engage respect for people. It's not something we've done before
and you're asking people in Ireland, UK, or even Europe to suddenly think differently about
projects, and everybody is nervous and who owns the risk and who's responsible? So yeah,
there's problems with that. But Off-site construction and lean they go hand in hand.
That is why I said to you earlier Lean Green and digital.
They're all coming together with digitalization in the process, with lean in the process we're
going to make the process sustainable. Then we need to start thinking circular economy.
Irish building regulations, environmental regulations don't allow for repurposing, recycling,
reusing. Because nobody can stand over the quality or the efficacy of that product which is
back then into well, we need to digitalise the elements in the building as today they are not
recorded. I couldn't tell you where the brick came from. The steel came from the timber
who was the installer, who's my we don't even have traceability like in a car. I could tell you
nearly whatever component was made in the factory where was or CE marked. We don't
even have that, so there's a huge work to be done.
So, we don't have a passport for our building. We don't know who worked on it, who the
people were, we don't even have digital O&M manuals, so look, there's a lot a lot to be
done and it is coming.
It a part of Lean, It is Lean and this is another problem, it is back to education,
understanding again what it is and what it can do.
Interviewee 4:
As mentioned previously, OSC , Lean , Six Sigma , Integrated Project Management and
Modern Construction techniques all go hand in hand. The pharmaceutical and Semi
Conductor industry are good examples of where this happens.
I mean lean ultimately is another tool. Avoid rework, do it right first time you know, let's
look at the process from A-Z. Of this you know, break it down to a task and let's see how we
174 | P a g e
can do that smarter. And let's see, can we reduce the number of lifts movements, etc. Let's
look at the material. Let's look at the whole constructability of it. So yes, they do go hand in
hand, so I would think you know. But as you say, it's a smart tool about approaching and
preparing and planning your constructive delivery and you know the big point to make and
where the big focus is I believe where it should be as some company do better than other is
really in the planning design and preconstruction because the programs on site are always
going to be aggressive, and you're always going to have you know the client driving it, the
contractors are always going to be under pressure to deliver.
So, the more you can front end that planning and prep the leaner the delivery will be and
then hopefully there's less curve balls when you're on site. That's what cost time and
money. That's what that's what cost everybody time and money.
Interviewee 5:
Yeah, we spent, I mean we spent we have a, uh, a paper that issued every month as well on
lean, lean lean contracts and in which we ideas are put out there and we do a lot of kind of
schemes and which. You know for ideas from the from the from the floor, because we
would maximize much of leaness from, you know, not from me I'm I'm the most unlean
person, but but from from the fellows in the field and and we we run a lot of kind of
competitions and encourage them to come up with ideas and and as simple I I'll be honest
as simple, one of the ones that I saw was that there's a lot of columns obviously around the
place. And so we have a couple of lads came up for that last year with fix, it having a mobile
bench and it's only whatever let's say 500 by 500 width with clamps and things like that and
devices that they need, but they came up with a bench that can be affixed to a column and
moved around and yet sturdy enough to take the load but not damage it. So when you think
about this, the lads take the pipe or whatever and marry it up and then they have to walk
down to an area then to put it in the clamp. And when we looked at it, we go that's fantastic
the fellas recognized that they have to walk a long distance to put it into the cloud for
source. And they came up with that so, we're very much encouraging lean in all the time.
And we we we adopt it in many many different areas. And I I could give you. We have a lean
manager and. One of the gold medalists, actually we have a gold medalist from the from the
Trade Olympics.
175 | P a g e
So so NAME is his he does a lot of our lean, and a lot of our adoption of lean. But you know,
we certainly, because lean just lean means a more efficient way of doing things. And we're
all for efficiency.
I think you see, like everything I have to be able to demonstrate it right. I have to be able to
touch data to back that up and. It has its places right. It certainly has. Its place is in a lot of
the stuff that we do with our SECTOR clients. We have adopted a lot of a lot of the good
ones that are used. I don't know if. Some of the ones I've adopted, but there's a no broad
principle. Some of the ways of adopted with maybe not done all of them.
What about BIM and off-site construction? Do you think it can help to overcome existing
barriers for the adoption of OSC?
Interviewee 1:
Yeah, so one of the biggest aspects and that I find with some clients they're not familiar with
construction projects, some developers of course they are. They're used to doing projects,
but some other clients aren't. So, they can't actually visualize what the end product is going
to be, what the rooms going to be, what the services, again scale, size, they're like oh so I
fine will do somethings and it's exactly as per the drawing. It's installed it signed off and
then they go oh that wasn't what I wanted, and that happens quite often, and you do find
you're going back into rip things out to do them again.
So yes, we've done some projects previously where I worked in the manufacturing company
and we were doing chill beams and they were fully integrated beams, so with no ceiling so
we were able to do the virtual reality of showing exactly what it would look like and the
ceiling height, where the beams will drop down to. So that really helped the client because
it was something fairly new they weren't used to doing this so I think, and again within BIM I
think there are kind things the integration that In the virtual reality, you can actually place
the components as well, like that's brilliant because I just rebuilt for the younger generation.
But again, not very often because I think again costs. And I'm really surprised that they
haven't been using more technology with like drones going through the building 'cause?
They come for building control now like there is packages like Hello Builder so they can go in
and place the camera in the room and do a 360 scan and they upload that so you can go in
just look at your drawn and it's it's like you're in the building.
176 | P a g e
So like there's so much that technology can bring, and alI and everything. it's exciting for
the next 10 20-30 years.
So yes, it does lend itself.
Cause some customers, especially data centers and some data center projects. They're in
Europe or America so. It it really like again, even lockdown has made us all question why did
I need to get in my car to go to all their meetings? Why did I need to be in person like when
you can have a teams meeting within minutes with someone? But, It is nice under
construction site to go and meet and review issues on site cause you can resolve them very
quickly, but it doesn't mean you need to be there all the time.
Interviewee 2:
I think BIM feeds into both lean and off-site construction. I think BIM is the future.
I think the government needs to adopt BIM and if you look at the British Government,
certainly the National Roads Authority in the UK, all of their contracts are based on BIM.
The language has changed to BIM language and until our government does that we're going
to be left behind, in my opinion, because that's the pull that I speak about.
I mean if we try and force BIM but the contract documents are all based on paper it not
going ahead.
It's all about the money, it's all about the money trail like.
I think BIM if used properly is excellent, we're using augmented reality headsets to have on
some of our sites at the moment, we're trailing them to see future clashes so we could have
steel up. And the guy goes around with a headset and says that steals in the wrong place.
It's going to be a pipe clash, but at least we can get a change in the model as opposed to
change in the field. So we're experimenting a little bit now.
One of our projects only, but I think BIM is the way for the future.
But again, the industry is so archaic that it doesn't adopt new technologies.
Interviewee 3:
Yes, you need BIM to plug into it. The problem is you have to have early engagement early
involvement. What happens is we get a BIM model level 100 LOD 100 LOD 200, right. It's
177 | P a g e
designed in India, you know, by a couple of BIM engineers or Singapore or even Irish guys
put together as a preliminary basis of design.
Great looks great, looks good on paper everything looks like but when you start bringing in
all the elements and all the interfaces and all the stakeholders and requirements because
the problem with BIM is, BIM doesn't tell you there's a rule about pipework, or there's a rule
around electrical cables, or does the rule around sprinkler systems that you have to have at
500 millimetres from the wall.
The model doesn't go warning, you can't put that there because there's a rule under a code.
So, all the legislation there's a thousand M&E codes, standards they are not in the BIM
model, so you can draw something the BIM model looks perfect and I will go: not going to
work. why? Because it's in breach of a regulation from 2005. When did that come in? 2005!
But the model isn't going to send you a warning and say oh I can't do that. Can't move it
here.
So, you can build a model, but if the information going in is incorrect then you're going to
get the wrong outputs.
But design team is meant to check the model so we it's a faster way of doing things, from 2D
back into 3D, but I still see is 3D then being produced back into 2D. I still am on site with 2D
drawings, even though the 3D model because it's meant to be a Federated model, but what
happens is as the changes go on site, we mark them up in Red Pen and then we give them
back to the BIM modeler who then puts them in like the O&M, operational maintenance
manual, and says there you go there's a model, oh it's a digital twin now. It's only a digital
twin because it's finished, and everything is put into to it. Why didn’t they get that at the
start? And then the guy will say, well I I couldn't anticipate all the challenges. And then
you're expecting the off-site manufacturers who are nothing to do with the project, not
even on the project, suddenly have to know about all these tolerances. Are all these lips or a
cleanse, or things that are meant to be done? And if the team don't do something, I seen
case where the module came and it was a bit of steel sticking out by a couple of millimetre,
and we couldn't push the module in and then: were just taken from? a was in the model.
and and then yeah, the model went out at Rev 5 but Rev 6-7 and 8 changed on site but
never got back to the factory and then they didn't know, and then this thing moved and
then say. and if they said they moved it they would have changed in the factory.
178 | P a g e
So you have to have design freeze. If you don't have design, freeze you have nothing, you're
back-to-back to where you were, which means you've lost all that planning time and all that
BIM time that was 10 to 12 weeks of everybody talking around it. And the only way is
everyone has to interrogate the model and challenged the model and stress tester model
and do some point solutions and it's even difficult when you have an existing building that
you might be trying to modularize.
It's a great tool for saving things like health and safety or doing coordination or lifts, or even
walkthroughs with a client of how best to sequence and coordinate the work. So, it's a
wonderful tool, but it has to be used right. And it needs a framework to be plugged into off-
site manufacturing in an end-to-end process.
So, it is a good tool. I'm all for it, but you've got to understand how it interfaces and
interacts and everybody has to be on the same page.
Interviewee 4:
The use of BIM or similar Construction Management Platform is key to OSC delivery. It is
essential that the flow of information is clear and design details are all planned , agreed and
understood by the OSC providers/Sub contractors. BIM or Equivalent is a powerful tool that
aids this process.
It’s not perfect, so the designer is supposed to develop the design to you know to LOD 300
or LOD350 as the case may be, right? if the designer has done that and it's right and proper
there should be less issues along the way because they handed over to the contractor who
then takes it right away through to the level 5 or 500 you know, and hands back the model
to the client right so UM, but but the reality is yet you will find clashes on site, but the more
efficient and the better that the not the more efficient, the more detail that goes in at the
design stage, you know that is provided to the contractor the less of that you will have, but
there is no doubt, you know there's no doubt in every day doing business you will find issues
but then that's part of what the contractor has to do. The contractor has to bring their
constructability hat through the design, right? And and you know when looking at the
design after it's been handed over, as I say, whether it's stage three or whether it's an LOD
350 or whatever it is, you know? Uhm, it's the contractor role than to actually take it from
that stage and coordinate all that. But the issues clashes and and suggest solutions get that
179 | P a g e
feedback to design team who ultimately hopefully will review and sign off on it, so you know
it is part of the chain If you like. Uhm, you're never going to get a design where there are no
clashes or no issues. I mean that couldn’s happen, right?
Interviewee 5:
I have a 120 BIM people and not all of them do OSM. And they, the difficult, difficult
struggle with them. And I'll tell you from getting the right type of people. And then BIM
tends to be an awful lot of inexperienced people, especially with the numbers on which we
need, and they're very, you know, it's it's. It's a big volume of people that you need so so a
lot of them are graduates that don't that don't know what they're looking at for a lot of
periods at time and. BIM when done right It's very well, To do it right, you have to have
experienced people that know exactly what they're doing, efficient on which they do and
and need to know the end product. And I found a lot of cases been people that have come
from a trade background that understands the 48 inch strainer and what how big it is and
and. they tend to be the best people because they understand sizes. And I've I've had to put
picture boards up. In the BIM area to show them what the components are look look like.
Because It's They they don't understand the impact of. In the in the field doing this and you
know you can picture them picking it off from a from a library of a 48 inch, whatever it is
valve and putting it on and not thinking about. There's a man that has to get that in even in
the OSM. So so there's there's probably a lot of things on that and. That it plays a big part of
it, I think BIM. If there was, if we were able to train BIM to OSM, I think it would go with
huge way. Huge way.
I mean BIM is an expensive activity. Very very expensive activity. You have to and some,
clients don't see the output they do not see the output and it's. It's something that that if
there was an ability to change that I think it would be excellent. But it's expensive. It really is
an expensive activity.
What are your thoughts around the use of virtual reality in off-site construction? Do you
see potential/ advantages/ think it can break barriers and allow a wider use of OSC?
Interviewee 1:
Answered together with BIM question.
180 | P a g e
Interviewee 2:
We use augmented reality as I said and it it's actually proving to help. But the problem is we
have to justify the expenditure so what we're trying to do is find out, you know we found 25
clashes which could have been 25 grand so therefore, expenditure justified. But you really
don't know, it's very hard to put you know money on a expenditure.
And the more you get BIM in, the more language you can speak. So, we're probably two or
three steps with the augmented. If we could just get the whole country be speaking in BIM
language, then augmented reality would be an obvious tool. As a country we're just slow to
move.
Virtual reality yeah, we've used it in labs for people and in in production lines for operators.
So we literally walked through the rooms and said, OK, you know is this the right place for
this and, So from an ergonomics perspective, we've used goggles. And they were standing in
the room. Well, obviously they're in an office somewhere, consultants office, but they were
virtually in the room and helped us with our designs, It’s a few years back, so yeah, yeah
we've utilized it and you utilize that for design and operators who are kind of can be
awkward enough clients, so if you get them on board and get the thing right early enough
and all the considerations included, then that could save you a lot of time.
Interviewee 3:
Yeah, there's people starting to use it. I was working with a company there, must still work
with the client, but we were looking at doing remote off-site auditing. So, if off-site
manufacture is going to be there and you recall we can't fly to a factory in Holland or we
can't go down, say there's a restriction and everything in Ireland and I can't go to a factory in
Nenagh for example, or whatever. How do you? Then now so there could be time lapse
videos. There could be remote auditing where so many holds at 360 degree high resolution
camera and then we walk around they show the modules and then we're all online and we
talk about it.
So virtual reality Yes, if you could do a walk through and see it, that could be helpful. This is
where design team are then looking at it and saying well does that fit for purpose so
181 | P a g e
rendering is coming into play a lot more rasterization just where they can see it, how it fits,
how it's going to walk through even dimensions.
So, look all these things again are useful tools, but will it solve all the problems? Will it do
everything for you? And it's only as good as the information that goes into it. Now, the more
we can do really well, the more we apply it, the more conversations and discussions I've had
around anything with data makes better decisions. You know it gives us better insights and
better knowledge into something, so why not, you know.
Interviewee 4:
Yes. This is growing. Again, it has been led in the DC/Pharma/Semi Conductor industry. You
can really now combine on-site and remote activities , snagging , walk downs , inspections /
Commissioning, third party witness works etc . Both AR and VR are on the increase . It is
really powerful when managing many remote projects. Clients can almost touch, see and
feel the construction site from their offices.
We do use it. And I would say since the pandemic it's certainly increased. We've been using
Halo, you know we've been doing virtual walk downs and whereby our engineers
and management would be based, you know, centrally and they would be walking down,
obviously we would have our own individual on-site, but we will be walking down, you
know, data centers and work and inspecting work and sinning off on that.
In fact, we've done it with a few end users as well or by we've commissioned projects,
obviously we have the site team, but then they Tune In virtually, UM.
So, through the use of a, you know, the the Halo sets and themes you're able to look at the
design, you had to look at the walk down. You have to check the documentation and you
know, while I'd say it hasn't been seamless, but I would say that has been well received and I
really see I really see that taking more and more becoming more mainstream, and even if
you get to the likes of doing maintenance and stuff like that, if you're there doing a
maintenance on electrical board or generators or whatever it is, you know, where people
are starting to use iPads and surfaces you know to input all their data, then we still have all
that, but you know people are gonna have, you know, virtual goggles or mask you know,
whereby they can reference you know the type of socket box this is the type of cable the
type of joint what do I need to do and to be able to see maintenance instructions that are
182 | P a g e
there in front of them. So you know, we're starting to see this stuff we've been hearing
about it for, you know, five years, but it is starting to hit home and definitely on the virtual
reality front we are using it and I can see it increasing the use of that.
Interviewee 5:
I think so yeah. And I mean we we use it a bit more on demonstration and things like that. I
would actually use that as the, you know, certainly used up from the training point of view
for trades of how best to apply certain ways on the production of this. So as much as we've
only touched upon that and 4D and virtual reality construction, I think I think there's a lot
for that going forward.
We use we use it. I don't know to what extent of it. I was using it. I was using it in schools to
demonstrate stuff, couple of years ago when I went into schools, demonstrate. So, so that
was that's was part of the engineering week. So yeah, as much we use it. We don't probably
use it enough.
Information communication technologies do you think it can facilitate the adoption of

OSC? Do you believe that the level of literacy (understanding and ability to use it) required
for these technologies in OSC is higher than in traditional construction?
Interviewee 1:
For project and BIM 360 field, so you can literally walk around with the iPad with the model
and your same thing there so people could actually mark up the model while they're
standing on site. It's not a paper copy of a drawing, you don't have to red line, you don't
have to go back. You can actually do things straightaway there and I can just assign that to
people and it's with them already, so yeah things and information are available to people
more quickly.
Even like what I've saying HoloBuilder, people can go in and take a scan, people can actually
see OK, there's a beam there. Ok, yes, almost done.
Things weren't always clear from drawings because you had a structural engineer drawing,
M&E drawings had the architects’ drawings, now they do come together in a model. But
183 | P a g e
once it's built is when you really have to feel, and these technologies can actually allow you
to see it, and you got that, so now I know what I need to do very quickly.
Interviewee 2:
Yeah, and it definitely helps to do the early involvement. I think again we speak about it, and
I believe in this. You know the contractors are the ones who got to put this together. A
designer is going to assume that it's going to be put together in this way, but unless you
actually have the contractor on board. You could get it wrong, and I've been to several
projects whereby the designer is taking it too far.
There's been and we've paid him for it to constructor as a suggested method, which the
designer then has to check.
So, you paid the designer twice, and you've probably played the conductor to design his bid
as well. Whereas if you caught the designer short a little bit, get the constructor in early,
you've probably saved threefold of those set of hours.
So I'm just and you've got the best outcome for everybody because he hasn't had to spend
the brainpower to do it or the brain power and the correction and the guy who's going to
implement it gets implemented his way. So it's just it's lean all told.
And the other thing I feel in information with, there's another drive, one of my bosses has a
driver to have nothing on paper.
Real time information only, so it's in the model or it's, you know, It's up on cloud where we
can all access it even if you're working on or somebody can see what you're working on. If
it's so, there's a big push here for real time information.
But I get sick of systems. It seems to be every project I go to there's a different system not
all entirely user friendly. And because not all are born out of the construction, and certainly
in this industry not all are born out of construction needs. A lot of them are but not all.
We've got a lot of quality documents that are FDA driven and are very laborious and they're
not exactly great. We get asked the same question six times at 6 different markdowns,
whereas if you could actually integrate, those will be much better, but we can't because
you've got different masters across a project. You've got financially, got quality, but then at
the end of it, we've got quality, and then you've got quality at FDA levels at different, so
184 | P a g e
some of them have to stand alone so we can leverage all the same questions being asked in
different forms unfortunately.
It's just inefficient due to time.
I've answered this question six times this week, and so you know in six different things. So
unfortunately, it's the way it is, but it's not the most efficient use of time and some
industries, some sectors are moving at different paces. I think the construction sector is
going to move quite quickly over the next 10 years.
Interviewee 3:
We're trying to digitalise every stage in that process, be it with BIM it with a software app.
Be with docking management tracking so we're trying to put stage gates in here. That's
when these milestones are met, a certain piece of paper is uploaded or certain documents
stored or photographic evidence, or a video. So therefore I'm the client off-site my module
is getting built over 20 weeks. But what I can do then is I can see each of the elements. So
I'm not waiting till the modules arrive to site. And where's this? Where's this where's this? I
can then log into real time into this platform. Ah these guys and then we can link payments
to it. So when you're getting paid £1,000,000 you don't get you get some of the money
upfront 30 or 40% to let you buy the materials and fabrication. But as you release the
photographic the certification, the welding, the inspections, the documentation, you will get
money released like you would on a construction site and now the QS can control the
process and now everyone will see ya. The module is coming.
These milestones are being met and the whole process is digitalized and recorded.
So that is what we're looking at, and we're looking to get funding and the end, and then
possibly put that into a BIM model.
Then now you've got a history of each module, and then you can see it.
So some companies are starting to record in real time, their precast concrete pours and the
production lines. So yes, it's all coming there, yeah, and apps will do it, you know. Anything
that records nagging defects painting around the process? The tagging US radio frequency
ID of when a module or component is shipped to site it might get picked up at the gate and
that will work off a list and say 10 items out of 20 came on this delivery where there should
have been 20 so it's going to feed into this production mindset. It's it's we have to get into
185 | P a g e
this production mindset. Nothing has changed on the site. The only thing that changes is the
weather. Yes, those constraints inside but we still have to save 60 elements, same number
of people still have to do the job that I'm still takes what it always took the norms of the
norms. The rates are the rates.
You know. We need to start looking at things that are controllable and standardized. And
then we standardize those processes. But that can only come when we engage with
everyone in the off-site supply chain. Which is why maybe it's the bigger companies that can
do this, and maybe that's where the market is, and then the smaller SME's, small medium
enterprises, can then wrap around that and provide little niche services or labour or what it
is to those larger OSM providers will then feed into the ecosystem. Is that make sense? So
yeah, digital tools, yet communication. anything we can keep the conversation because you
should never have to ask a question, everything should be fully designed, fully understood
and fully, there is this still passing that risk, even to the precast concrete guys, they're saying
they're now employing structural engineers because the design team is saying, well, you
need to tell us your module won't to be OK in our building. Well, if you not designed well,
we don't know what you make, so we give it to you and then they put it in, but then they're
asking about 100 questions. So we still have this back and forth of clarifications, requests for
information, which doesn't aid projects and doesn't have time. But we can only be solved
with people around the table.
Interviewee 4:
, I mean effectively, you know what we've seen changes over the last 18 months. We just
talked about. You know people using BIM, teams, and you know, UM, virtual reality,
augmented reality, and so for my experience, will be that you know, I think all good
construction companies would have a digital nervous system to support their people at the
end of the day, it is a people business and it's you know you do need a core of strong
management engineer you know etc. And constructive perspective makes
the job happens on the ground However, this is underpinned, and this is, you know,
underpinning, supported and made more lean and efficient by the right set of tools. Now
you can pick up the computer
186 | P a g e
one day and you'll see the latest and greatest BIM or the next sale They'll see another
version of zoom or teams or whatever, so I think it is important to pick the right tool, the
tool your base and go on the journey and they will modify and upgrade some degree along
the way. I think what can happen sometimes is
that there's so many different tools there that it can become confusing. So uhm. I've seen it
even with AR
company like you know, when you get some of the guys and have a real passion for
technology and hey, this is a great tool we can do time, speed, display or hey no this is a
great tool like input and paste my drones and do it and post it up that way and the right but
haven't said that. I think you know the industry dominating tools will be the ones that will
come, the BIMs, you know, the doc signs you know the, there's various fields tools and
databases that are fairly used around the place, and so I think it is. It is important to have
that consistency.
I think there is training required to use the many tools. Most apprentices , trades and
graduates have the core skills and can be trained up to us the relevant technology. If it
makes their life easier, it will be accepted and used. It’s important that there is a managed
program of technology updates and that the end users are not saturated with constant
change.
Interviewee 5:
Yeah. So we use we have a database on which we knew we track and store and transfer
absolutely everything and we we move a lot of materials. We move a lot of valves lot of we
buy a lot of stuff from every part of the world. We try in principle to use just in time
methods and we used information technology in QR coding of understanding from a
schedule and programming point of view.
Where exactly we are where everything is at any point in time to understand, you know our
productivity RSC ratio. And are we? You know what's the constraint? So we we gather a
huge amount of days
and we've got a big database on which all the KPs are put out for my report every week that
I see exactly which of the areas: where are they? Where should they be? So yeah, I mean we
We track absolutely everything. And even more is that's evolving over the last few years.
187 | P a g e
Even more. I remember I was having a job and long time ago as well, It seems a long
terminal, probably about 10 or 12 years ago a job in the South of France and nuclear job,
and which twelve of the governments of the world were involved in for fusion technology
and. And they were bringing stuff from absolutely everywhere in the world, and they were
tracking every component. They had radio frequencies on all of this stuff, so you were able
to go onto the computer even at that stage for their ten years ago that you were able to
track where everything was in the world as it was transferred over to the site.
And even when it was on the site, when you go away looking for a valve and you've got like
20,000 components out there or even even to pinpoint out, you know he had spent two two
people and spend 2 weeks walking around so so that type of stuff from the information
sharing and information gathering. It's it's our industry and and COMPANY NAME. You know
we're all for that, and certainly we're all for evolving into the into what's best.
So, so most definitely did they use them. Do they use them efficiently and in time, probably
not. But that's people, and the biggest constraint that we all have are people, business.
And But no, and we keep it simple. For for it it's it's headed the level in which it it should be
so. So the lads that are welding pipe they know that after the welds of the pipe, their
supervisor comes over scans over, gathered the data to get the the scanner and set to
whatever is needed on on the status in which that is and things like that.
So we hit it on the on the level of that's best placed. Simple is always best. There's no point
in getting a welder to program a computer 'cause you're wasting your time. You know ? So
we set the training to the standard to the level of which it should be applied. But there's no
resistance on any level on it.
COVID-19 Do you think that is accelerating off the adoption of off-site construction?
making people rethink the way they construct ?
Interviewee 1:
188 | P a g e
I don't really see in my mind maybe that is has, unless the fact that they will, , say less
people on sites and things like that. It will definitely help with that, but I haven't really seen
that on projects having an effect.
Interviewee 2:
It's definitely making people rethink because we've never had to heat map before, and now
we're gonna have to have people per room.
And it's absolutely giving us an opportunity to promote off-site construction, because what
we try and look at high intensity hours so if there's a skid or there's a part of the building,
it's going to be high intensity that's the first thing we look at trying to get off site.
And that's not just for COVID, it's for hanging out its safety, its quality. If you're going to
build this kids in a small room which would not be better off taking this kid out, you know, in
a small room with 20 people would not be better off being able to put in the bigger room or
20 with 20 people and then skidded into the smaller space.
But COVID has certainly helped and again, we've used that augmented reality for FAT’s
( Factory acceptance tests.) We send one guy out with the with the goggles or the helmet
on. And there's a room full of people. Or there's a virtual room full of people asking him to
check this or check that, or try this, or throw it out instead of sending a team of six or seven
out one guy travelled. So certainly, it's helped us to kind of embrace technology a little bit
more, and it's probably fast forwarded the industry five or six years into a break embracing
technology.
Interviewee 3:
So, some people took advantage of COVID other people didn't. There was a lot of remote
auditing so remote inspecting, so we call them factory acceptance testing facts here. So, a
lot of factory acceptance or factory witness testing was done remotely because you couldn't
get to some of these sites and couldn't visit and therefore that was done. But allowed
production to kind of keep the productivity up in parallel while other work at either slow
down or stopped. So that's why the market is being able to quickly pick up a little bit and
maybe some people found out that it was actually quite useful and quite beneficial to the
point, that's what I'm saying, there is a momentum. Now we can move on a bit because
189 | P a g e
we're on a control environment with less people and less restrictions. So yeah, I do see an
increase. What will happen with COVID then once the ripples start settling out, the
vaccination starts going, the cases start to, hopefully, twilling down over the next 12 to 24
months, then it will all go back to the way it was.
We probably just go back to traditional and the whole way of doing things. And you know,
and people forget. I'm even hearing people forget about stuff from a year ago and there I'm
gonna code is everywhere I would say yeah, their brains are all switched on to other risks,
other hazards family, you know, different life decisions to be made and stuff like that, so
they're not even thinking about the next future.
Smart people thy are. The other people are just getting through the day today and will
worry about that later. To the point that I'm getting asked about things that I told him six
months, nine months ago. And now they're asking and going. Oh yeah, yeah, I remember
that I kind of remember that.
So, is the knowledge being retained? I don't know. it's an time of trying to maximize this
now and to do off-site more and more, but again, it's knowing how to do it and when to do
it and that comes with knowledge.
But yeah, I do see any increase, but COVID is it's going to be hard and so it will be there. It
will always linger it be like fluid, unfortunately you'll never eliminate all verses, but we just
will live with it.
And the demand for data centers and technology is shifted now that we want even more
digitalization, more automation, more robotics, more artificial intelligent, machine learning,
so a lot of that stuff could be applied to off-site manufacturing. So once that starts
happening the demand starts coming. Which feeds for data centers which then feeds
demand for everything else and away we go again. So, it's a circular economy and then it's
about making sure OSC can meet those requirements.
Interviewee 4:
No Answer for this question directly but has mentioned Covid speeding up technology
adoption in other question.
190 | P a g e
Interviewee 5:
Yeah, it certainly didn't on this project. So, I what I think is COVID, and I can only talk Laura
from my experience. In this project it probably didn't. The path was well set on this, but it
did do Is it obviously introduced more constraints. From, uh, you know. It made us more
aware of efficiencies with regard to people and placement of people. You know the
constraints that were introduced on this site to protect the people from COVID it added a
lot of work, but it also probably focused our mind more on the way we utilize people more
in the field, you know as a step in step out process, and we became quite conscious of how
we were relying on people to be very close to each other when they were doing the work.
Some of it is necessary. Some of that maybe could be improved. I, I think with the OSM it
didn't matter. in this job.
But it probably made me open my eyes on some of the other stuff and then. Uh, certainly
you know, I felt it in the pocket.
In the manufacturing It is it is a safer environment anyway. It was, it was much easier to
manage. I can tell you that much, much easier to manage Laura and we were, you know, it
was a production line, and we were well able to space the people introduce different
processes. It was much easier. I have to say, then on site we have, It's very small there.
There must be about NUMBER cranes up they heavy duty cranes and huge number of things
happening, huge amount of people coming and going and doing things It's very busy, so to
police that and you know, we've been on the spotlight a lot on, and I think as a project
we've done very well.
191 | P a g e
F- Skillsets needed to develop an Educational course in Rep. of Ireland on

MMC / Modular Construction – Suggested by Interviewee 3, received via e-
mail
192 | P a g e
View publication stats

Base 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Base 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Construction 4.0: An investigation of Off-site construction in Ireland

Thesis · September 2021

Laura Braz Mourao

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Thesis Title Construction 4.0: An investigation of Off-site

Author Laura Braz Mourão

MSc - Master of Science in Quantity Surveying (Level 9)

Award Title MSc in Quantity Surveying (Sustainable Public Building)

Submitted to: Limerick Institute of Technology, August 2021

Thesis Thesis Declaration

Declaration of Ethical Practice

Author Laura Braz Mourão

Thank you, I love you all!

Thesis Table of Contents

Contents ............................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... xiii

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... xv

List of Equations .................................................................................................................xviii

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. xxii

Glossary of Abbreviations .................................................................................................xxiv

Chapter 1 Thesis context ........................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Background of the study ............................................................................................. 2

1.1.1 Construction 4.0................................................................................................... 2

1.1.2 Off-site Construction............................................................................................ 3

1.2 Problem Statement and Relevance of this study ........................................................ 4

1.3 Research Aim ............................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Research Question and Objectives ............................................................................. 6

1.4.1 Research Question ............................................................................................... 6

1.5 Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Off-site construction categories ................................................................................ 10

2.2.1 Pre-manufacturing 3D primary structural systems ........................................... 11

2.2.2 Pre-manufacturing 2D primary structural systems ........................................... 12

2.2.3 Pre-manufacturing components non-systemised primary structure ................ 12

2.2.4 Pre-manufacturing Non-structural assemblies and sub-assemblies ................. 12

2.3 Off-site construction in Ireland ................................................................................. 13

2.4 Benefits of Off-site construction ............................................................................... 17

2.4.1 Time ................................................................................................................... 17

2.4.2 Quality improvement ......................................................................................... 18

2.4.3 Health and safety ............................................................................................... 19

2.4.4 Environmental benefits...................................................................................... 21

2.4.5 Cost .................................................................................................................... 23

2.4.5.1 Labour cost ................................................................................................................ 24

2.5.1 Productivity ........................................................................................................ 26

2.5.2 Skills shortage .................................................................................................... 28

2.5.3 Market demand ................................................................................................. 30

2.5.4 Sustainability of the built environment ............................................................. 31

2.5.5 Present world Covid- 19 pandemic situation .................................................... 31

2.6 Barriers to the adoption of Off-site construction ..................................................... 33

2.6.1 Barriers related to Process and Programme...................................................... 37

2.6.2 Barriers related to Cost, Value and Productivity ............................................... 38

2.6.3 Barriers related to Regulations .......................................................................... 39

2.6.4 Barriers related to Industry and Market Culture ............................................... 40

2.6.5 Barriers related to Logistics & Site operation .................................................... 41

2.6.6 Barriers related to Supply chain and Procurement ........................................... 41

2.6.7 Barriers related to Skill and Knowledge............................................................. 42

2.7 Facilitators for the adoption of Off-site construction ............................................... 43

2.7.1 Lean Construction ................................................................................................... 43

2.7.2 Building Information Modelling (BIM) ............................................................... 44

2.7.3 RFID .................................................................................................................... 46

2.7.4 Virtual Reality ..................................................................................................... 47

2.7.5 Information and Communication Technologies ................................................ 47